surreal1272

It won't happen. As long as GM can make full size trucks, they will always have the BOF Escalade. It has earned it's place to keep it that way, unless sales take the worst tumblr in the history of car sales. Anyway, the CT6 platform is much smaller than what underpins the Escalade, so that's not going to happen either. They will slide in 3 row CUV that is larger than the XT5, while not stepping on the Escalades toes because they can continue to market the Slade as even more upscale with the right packaging combination (V series for example). They do not have to give up one to have the other. Mercedes sure as hell doesn't have to worry about it. The GL and the G wagon co-exist nicely without stepping on each other's toes). Cadillac doe into have to worry about it either. Also, you contradicted yourself on the "in addition to" claim. You state here that you want a Lambda added. "The Escalade is the most successful Cadillac product, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I do think at some point they will need a unibody large crossover. I'm sure they'll get a lambda, it would be nicer if they had a 3 row Omega bases crossover." And then you immediately follow that with, "I could see the day when the BOF suv is dead, but I think that is beyond 10 years from now." i.e., you think when the BOF is dead, they will go CUV. That is not "in addition to". That is replacing.

Sorry but the Acadia is not an icon like the Escalade. It would be a huge stretch to call it that.

Says if it's not broke then don't fix it and in the same breath says that they need to fix it (i.e. go CUV). That is all. And why does the Escalade need to worry about an overdressed VW, I mean Bentley (see if you get that)? As a matter of fact, why is the Bentley not catching more hell for being that closely related to a $45K Volkswagen?

I cannot properly express into words how utterly horrible looking that thing is.

Great read. However, I find the complaints about the Vette's 7 speed amusing. If you can't find the gears, go back to an auto slushbbox and remedial driving school.

It is much easier to sell here than in Michigan though, due to it being D3 central. It's a always going to be a political thing at that point. The only thing we defend tooth nail here is guns (which I have no problem with BTW).

Nothing wrong with that. It has a nice clean look to it.

Sorry but I am not going to put too much weight into a pure opinion piece from a publication that has never shown much love to Tesla begin with. Like Suave said, there are some good points but most everything in their purely opinion and typical short sighted speculation.

I will respect your opinion but I will not just call what I said opinion when most of what I said is a known fact. Having a dad work for one of those dinosaur companies and knowing what they own and what they have blocked when there was no money to be made for them gives me a least a little more insight on this. There is plenty of evidence to back this up. Just saying. These beliefs are not very helpful if you are only going to acknowledge part of the problem and part of the facts. Again, we will agree to disagree though. No worries on my end.

