surreal1272

The key party of that is the word "almost" as in "almost three feet short of supporting a 3rd row" lol. As roomy as some full size trucks are back there, there is not a chance in hell of squeezing a 3rd row in that same space, not even close.

I can't speak for pick ups but we did at least have three row station wagons back in the day. Equally useless jumper or short bench seats back there, but they had them lol. Of course, if we had 3 row pick ups, then there would only be room for a four foot bed back there and we all know that we can't have that lol.

Below is a pic of my knees and the back of the second row. There is an inch to spare if I sit completely upright and there is about an inch of head room left before I start scraping the headliner. Now imagine that scenario in any sloping roof CUV that is smaller than mine (a new Highlander is 4" shorter than mine with the 3 row option and a 2015 Tahoe is only 3" longer than mine with that high sitting axle underneath).

There's a simple answer for that. They don't because, like I said the other day, those type of set ups are for nothing more than heads of cabbage because no human would willingly sit back there, but hey "demand" lol. I have the "boxiest" CUV out there and while it has far more headroom than these sloped roof models out there, the legroom is still tight. I am 5'10" and I would not want to spend more than three minutes back there. Kids would probably be fine but again, that would only be if I had more than three kids, since there is a much more spacious second row back there.

@smk4565 Here’s some data for you. This is a list of the top 25 selling autos of 2020. I can count the number of 3 row SUV/CUVs on one hand with fingers to spare. Tell us more about that “demand” though. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g32006077/best-selling-cars-2020/

The Slade has never been just two row. At one time the Tahoe was though. There is your contradiction, for the record. The “demand” aspect for 3rd row.

This proving the gimmick side of my argument. Still awaiting that solid data that will never come. And all of those SUVs and CUVs mentioned would still sell and sell well without a third row. That is my point here. See the sales history of SUVs like the Grand Cherokee and the ancient 4-Runner and sprinkle in the Edge and the Blazer while you’re at it. Oh and you contradicted yourself on an epic scale but clearly you got me confused with Balth in your defense ,which is what happens when you move the bar so much, so we are not even going to go there at this point.

So again, contradicting your earlier statements. And again, posting those doesn’t make it “data” (skipping that four of those models were MINIVANS). That is not cause and effect. Show actual data within those models that show that customers bought them for their third row and keep in mind, I own a CUV with a 3rd row and did not buy it for the 3rd row. It was not optional. See where this is going yet?

How much longer are you going to beat this dead horse? Why would a sloped roof, damn near coupe style, CUV even begin to entertain the option of 3rd row seats? Again, show us actual data about this 3rd row demand. All I know is that you flat out contradicted yourself there. The XT6 isn’t a hot seller with its 3rd row yet you insist that is what folks want. Baffling the double standard and constant bar moving here. Must be exhausting.

Okay, so now that a whole page has been wasted on talking about Mercedes (because apparently they pay their fans by the word) and how they are the best there ever was, maybe we can get back to the Lyriq.

Going to be mid to upper 80s here this week. Now, if it would come without the mandatory humidity, that would be great lol.

You know what? I am honestly done going in circles with you. I will leave you with this though. You think the EQS is not competing with the Tesla? How about you read this? Mercedes literally made the EQS to compete with the S. https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-mercedes-benz-eqs-vs-tesla-model-s-specs/ Regarding the EQE, they are going the CTS route as a tweener car. And I quote, ”The German automaker is building an all-electric sedan called the EQE that will fill the space between Tesla's compact Model 3 and mid-size Model S.” And yet another quote from a different article. ”Although the EQE will be similar in size to a C-Class” So how in the hell is a C-Class to E-Class sized EQE supposed to be competing with a larger Tesla S (Using your size logic)?

The EQS would have been better off looking like a compliance auto than what it is (on the outside) right now.

I would bet $1000 to a donut that Mercedes, and everyone else, have been doing the EXACT same thing. Huh? The EQS has a competitor from Tesla already. And why would Cadillac want to compete in a "dying sedan market" (your exact words in the past)? That is literally contradictory to everything you have said in the past when Cadillac comes out with new gen sedan while not having enough CUVs. Pick a stance and stick with it. I will say this though. Be careful what you wish for. If Cadillac releases an EQS competitor, it is almost guaranteed to look a thousand times better than that undercover VW CC.

