surreal1272

I like it.... that said, yay for bringing back steering wheel design from the 1960s.

That steering wheel thing looks huge!

 

Why does everyone always think that a CUV is what the wife/partner/better half should get?

 

I would bring back waterhoarding. And I'd bring back coupes only too.

I think all CUV/SUV should have a 10% tax on them.  That money should go to pay for better roads so those of us that buy performance cars have better roads to drive on.

 

So have the majority of folks pay for roads for the mere fraction of a minority of folks in this country? Not sure if you are joking or not but if so, it's just not a very good one. If you're not joking, well...

Thanks everyone for replying to my thread!

Always happy to burn down a pure trolling thread. 

I don't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, sir. 

 

Consumer Reports is warning ppl to stay away from unreliable electrics as used cars.  The Volt and Prius are not on the warning list.

 

I've been told over and over that "simple, superior" electrics are better vehicles.  Clearly, that notion is dashed by this report.

 

And not one of C&G's rabid supporters of electric propulsion has come in here to say a word. 

What was that? You said no one has said a word? Hmmm...how's that working out for you now?

Worst troll bait thread in a long time (and that is saying something).

I don't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, sir. 

 

Consumer Reports is warning ppl to stay away from unreliable electrics as used cars.  The Volt and Prius are not on the warning list.

 

I've been told over and over that "simple, superior" electrics are better vehicles.  Clearly, that notion is dashed by this report.

 

And not one of C&G's rabid supporters of electric propulsion has come in here to say a word. 

And do you believe everything that comes out of Consumer Reports?

This talk about what type of person bought a Caddy back then is missing one key piece of information. When one says that the "common man" was driving Caddy's back then, even though they were quite expensive, thus deluding their brand (what is Implied anyway), one must remember that you still have folks today buying cars, like BMWs, Benz, and Audis, that they cannot afford technically. Have those brands been deluded because of that? No. Neither was Cadillac. They lost their mojo in the late 70s all the into the 90's because of $h!ty GM management. It's not exactly news.

Just sounds like they got a lemon to me, especially if they only used one car for the test. It would seem to make more sense to rule such a thing out first but the article does not give any specifics to this, so who knows.

 

1.) 2014 Cadillac CTS Wagon 3.6L

2.) 1987 Buick Gran National GNX 3.8L TT V6

3.) 1995 Toyota Supra 3.0L (all stock please)

4.) 2016 GMC Canyon 3.6L V6 (Got to have a good truck in the mix right?)

5.) 2016 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S 3.0L (will always love the look, don't care what anyone thinks)

Great choice with the stock Supra!   Oh and of course the Grand National.. but that one is a little more obvious. 

 

True on the GNX but it is literally the only GM car I would have form the 80's. I remember when it first came out and the fear it put into GMs own cars (Vette anyone?). It was and still is the ultimate sleeper car (in the historical sense anyway).

 

1.) 2014 Cadillac CTS Wagon 3.6L

2.) 1987 Buick Gran National GNX 3.8L TT V6

3.) 1995 Toyota Supra 3.0L (all stock please)

4.) 2016 GMC Canyon 3.6L V6 (Got to have a good truck in the mix right?)

5.) 2016 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S 3.0L (will always love the look, don't care what anyone thinks)

 

Awesome list.

 

Thanks. I'm a big fan of variety.

1.) 2014 Cadillac CTS Wagon 3.6L

2.) 1987 Buick Gran National GNX 3.8L TT V6

3.) 1995 Toyota Supra 3.0L (all stock please)

4.) 2016 GMC Canyon 3.6L V6 (Got to have a good truck in the mix right?)

5.) 2016 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S 3.0L (will always love the look, don't care what anyone thinks)

 

 

 

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

 

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

 

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

 

Exactly. The CLA has been widely panned as being "cheap" by just about every publication out there. The fact that it is FWD is the least of its concern. Being FWD doesn't makes it a bad car. Being cheap does.

 

 

Exactly.  The CLA and GLA are not the quality one expects from Mercedes.

 

I have the same exact feelings for the Audi A3 and that one was always going to be FWD based because their entire lineup is.  The A3 just feels like a luxury Jetta to me, and not at all at the level of competence of the other Audis.

 

Sat in and drove one of those too (the A3 Sportback). Nice enough car (not a big Audi fan here) but is clearly their "bargain basement" answer to a question that was never asked. I did like how the car drove though, just for the record.

 

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

 

It's not just the drive train layout.  The interior of the CLA/GLA is sub-par too unless you really load it up into C-Class territory.   

 

Cadillac pioneered FWD in luxury cars, so at least they have some history with it. 

 

 

Exactly. The CLA has been widely panned as being "cheap" by just about every publication out there. The fact that it is FWD is the least of its concern. Being FWD doesn't makes it a bad car. Being cheap does.

Surreal: It is, but it kinda ain't. It's absolutely necessary for their next generation of bigger, RWD stuff. And as long as gas prices stay low then that's a really lucrative segment.

But they do need help with smaller, FWD cars. Fiat ain't cutting it and there's a big gap between the 500 and the Chrysler 200 in any event. Expanding the strategic partnership with Mazda beyond the Miata would be the preferred route, with the long-term goal of freezing out the Italians entirely.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. The RWD market, while it needs attention, should be second in line to getting some reliable small cars on the market. The Mazda deal is a good idea too as I trust Mazda engines far more than Fiat engines. 

 

 

Well, regardless of how you think it looks (I like it), there's little denying that this is THE most important product move that Sergio will make for Mopar. If it turns out to be the real deal as a car and they spread it through the lineup quickly, FCA lives to fight another day. If not...