I do not understand your "well, we are fine now so why bother" attitude. While I agree that the "global warming" or climate change nonsense can be just that, nonsense, you can't NOT be pro-active with expanding our sources of energy, especially when they can be far more plentiful, less dangerous to acquire (looking at you coal and oil) and are not so financially tied to outside forces like the Middle East that can dictate what we pay for fuel that there is supposedly plenty of, according to you. Sorry, but most of the objections to energy sources like wind and solar are bore out of pure ignorance and a smear campaign by the old guard like Duke Energy. For the record, my dad worked for them for over thirty years and knew first hand how much campaigning they did against renewable energy that they were not involved in. This is the time to be pro-active with alternative sources of energy so that we are not literally bent over an oil barrel during the next Middle East crisis or world economic downturn. Here is the deal. #1 I am not totally against looking to other practical means to make power. #2 We are not out of oil or natural gas anything in our life time so we have time to really sort things out. Also I am all for working to make coal cleaner at a lower cost. Coal is cheap and plentiful but the regulations make it expensive. #3 We are tied to the middle east no matter what. The dollar is based on Oil not the gold standard. The market globally effects prices. The US and Canada produce the vast majority of what we use and only the east coast near the water uses middle east oil. #4 There are so many lies and distortions that have convinced we are free of the middle east if we go all in on all these other deals. Well getting oil free is going to take much more time and a lot more technology. Like the EV car it is a slow growth market and a half million wind mills are not going to do it even in combination with a lot of other things easily or cheap. #5 look at the loans the department of energy is giving. So many are going to companies that get the money and vanish. The green initiative to many is a way to get a government loan and be set for life. Even follow what Elon Musk is doing and he is making most of his money on government loans and government contracts with all his firms. Shewed yes but costing tax payers billions. I agree with you to be proactive but don't kill the coal plants till they have been replaced with a cost effective alternative. Don't down nuke plants that are viable yet till you have a replacement ready. Even our government has stated we are growing usage faster than we are bring new sources on line. The panels and wind mills are not going to do it. If not for natural gas we would be screwed right now with the coal shut downs. Mine and everyone in my area got a bump in electricity cost when they make these changes and I am not happy. So yes I am all with you on being proactive. No I am not sold on Solar and Wind. We have a deep lime stone mine here they have talked Hydro for many years by dropping water through turbines and in the shaft. It has been a great idea but no one moves on it. It is all underground and already dug out. It is a matter of pumps and turbines for the most part but yet no one moves on it. Why because there are no big money people behind it. Today in my paper they are questioning the financial strength of my power company now. Also their systems are all in need of repair on top of all this other crap being forced on them. My point is work on this perfect it then remove what we have. So not start removing things and then say lets figure this out and charge the tax payers to cover it. Yes we have time to do it and do it right. Everything that you say alternative power needs to do is being blocked by old school power. Not sure why that is so hard to understand here. The pieces are there but industries like coal don't want them in place for obvious reasons. Old school power has sucked up far more of our tax dollars than solar or wind could ever hope to, so I am not even sure why you think it is relevant, just because of a couple of crappy loans to companies like Solyndra. Newsflash, Oil and Coal have been pissing away our money for years (mostly fighting alternative power) and no one has said a word. You have your opinion and I have mine. FYI it was more than a couple crappy loans. These are just the ones that made the headlines. It is just one way of pissing money but many have turned it into an industry with this. I just like to have a real plan before I walk down a blind alley. Here is the deal. If you have a better way then people should flock to it. As of now it is cleaner but not cheaper or better. Do the latter and you should have no problem attracting customers. Forcing crap on people is no way to bring in new technology. I would rather see them use the space program like they did in the 60's and 70's to develop new technology. NASA is trying to bring the Mars program to do this but they have so little support. Much of the technology you want to use now was from the moon program. The space programs are not about where you are going but about the technology getting there. More would be gained from this and applied to our daily lives more than anything else and help drive up the technology and drive down cost. It is what it is. Don't cut off your gangrene foot till you have a real way to stop the bleeding or it matter little how infected it is. Move with a measured and balanced approach not force. Work smarter not harder. Most of what I am saying is not "opinion" though Hyper. It is a fact that traditional power companies have tried (and succeeded for the most part) in blocking any real attempts at renewable energy, especially when they can't make any money from it. Like Balthazar said, the local power companies here (APS and SRP) have constricted any real growth in Solar in a state with 330 sunny days a year. Just think about that for a minute. The Gangrene, in this case, is old school power and it is time to start cutting that off when there are actually better solutions out there.

