balthazar

^ Wonder if that was a runner or a 'parker'. - - - - -

'57 Bonneville ~

Would make a great demo derby car. - - - - -

I think I posted a pic before, but this is Bro's 'bird:

It's weird / I'm weird; I like cars from before 'my time', and music from after. '70s-80s stuff isn't my cup of tea.

Pontiac power!

Got a text from my brother- he's having a new engine built for his '68 Firebird and they ran it on the dyno. First pull it had restricted oil flow & ate an intake pushrod. On the 2nd pull it ate an exhaust pushrod, so it was only running on 7 cylinders. Made 1,055 HP at "only" 7000 RPMs.

Problem is/was; the CLA sedan was also in the 3-series / c-class larger compact niche. I think that's why MB shrunk the a-class a bit. Regardless of market intentions, the initial comment I made was addressing interior vs. exterior dimensions.

For you guys ~

Aluminum body panels at Pontiac... in late '40s (and again in the early '60s). Look, Blu! ~

Pay attention, Bunky. I mentioned 2 identical-sized sedans of 183" : CLA & ATS sedans. Total legroom was (IIRC) 9 inches apart- terrible packaging by mercedes. Now, the newer, name-changed entry car is the 'a-class', yet it's rear legroom is just as bad as the ATS's supposed was, and the ATS came out in 2013.

The early failure rate for start-up auto ventures was tremendous. Have a book here at hand, American Trucks & Commercial Vehicles 1891-1996. It catalogs 1,250 makes... maybe 25 remain?

Wait- so MB redesigned/renamed the CLA and gave it the same, "unliveable" rear leg room?? Were they benchmarking the outgoing ATS??

'Gretchen, stop trying to make 'Ion' happen. It's not going to happen.'

CLA had same overall length as ATS, with 3" less WB but 9" less legroom (FWD vs. RWD), IIRC. It's where the whole 'ATS is unliveable' claim falls apart.

The first luxury SUV; the Kaiser-Jeep Wagoneer. This, I believe, is the '66 Super Wagoneer ~

But 'sense of grounding' - however you choose to quantify that- is still no guarantee of business success. Hell, it's not even a guarantee of marital success. Again- Musk's twitter feed is not the byproduct of his marital status. The annals of automotive history are littered with happily grounded CEOs that crashed & burned their ventures- too many to count.

^ Totally agree. Marital status has absolutely zero to do with business success, and being unmarried is not Musk's issue.

A. You said "cannot afford", I responded to that, and your response back centered around 'computer engineers'. I don't associate that profession with being unable to afford a car. B. The vast vast majority of people store at least some items in their vehicles for various reasons. Some keep a LOT of items in their vehicles (nothing wrong with that). Still others work out of their vehicles. These types of consumers aren't going to be in this market. C. I do NOT relish the thought of getting inside a vehicle regularly where who knows who has been doing who knows what. People treat public use items in generally terrible ways.

OMG that's so gorgeous.

We should probably get something straightened out here (of course- this will bounce completely off the tin ear of one member here) : There is no "Silverado frame". General Motors and the various divisions involved engineer & design a frame to underpin a number of vehicles from the clean sheet stage. In many cases a Tahoe is built on it, in others; an Escalade (and there are further differences & upgrades). An 'Escalade rides on a Tahoe' frame is every bit as legitimate as 'a Tahoe rides on an Escalade frame'. In other words; yes, these products are from the came company but no; the part doesn't 'belong' to one model over another. In still other words- this is not a point that carries any weight, water or importance.

If one cannot afford a vehicle of their own, I don't see them opting in to a subscription service for a vehicle that's $75,000.