LOL! Easy mistake as it was horrible back there before switching to IRS. Again, heads of cabbage back there. It highlights my point though about size. On something like a Highlander, the 3rd row is utterly useless (part of the 90% useless crew) while on a full size SUV like the Slade, it's far more useable. Anything smaller than full size, is pure gimmickry.

Not true. 3rd row has been on standard Escalades for a while. Two different generations below and both are standard wheelbase. However, that doesn't mean they were bought for their 3rd row, like you said.

BS. If they did care, they would get a mini-van since they have ACTUAL usable 3rd row seats. 3rd row seating in most CUVS is pretty marketing gimmickry for folks who are too hip for a mini-van but have zero issues with a gloried FWD station wagon. Show actual proof that 3rd rows are proof of demand in CUVs and not because of marketing gimmickry. I'll give you some evidence though. Take the RX for example. The addition of 3rd row seating has led to horrible reviews of it and the addition of it was pure gimmick since the RX has NEVER hurt for sales with just 2 rows. Lexus only added it because the only other options in their stable are the GX and LX, both of which have glorified jumper seats in the back. Had they built a true CUV or SUV made for TRUE 3rd row seating (or just rebadged the Sequoia), you would never see it added to the RX. Again, 90% of those you mentioned could have no 3rd row and still sell like hotcakes. With that sloped roofline, they would be foolish to do so but you are correct in saying that they could do it. I guess if you need to throw a couple of heads of cabbage back there, it would work lol.

And 90% of those 3rd rows mentioned are less than useless for anything larger than a human skull. My Flex has better 3rd row accommodations than most of those although anyone taller than 5'7" is going to find it tight back there. I should also mention that I did not buy my Flex with the 3rd row in mind. I bought it because it has a crap ton of cargo room for its size, which is why most folks by the ones you mentioned above, more often than not. Attaching 3rd rows to these smaller CUVs like the Highlander is a pure marketing gimmick. It should be further noted that I scratched out the mini-vans you mentioned because A.) We are talking about CUVs/SUVs and B.) Given the mini-van market overall sales decline over the last twenty years, it pretty much kills your 3rd row demand argument where those are concerned. Now I get that slashes figures dropped because of shifting demands towards CUVs but ask anyone with those SUVs and CUVs which one is better suited to 3rd row usage. It sure as hell isn't CUVs and SUVs. Because the Slade has a boxier and taller shape for larger accommodations. CUVs with sloped roofs should not have 3rd row seats at all for reasons already mentioned. That covers more than half of the CUVs you mentioned above. Again though, marketing gimmicks sell.

See Balths response regarding 3rd row usage. I also mentioned nothing about wheelbase so maybe you include the quote of the person who mentioned it.

But “production” does not equal “production trim” being that the Lyriq is not actually in production yet. Semantics, I know but here we are. Deflection and it does not change the facts that Balth mentioned.

Which is all you had to say to begin with as opposed to making these endless assumptions about something you haven’t even personally seen much less sat in and driven.

AMG and Maybach versions of that jellybean shaped turd just means more expensive versions of the same jellybean shaped turd. Again, a CUV should have been their first EV, not a bland (on the outside) lower demand (since it’s not a CUV) sedan (an argument you have used against the competition for the last four years or so). The fact that you are trying to prop it up on its “largest screen” (ie more distracting) is very telling here. For the 99th time, Oldsmobile beat Daimler to the 4-door coupe punch almost a decade prior to the CLS. Just stop it already.

Why does it matter? Maybe the downvotes have to do with the “logic” itself more so than anything else. And yes, while looks are subjective, some things are obvious like trying to say that the 1st Gen CTS is the best looking CTS.? That thing is hideous and that has nothing to do with “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”. That is a $100K Mercedes that looks something that is a cross between the last gen Sebring and a 99 Intrepid. It does not scream luxury from the outside at all. And here I thought Benz was done with Chrysler/Dodge lol.

And skipping the fact that if we were talking about Cadillac putting out an EV sedan before they released a EV CUV, we would be hearing about how Cadillac dropped the ball by releasing an EV for the low demand sedan market and not putting out a CUV/SUV first. Also skip the fact that one would be paying $100K+ for a Mercedes interior underneath a VW CC skin when they get an EQS.

You and you alone feel that way. Everyone else with eyes knows better. Sorry. Both of those were parts bin specials on the inside and XLR was only nominally better looking than the first gen CTS on the outside, which was all slab and block while the 2nd gen cleaned all that up and actually has a far cleaner look to it, which is what you were touting above when you were making up excuses for the lazy exterior design of the EQS.