well here in Ohio the hang up is few people want them, They are ok with them if they do not have to look at them or are close enough to hear them, Several farms in north west Ohio have been delayed or possibly by now eliminated due to locals fighting them. Renewable energy is fine for places like Japan. But for countries like us and other places we are not to the point where we are going to run out soon. The only reason some options are off the table are because of government regulation. Much of this is due to global warming that is often pressed by people making large amounts of money in the green sector. As for if global warming is proven or not either side has not proven a thing beyond a doubt. I know everyone has opinions and their own proof but to this point neither side has conclusive proof. But that is an argument for an other day. The fact is lobbyist are what have driven the EPA regulations more than anything and many are driven not by being just good citizens but to make money. Maurice Strong stated this and has made billions then hiding away from the public in of all places China. At this point we have beat this into the ground. There will be a lot of changes both ways on this topic as I see it far from settles. The not in my back yard thinking is yet to really be tested on wind and the Solar Panels are not something many will invest in very soon for their homes. Hell just look at the roofs in the winter of the folks who just do not insulate like they should. The Fight for the Nexus gas pipe line here in Ohio is just a hint as the wind mills.. People are ok with it till they find it is going by their house. Most have no clue about them and yet still fight them. You may be able to plant them in the middle of Ely NV but in most other areas where many people live they are not going to want them or see them daily. Just look at the fight over cell towers. We have one city here that wants them disguised as large trees. I am sure will see more but it is far from a slam dunk. There are only one large one along lake Erie. It is at a Science center and is only one. There was one other and it was a prototype and was at one time the worlds largest blade at NASA in Sandusky. I believe it has been torn down. I have not heard much in the way of plans to build more here in the near future. I do not understand your "well, we are fine now so why bother" attitude. While I agree that the "global warming" or climate change nonsense can be just that, nonsense, you can't NOT be pro-active with expanding our sources of energy, especially when they can be far more plentiful, less dangerous to acquire (looking at you coal and oil) and are not so financially tied to outside forces like the Middle East that can dictate what we pay for fuel that there is supposedly plenty of, according to you. Sorry, but most of the objections to energy sources like wind and solar are bore out of pure ignorance and a smear campaign by the old guard like Duke Energy. For the record, my dad worked for them for over thirty years and knew first hand how much campaigning they did against renewable energy that they were not involved in. This is the time to be pro-active with alternative sources of energy so that we are not literally bent over an oil barrel during the next Middle East crisis or world economic downturn. Here is the deal. #1 I am not totally against looking to other practical means to make power. #2 We are not out of oil or natural gas anything in our life time so we have time to really sort things out. Also I am all for working to make coal cleaner at a lower cost. Coal is cheap and plentiful but the regulations make it expensive. #3 We are tied to the middle east no matter what. The dollar is based on Oil not the gold standard. The market globally effects prices. The US and Canada produce the vast majority of what we use and only the east coast near the water uses middle east oil. #4 There are so many lies and distortions that have convinced we are free of the middle east if we go all in on all these other deals. Well getting oil free is going to take much more time and a lot more technology. Like the EV car it is a slow growth market and a half million wind mills are not going to do it even in combination with a lot of other things easily or cheap. #5 look at the loans the department of energy is giving. So many are going to companies that get the money and vanish. The green initiative to many is a way to get a government loan and be set for life. Even follow what Elon Musk is doing and he is making most of his money on government loans and government contracts with all his firms. Shewed yes but costing tax payers billions. I agree with you to be proactive but don't kill the coal plants till they have been replaced with a cost effective alternative. Don't down nuke plants that are viable yet till you have a replacement ready. Even our government has stated we are growing usage faster than we are bring new sources on line. The panels and wind mills are not going to do it. If not for natural gas we would be screwed right now with the coal shut downs. Mine and everyone in my area got a bump in electricity cost when they make these changes and I am not happy. So yes I am all with you on being proactive. No I am not sold on Solar and Wind. We have a deep lime stone mine here they have talked Hydro for many years by dropping water through turbines and in the shaft. It has been a great idea but no one moves on it. It is all underground and already dug out. It is a matter of pumps and turbines for the most part but yet no one moves on it. Why because there are no big money people behind it. Today in my paper they are questioning the financial strength of my power company now. Also their systems are all in need of repair on top of all this other crap being forced on them. My point is work on this perfect it then remove what we have. So not start removing things and then say lets figure this out and charge the tax payers to cover it. Yes we have time to do it and do it right. Everything that you say alternative power needs to do is being blocked by old school power. Not sure why that is so hard to understand here. The pieces are there but industries like coal don't want them in place for obvious reasons. Old school power has sucked up far more of our tax dollars than solar or wind could ever hope to, so I am not even sure why you think it is relevant, just because of a couple of crappy loans to companies like Solyndra. Newsflash, Oil and Coal have been pissing away our money for years (mostly fighting alternative power) and no one has said a word.