The problem is that this car has been hyped by them to so long that it will be an afterthought if and when it actually gets here.

I don't know about that. If the QF version is able to back up it's Ring times, it will be noticed. But it won't have a long leash-if it ain't a good CAR, it'll be found out in a hurry.

 

Very true. They need to succeed with this but I'm not sure that it's the answer to their problems, quite honestly.

Well, regardless of how you think it looks (I like it), there's little denying that this is THE most important product move that Sergio will make for Mopar. If it turns out to be the real deal as a car and they spread it through the lineup quickly, FCA lives to fight another day. If not...

The problem is that this car has been hyped by them to so long that it will be an afterthought if and when it actually gets here. 

The body is very BMW-like, but the front is classic Alfa, so it is something different.  It is fast too.  But not my cup of tea, probably unreliable as well.

It is nothing different by your own admission (even though you completely tip toed around that fact). It is 100% BMW in size shape and form with their nose slapped on it. A very weak effort by Fiat/Alfa, which is probably why it's been delayed year after year.

So is this some kind of hidden partnership with BMW because it wreaks of a 3 series on the outside with an Alfa nose and tail on it?

For frame of reference, here is the Sonic I was driving that week in NC (had to dig through ton of pictures to find that).

versus

And it's a great move by Mercedes by going after the bargain basement crowd with the CLA.

Wonder what will happen to Cadillac's image with 3 front wheel drive crossovers and a sub-ATS, and a front drive XTS.   If 2 front drive Mercedes is doom and gloom, oh my.

You literally have not paid attention to one single thing anyone has ACTUALLY said.

Oh, and the XTS is on the way out.

 

 

I don't know why people are bringing up visability. The f@#king Challenger is just as much of a bunker as the 5th gen Camaro, and the new 6th gen--which I haven't sat in yet--supposedly has a couple more inches of forward view by lowering the dash. The windows, of course, remain gun-slits on both.

 

I already have a long distance cruiser with a trunk and back seat, I want the near-sports car Camaro ZL1.

Not even close. Now, I don't think the Camaro is as bad as most make it out to be but having sat in a half dozen of those and a half dozen Challengers, it's not even close. The Challenger was far easier to get in and out off and has a better view out back IMO. The view forward is a wash for me.

 

 

I'm talking about visibility, not ingress/egress. If you claim to see fine out of a Challenger, you're not going to complain about the view out of a gen 6 Camaro.

 

Read what I am saying. I have sat in both and the Challenger is easier to see out of. If you will also notice, I did not "complain" about the view in the Camaro. I just said that it is easier to see out the back of the Chally than the Camaro and that the front was a wash. The sides are easier to see out of too because it has a lower belt line. This isn't even debatable to me but again, it is just my opinion.

Good grief, the defensiveness.

Looks like they just pasted a Jetta front end on it. It actually works pretty well on the sedan, but the latch looked better before.

My sentiments exactly. Strange how it works for one and not the other.

I do not like the front end at all. Liked the old one better. On top of no real changes on the outside (save for the nose), I'm a little disappointed with this. Maybe the interior will change my opinion but, again, kind of let down by how boring it looks. Now, I understand this is a refresh but this needed far more than a refresh at this point, with a new Spark (which actually looks better than this now) and a new Cruze hitting the roads now. 

Really children? Down vote for speaking a opinion on a car I actually have some first hand experience with? I drove one for a week (a year and a half ago) as a rental back in NC. I actually like that one better than the new one. Get over it and down vote something that actually deserves it. Good grief.

Mercedes 2014 total without CLA/GLA and B-class (and without Sprinter) was 295,363.   2015 total without Smart/Sprinter and GLA/CLA and B-class is 285,946.   That is more of a 3.3% drop for the rear drive passenger car line.  Sprinter sales were up 16% in 2015.

 

The S-class outsold the CLA last month, so that debunks the theory of Mercedes relying on fwd cars to get sales.  And The E-class is the #1 selling Mercedes in history and we get a new one this year, that is going to turn the sales chart around.  Plus you have C-class coupe, hybrid and convertible hitting, GLS and SLC, and SL refreshes, so most of the new product is rear drive, where as most of 2015 calendar year had a GLA that added 26,000 units vs 6,000 the prior year.

 

 

But imagine if Cadillac said the next-gem CTS was going to the Malibu platform and would have a 250 hp turbo 4 standard, and a 350 hp turbo V6 as the range topper, and V-series was cancelled.  How would that taste?  Because essentially that is what the Cadillac crossover line is becoming.

One month? That's all you got when every year prior shows the exact opposite? The CLA has outsold the S Class for the two years it's been out. Good lord man. That kind of cherry picking is extreme, even for you. 

And you keep on talking about what the crossover line is becoming but you are assuming that it was something else before, which it is not. They have not had a hi-po CUV or SUV to date so your comment makes zero sense. Again, good lord man.

I don't know why people are bringing up visability. The f@#king Challenger is just as much of a bunker as the 5th gen Camaro, and the new 6th gen--which I haven't sat in yet--supposedly has a couple more inches of forward view by lowering the dash. The windows, of course, remain gun-slits on both.

 

I already have a long distance cruiser with a trunk and back seat, I want the near-sports car Camaro ZL1.

Not even close. Now, I don't think the Camaro is as bad as most make it out to be but having sat in a half dozen of those and a half dozen Challengers, it's not even close. The Challenger was far easier to get in and out off and has a better view out back IMO. The view forward is a wash for me.