Jump to content
Create New...

surreal1272

Members
  • Posts

    6,605
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    49

Everything posted by surreal1272

  1. What is wrong with niche segments? Mercedes is not the only one who can pull that off (looking at you AMG and E Class Wagon). You realize that right?
  2. Buick does compete on the lower end of the luxury segment. You want me to reference that Buick beating out a Mercedes most recently? Cadillac needs more CUVs. It does not need five for reasons already explained to certain Mercedes Benz fanboys.
  3. So the more than $100K BMW i8 is a "sub brand"?Whatever you say. 'sub brand' has nothing to do with price...it simply means brand-within-a-brand. BMW's i and M ranges fit that definition, as does M-B's AMG and Maybach ranges. Same with Cadillac and V-series, Chrysler and SRT, Ford and SVT/ST, etc..They are sold at BMW dealerships and are BMWs so I think the term "sub-brand" is a huge misnomer.I would say the same thing for the other brands as well. I don't feel that is the right term for it anyway but maybe that's just me. It is the right term. Again, merely stating my opinion that it is a misused term in this case. I view those more as a brand extension. Also, my mention of price was meant as a tongue in cheek response to SMKs assertion that Benz won't go that route, even that is exactly what it is looking like.
  4. So the more than $100K BMW i8 is a "sub brand"?Whatever you say. 'sub brand' has nothing to do with price...it simply means brand-within-a-brand. BMW's i and M ranges fit that definition, as does M-B's AMG and Maybach ranges. Same with Cadillac and V-series, Chrysler and SRT, Ford and SVT/ST, etc..They are sold at BMW dealerships and are BMWs so I think the term "sub-brand" is a huge misnomer.I would say the same thing for the other brands as well. I don't feel that is the right term for it anyway but maybe that's just me.
  5. Been telling him this for months but he willfully ignores this everytime, hence his continued path towards trolling ignorance.
  6. Go ahead. Compare a Buick to a Mercedes one more time. Oh and it most certainly IS an entry level car, hence being placed in the entry level position once occupied by the C-Class. Got to get that Buick buyer somehow right?
  7. One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was. BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market. mercedes-benz-cla-breakthroughs-large-10.jpg WOW If that does not show MB has joined the rank n file of the Ford, Dodge, Toyota and Chevy buyers, I have no Idea what does. Clearly MB is NOT the Luxury Auto Maker any longer but a mass market machine living off their legacy of past desire to be different than everyone else. Now they are just a Mass Produced Jelly Bean Company of Auto's. Yeah, since they don't make full size V12 luxury sedans, coupes, or luxury convertibles, such as these. So what? That is what is expected of Benz, not putting out sub-$30K cars to the "wannabe" crowd.
  8. One day you will understand how ignorant your post truly was. BTW, this was bean counting, as well going after the bottom feeder market.
  9. So what we get from Sauve here is GM can't to anything to make their product better and if they try then it will just suck anyway versus the competition. Also, how dare MT focus on the biggest carmaker in the world to see what plans they have for weight savings. They obviously should have talked about what everyone was doing so that's it's fair for everyone else. How dare them. </sarcasm>. Funny how I don't seem to recall this level of bitching when MT dedicated multiple articles to Fords aluminum process even they are not the only ones to have used aluminum.
  10. Because 99.99999% of new car buyers want a CUV. Except for Mercedes buyers right? Or else that just makes it yet another silly number you just pulled out of thin air.
  11. So it's, once again, your opinion that it is an opinion piece. Thanks for confirming that and a few other things.
  12. So what Suave? It does not diminish what GM is trying to do anymore than it does Ford with their aluminum strategy. Don't know why you have to get so bent out of shape over this. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it so yet you continue to pass yourself off as the be all end all in these types of discussions.
  13. It is not comparable when you only tell part of the story, the very same thing you criticized MT for here.
  14. That's the problem with assumptions. It wasn't Reg. I did it because I felt it was way off base in places.
  15. Funny how you cherry picked the heavier model of the CT6 when it starts at 3647lbs while the XJ starts at 3891lbs. Just keeping things in perspective while you wander off in that post of yours.
  16. Most of those comments came from one particular troll named "Cali". At least half were by that imbecile. BTW, what in the world are you babbling about?
  17. Interesting how you only focus on the 500+ HP rather than admit that MB will also produce some best effort at that cause their basic engine will start at 75kW or 101HP which is half of what the Chevy BOLT will be which is 150kW or 200HP. It's the tasty Mercedes Benz Kool Aid that does it.
  18. It's Mercedes. The naming problems of others do not apply to them. They were the first to create a one letter car and are above all criticisms of such things. They haven't even named it yet, or said exactly what these will be. One can speculate they are going right after Tesla though. Maybe they will make the E-wagen. Perhaps an E-wing with gullwing doors.The good thing about Mercedes is huge R&D budget and they aren't constrained as to what they can build or how many models they can have. A lot of the cars share drive trains and they only have like 4 platforms (not counting G-wagen) that they build a lot of variants off of. While the other guys talk about it, or show concept cars, Mercedes builds dream cars. And yet again, you don't get it. That breeze you felt over your head was the joke that flew by it. Of course, maybe it wasn't really a joke. Btw, do you want me to repost those pictures of those "dream cars" Mercedes didn't build because they are no damn different from any other automaker in that regard? Good grief. You must love Kool Aid.
  19. It's Mercedes. The naming problems of others do not apply to them. They were the first to create a one letter car and are above all criticisms of such things.
  20. Unrelated and zero correlation except in that fanboy mind of yours. The long term plan was to make the CTS closer to the STS size, hence one of the reasons why the STS was scratched.And why you left out the 640HP CTS-V (while including the 469 HP from the STS-V) I have not a clue except to prove that you love cherry picking. Oh and let's not forget one key thing here. They are two completely different platforms. Why is this blatant kind of misinformation allowed here?
  21. I normally don't say this but you have to be the blindest fanboy in the world or a special kind of retarded to think the current CTS resembles the STS in any way other than length. "Carbon copy"?? You cannot be serious here. Now show me the STS with a 640 HP V8. Don't worry. I'll wait. Good grief fanboy. Stop. Just stop.
  22. No one is buying their sedans, and they only have 1 crossover. I would say that the ATS and CTS are competitive, but the BMW and Mercedes counterparts are better the Audi A6 is always gets strong reviews, the Infiniti Q50 is better than an ATS at qual money. I hate Lexus styling, and the dated engines, Cadillac is probably making a better vehicle than the IS or GS or ES trio of sedans, but Lexus does a better job of branding and marketing. Cadillac builds a better product than Lincoln and Acura for sure, better than the Infiniti Q70. Overall that puts Cadillac middle of the pack I'd say. Riiiight. The Q50 is better. Riiiiiiight. That recycled G is not equal, much less better than, a comparably equipped ATS. In fact, in just about every review involving the two, the ATS comes out ahead.
  23. Again, this ^^. Could not have said it better myself. Sales have jack squat to do with how good a car is. Perceptions kill sales faster than how good or bad a car actually is.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search