well here in Ohio the hang up is few people want them, They are ok with them if they do not have to look at them or are close enough to hear them, Several farms in north west Ohio have been delayed or possibly by now eliminated due to locals fighting them. Renewable energy is fine for places like Japan. But for countries like us and other places we are not to the point where we are going to run out soon. The only reason some options are off the table are because of government regulation. Much of this is due to global warming that is often pressed by people making large amounts of money in the green sector. As for if global warming is proven or not either side has not proven a thing beyond a doubt. I know everyone has opinions and their own proof but to this point neither side has conclusive proof. But that is an argument for an other day. The fact is lobbyist are what have driven the EPA regulations more than anything and many are driven not by being just good citizens but to make money. Maurice Strong stated this and has made billions then hiding away from the public in of all places China. At this point we have beat this into the ground. There will be a lot of changes both ways on this topic as I see it far from settles. The not in my back yard thinking is yet to really be tested on wind and the Solar Panels are not something many will invest in very soon for their homes. Hell just look at the roofs in the winter of the folks who just do not insulate like they should. The Fight for the Nexus gas pipe line here in Ohio is just a hint as the wind mills.. People are ok with it till they find it is going by their house. Most have no clue about them and yet still fight them. You may be able to plant them in the middle of Ely NV but in most other areas where many people live they are not going to want them or see them daily. Just look at the fight over cell towers. We have one city here that wants them disguised as large trees. I am sure will see more but it is far from a slam dunk. There are only one large one along lake Erie. It is at a Science center and is only one. There was one other and it was a prototype and was at one time the worlds largest blade at NASA in Sandusky. I believe it has been torn down. I have not heard much in the way of plans to build more here in the near future. I do not understand your "well, we are fine now so why bother" attitude. While I agree that the "global warming" or climate change nonsense can be just that, nonsense, you can't NOT be pro-active with expanding our sources of energy, especially when they can be far more plentiful, less dangerous to acquire (looking at you coal and oil) and are not so financially tied to outside forces like the Middle East that can dictate what we pay for fuel that there is supposedly plenty of, according to you. Sorry, but most of the objections to energy sources like wind and solar are bore out of pure ignorance and a smear campaign by the old guard like Duke Energy. For the record, my dad worked for them for over thirty years and knew first hand how much campaigning they did against renewable energy that they were not involved in. This is the time to be pro-active with alternative sources of energy so that we are not literally bent over an oil barrel during the next Middle East crisis or world economic downturn.

Let's see. Record profits while sitting on a near record mountain of debt, with the writing on the wall for another economic downturn? I'm not saying that is a recipe for disaster but...

Also, since you seem keen to try and fact-check people... check your own facts. "Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened." "the Congressional Research Service noted that Ford “is counting on $5 billion from the DOE loan program to support a $14 billion plan to reorient its lineup toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.” On June 23, 2009, the Department of Energy announced it would provide $5.9 billion to Ford “to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce 13 more fuel efficient models.”" "In a business plan submitted to Congress in December 2008, Ford touted its $14 billion plan for fuel-efficient cars as a key part of its effort to turn the company around — noting that a big piece of the funding was coming from the DOE." "The company’s business plan also urged Congress to pass legislation to provide “incentives for consumers to trade in older vehicles and move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.”" "A Department of Transportation report (table 10) said more than 90,000 Fords were purchased under the cash-for-clunkers program — second only to Toyota — as of December 2009." "Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them." The idea that Ford didn't ask for the loan is absurd on its face... the D.O.E. doesn't just sprinkle magical loan fairy dust on a manufacturer. Companies have to apply for the loans, submit business plans, etc. The $5.9 billion that Ford got was by far the largest of the DOE loans at the time. The next largest was Nissan at $1.9 billion. I wish someone would just give me a loan even though I didn't ask for one. They could just award it to me.

