balthazar

Wheels too small, trim too plain, bed too short. ?

^ it certainly wasn’t singularly the Fiero. - - - - -

The Biarritz came about when the prior convtertible-only Eldorado gained a hardtop in '56. Then; Seville=hardtop, Biarritz=convertible. In '61 the 'E' went back to being a convert only, was still called the Eldorado Biarritz thru ‘64. In '65 the series moved to become a sub-model; the Fleetwood Eldorado. This went thru at least ‘75. In ‘71 the hardtop reappeared. In the first year the convertible 'E' was gone, ‘77, the Biarritz returned and became-yes; a top level Eldorado luxury trim package. In '84, the convertible reappeared, but I see both a Biarritz hardtop trim and a Biarritz convertible mentioned for that year. '86 was the year of the (again) downsized 'E', handsome design but just. so. small. BIarritz package still available. By '92, I don't see it in the brochure; it was the Eldorado and the Eldorado Touring Coupe.

Doesn't 'GLC' stand for 'Great Little Car'? :P - - - - -

The ‘first attempt’ with maybach had zero to do with Mercedes; they were competitors. The company failed and Daimler merely bought the rights to the name- there is no connection to the prewar company. Factually speaking, this is the 2nd attempt. That said, as it is marketed as a ‘mercedes maybach’, it certainly is lacking the ubiquitous AMG version every other model down to the shit box econocars have. Why? “People have money, just build it, margins would be huge”.

Many international markets are nationalistic. A tangent to ‘Cadillacs definition’; whether on point or adrift, Cadillac has not ever had big international success (China excepted). It’s well tailored to the U.S..

*as a contrast to the current commentary WRT Cadillac/ it’s identity/ “trying to be German”.

Aston-Martin brings up a pertinent example. The brand was a no-frills, spartan sports car all along. Guess they have no identity now that they have luxury-stuffed GT passenger cruisers,right? I mean, they can’t know what they want to be- that’s the diagnosis on any brand that shifts it’s product intent, right? Poor, poor Aston-Martin: here’s hoping they figure out their brand mission, hopefully by ‘going back to just being Aston-Martin’.

Why; maybach has never had the best performing daimler cars.

It matters not at all that Cadillac & Chevrolet are both under General Motors. This is where you continually trip yourself up. 'General Motors' is a far secondary to Cadillac and Chevrolet. Just like when Buick & Olds & Chevy & Pontiac all had mid-6 liter V8 muscle cars selling near 100K per year ('66 GTO) and pulling down a 54% market share, there is literally no reason 2 (or 3 or 4) brands cannot have performance cars. None. VW has Lambo, bugatti & porsche under the same corporate letterhead- where's the outcry there? Don't all 3 have some excellent performance cars; which is the "performance division" of VW?? Full-fledged & blatant hypocrisy. It's exactly like saying only one division should have CUVs, and you've actually said the complete opposite there.

I didn't say Cadillac was highly unique. Then again, none of the other luxury players are either. Or were you saying I was 'average in many/outstanding in none'?

Give us one to chew on, if you're game.

@riviera74, @NINETY EIGHT REGENCY, @smk4565, @dwightlooi ~ ALL the above premises are erroneous. >>"Can anybody tell me the difference between today's Cadillac from all other luxury makes?"<< If you can answer how Audi/BMW/mercedes/lexus are different than all other luxury makes, you can answer the same for Cadillac. >>"The sedans do need to stop trying to be German."<< They're not; it was the Germans who became distinctly American, then eclipsed Cadillac in many instances. This was a clear targeting/copying, and they did a good job by the '90s, but prior to they weren't even on the same field. >>"Not everyone agrees the V-series is what Cadillac needs, though. Cadillac super cars “answer a question the world wasn't asking,”"<< Wow, an issue "not everyone" agrees on? We're still on Earth, correct? "Not everyone" agrees with anything you care to mention, especially within the automotive industry. >>"I agree with Riviera that Cadillac needs identity."<< It has as much as any other luxury brand, with a richer heritage. >>"It is NOT that Cadillac doesn't have an identity. It is that its identity keeps changing!"<< It really hasn't in the 2000s. Prior to that, it was a near non-stop bemoaning of how out of step Cadillac was in the luxury field. They adjusted their course heading and now people want them to go back. Where people fall into their own wormhole is their erroneous idea that Cadillac MUST be a singular, black & white, hard-line "definition"; a one-mission brand. I struggle to think of a multi-model mainstream brand that does this. I guess one might say ferrari or Lamborghini, tho ferrari's low point in the '80s is hard to remedy with their before & after. Is Cadillac where I personally would advocate they be? Not exactly, but my perspective is highly unique. But it's from the vantage point that I can see the Overall Picture that people have cried out for 'Cadillac to go back to being Cadillac' with no Earthly idea how to define that or what that means.

Wasn’t talking about production WRT immigration, merely within the OEMs POV. But agree with you in principle, i don’t understand advocating against instilling the same policies other trade partners do against you. Pretty sure that makes me an ‘anti-redistributionist’.

I agree, but in a manufacturing industry there are a myriad of conditions that have some degree of bottom line/cost. Union contracts and plant costs, raw material contracts which MAY make balance sheet sense to go ahead and put into production than stockpile/ get NO revenue from.

Hollywood almost always peaks within the first 2 in a franchise, then they jump the shark

The only work-around there is if your higher end lines subsidize your lower end models… but from a business case scenario it makes no sense. Why do all the investment/work with no ROI? Yeah; there a couple of reasons, such as filling production capacity, but its still just 'busy work'.

The Tiny House Nation trailer-based 'houses' are ridiculous. At least get a 40-ft trailer and a 3500 dually… but wait; that's still ridiculous. 'My kitchen sink is the bathroom sink- how cool!' - - - - - You've heard of 'one of 2' or even 'one of none' with regards to a particular vehicle combination. How about '270 of none' :

I could easily live in either of those 2 houses to the far right, driving a weathered coupe older than I am.

[Dark Fate trailer] : so far, I'm not feeling it. And seeing Linda Hamilton looking 70 -not that she was a great classical beauty in T1- isn't helping. - - - - -

While we're setting the record straight, the xxxS / Sxxx wasn't in the luxury segment until the 1990s; it was just a run-of-the-mill family sedan prior to. Like a Plymouth. EDIT :: I take it back- you could get better in a Plymouth (1965 here). Whew- look at those MB door panels! ~

SMK keeping things in perspective