There is no "exactly" when you say $320K, which was median income i.e. household income) and when I say $174K, which is referring only to the individual buyer. You literally have not been paying attention from the get go because my whole statement started with the E- Class and yours with truck buyers (of which you still have provided no proof of btw, you just threw out numbers). I cited 2 sources for S-class buyer income. Neither source said "household income" "M-B says the S-Class buyer averages 62 years old, is almost certainly a man (83% of buyers), married (87%), has a college degree (81%) and enjoys a median income of $324,000." Those are all statistics for an individual, measuring the buyer, not who is in the household. Yahoo Autos in 2013 stated that the average household income of an S-class owner is $371,000. So I guess if you want to assume a 2 income household of 2 people with identical salaries, that $186,000 each. But maybe it is more likely that the S-class buyer is making $320,000 and the other person $50,000. Regardless if the household is $371,000 to buy a $120,000 car, the car price is 1/3 of the income. A $45,000 truck on a $65k income is 2/3 of the income for the price of the truck. So pick-up buyers are willing to spend a greater percentage of income on their truck than what typical luxury car buyers are. (Audi for example, $180,000 median income and the ATP is like $49,000 on those) Given that people are willing to pay a lot of their income for pickups, I can see why Mercedes is tempted by that market. If it isn't a commercial only vehicle and they try to market it as a luxury truck, I think people will buy it. I still think they should not build the pickup at all, and if they do, just sell it only to businesses. I'd rather see them stay focused on luxury cars and crossovers. Pya attention man. In this case, median and household are the same because its COMBINED as opposed to individual income, which is what I was saying. Honestly, I'm long past caring about this. I simply wanted to yank your chain because of your silly double standards about badge jobs. But hey as long as it has a MB motor, tranny, and whatever else makes Mercedes gold, it's okay right? It just can't be done by anyone else without constant ridicule by you ($90K Tahoe ring a bell?). Seriously. I'm done. Best of luck with your future double standards.

There is no "exactly" when you say $320K, which was median income i.e. household income) and when I say $174K, which is referring only to the individual buyer. You literally have not been paying attention from the get go because my whole statement started with the E- Class and yours with truck buyers (of which you still have provided no proof of btw, you just threw out numbers).

That's got to be BS...I make considerably more than that, and wouldn't buy/lease a $60k+ car... You are the exception to the rule. I know people only making $60K a year driving $60K Shelby's. It's not out of the realm of possibilities. I can't imagine how someone would get a car loan for a car costing as much as their annual income...that would be pretty f'd up... Though I could see someone retired buying one w/ cash, though..isn't the average age of Shelby buyers about 65? They always seem to be driven by older men out here... Agreed but cars are a bad investment to begin with so for most folks, it's just an extravagance.

You have absolutely no proof of those buyer demographics at all. Just pure speculation on your part and especially given that I see quite a few folks NOT making $180K a year driving the E Class. As a matter of fact, the average income for an E Class buyer is $90K a year which is inserting for a car that can sell for more than that. Oh the double standards that are being pedaled here. Where did you find data that the average income of an E-class buyer is $90k a year? I also don't know anything about the next-gen Frontier or 2015 Navara platform. Maybe the chassis isn't so bad, maybe it is. I don't think Daimler would build a vehicle on a crap platform, and when you put Mercedes suspension parts, Mercedes 9-speed automatic transmission, Mercedes diesel engines on to it, maybe it will be good. It isn't like there is even a concept vehicle to look at at this point. And you have missed the point 100% while showing your double standard. If this were about Cadillac, you would be on here saying that the Cadillac is nothing more than a $90K Chevy. Also, I found the source for that income breakdown but I already know your figure is way off because the $150K average is for S Class buyers. Look it up sometime because I'm not going to do the research for you. Remember, we are talking about a buyers individual income, not household income. Autonews.com in 2013 reported the s-class has an average buyer age of 61 and income of $371,000. USA Today in 2014 reported the S-class had an avg buyer age of 62 with an income of $324,000. Bit that an AMG s-class buyer was mid 40s with $500-600,000 median income. You were wrong about the E-class buyer income and wrong about the S-class buyer income. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/healey/2014/05/17/test-drive-mercedes-benz-s-class-lives-up-to-high-price/9146907/ As I pointed to you, there is a difference between individual income (what I posted) and median or household income (what you posted). Overall, the average Mercedes Benz buyers income is $174K a year. http://www.autospies.com/news/The-Demographic-Challenge-American-Brands-Join-Lexus-As-German-Automakers-Skim-Off-The-Affluent-Buyer-54227/ A clear and distinguishable difference that I have already pointed out to you. Enjoy.

You have absolutely no proof of those buyer demographics at all. Just pure speculation on your part and especially given that I see quite a few folks NOT making $180K a year driving the E Class. As a matter of fact, the average income for an E Class buyer is $90K a year which is inserting for a car that can sell for more than that. Oh the double standards that are being pedaled here. Where did you find data that the average income of an E-class buyer is $90k a year? That's got to be BS...I make considerably more than that, and wouldn't buy/lease a $60k+ car... You are the exception to the rule. I know people only making $60K a year driving $60K Shelby's. It's not out of the realm of possibilities.

You have absolutely no proof of those buyer demographics at all. Just pure speculation on your part and especially given that I see quite a few folks NOT making $180K a year driving the E Class. As a matter of fact, the average income for an E Class buyer is $90K a year which is inserting for a car that can sell for more than that. Oh the double standards that are being pedaled here. Where did you find data that the average income of an E-class buyer is $90k a year? I also don't know anything about the next-gen Frontier or 2015 Navara platform. Maybe the chassis isn't so bad, maybe it is. I don't think Daimler would build a vehicle on a crap platform, and when you put Mercedes suspension parts, Mercedes 9-speed automatic transmission, Mercedes diesel engines on to it, maybe it will be good. It isn't like there is even a concept vehicle to look at at this point. And you have missed the point 100% while showing your double standard. If this were about Cadillac, you would be on here saying that the Cadillac is nothing more than a $90K Chevy. Also, I found the source for that income breakdown but I already know your figure is way off because the $150K average is for S Class buyers. Look it up sometime because I'm not going to do the research for you. Remember, we are talking about a buyers individual income, not household income.

You have absolutely no proof of those buyer demographics at all. Just pure speculation on your part and especially given that I see quite a few folks NOT making $180K a year driving the E Class. As a matter of fact, the average income for an E Class buyer is $90K a year which is inserting for a car that can sell for more than that. Oh the double standards that are being pedaled here.

Considering they would compete with Tacoma and Colorado, I don't see why they would need a V8. And 406 lb-ft of torque is a lot more than either of those two offer. I am not sure why they are even bothering with a pickup, except for that it is a popular and profitable body style and they probably see the ability to make money. I think they should stick to cars and vans though, That is only in V6 guise. The four banger overdressed Nissan has 37ft/lbs. less than a comparable Colorado/Canyon. Oh the irony of you defending a badge job made for a luxury carmaker because it happens to be the one you like LOL!

After reading a few more reviews of how the CT6 drives, I am coming away more and more impressed with it. Will it be enough to make a big impression to the masses? Who knows? The market is so topsy turvy with the CUV demand and the emerging EV market, it's hard to tell. Now, am I weird for wishing to see a sport wagon version of this (since they no longer have the CTS in wagon form)? BTW, I will not apologize for my love of wagons (it's a history thing).

Just make it look ten thousand times better than the hideous Caliber and you'd have a winner. Guess they can always go back to the Neon, that was a huge hit for them. The versatility of the Caliber was much better but yes, the Neon did much better for them. Personally, I'd take a hatch over a sedan any day and everyday.

Just a compliment from Opel to BMW for choosing a nice Headlight design. So why redesign the wheel when it is easier to buy it from the same supplier! Not really a criticism. Just the first thing I noticed when I saw it.