balthazar

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.

That's not GM's decision to make tho.

?? ? ? ? ? That's a CRAZY bit of imagination there. Now that the specific itty bitty bit has been identified it's still yeah; no resemblance to the Ion at all.

Looks pretty good- looking forward to more pics.

Accord rearmost window shape is fine - it's the chrome trim that is jarring & not harmonious with the glass. I think it's poorly done there. CT5 A- & B-pillars are identical to the CTS. The rearmost panel is better done than Hondas, literally looks nothing like the Ion. Of course there will be people that automatically pick at something, esp WRT Cadillac, throwing down vehement 'WTFs', but IMO there's nothing stylistically to hang one's hat on here. It's compact front overhang looks great vs. the long nose of the accord, but that's RWD proportions for you. CT5 looks pretty great up front. My desired changes? Chrome up front; grillework & lower air intake. And I am pleased how the horizontal lighting works with Cadillac's signature vertical running lights. Not as nuts about the 'fastback' greenhouse / 2-box profile vs. the CTS. 2-box sedans generally look downmarket to my eyes.

Here's my take on the Cadillac proposal. I actually can see a case for going to torque (vs. HP)- it's what an engine develops. And I also can see a case for using it so electric and IC can be compared somewhat to each other. What I am NOT on board with is incorporating it into the model name- that just seems like 'following the herd' and I never understood having the literal same car called a 'abc100' and 'abc200' and 'abc350' - it's schizophrenic at best. It's not a different model vehicle- ti's the SAME vehicle with a different powerplant. 'abc100AWDSunroof' is the same thing. Use nM for torque if you want- either as a discrete badge somewhere or on the engine cover. No problem with that. Buick used to use torque call-outs on their air cleaner lids. It's also stupid IMO to do it to be 'global' or because nM incorporates metric. F that.

I'm hopefully getting a 'GTO birth moment' vibe here. With the '64 GTO - once Corporate found about it & threatened to forbid it, Pontiac said they already had considerable orders in hand. Corporate allowed a run of 5000 to proceed, and instead Pontiac sold 32,450. May this be an 'eye-opening' to Corporate AND Cadillac that high concept vehicles can have amazing appeal, and Cadillac should do a lot more of them.

There are THREE tune levels above 707; 808, 840, and the 'Hellaphant' crate motor was recently unveiled with 1000 HP.

Fiat controlling Chrysler & Dodge will inevitably result in them fucking up both brands.

But this is not 'performance potential'; it's specifically top speed. 120 isn't a marketing advantage, it isn't even that fast. Everyday, family cars were doing 120-125 60 years ago.

The continued up-front advertising of top speed is utterly bizarre/pointless. Not braking distance or a towing capability, but top speed. As if anyone is testing this. And oh; "I'm going to pony up another EIGHT GRAND so I can go 130, because 120 JUST AIN'T GONNA CUT IT!". Nutter observation : model Y was unveiled today, and Telsa stock dropped 5% on an up day. Wonder what investors were looking for that they didn't get?

I admit I don't have hard data on this era handy. I believe the dealer would have a small cache of cars, you went in & picked the one you wanted. I've not heard tell you could send an order in & have it built that far back, but I don't know. Call it a gut feeling. Don't forget; in 1915, Chevrolet was an independent marque, and Louis Chevrolet's core product was a very high priced luxury 6-cylinder car, the Series C classic Six. The Royal Mail model came out in '15 for the '16 model year, and Chevy moved into the GM house that year too. Chevy wasn't in the top 8 for 1915 in sales, and tho they were #5 in 1916, they were selling less than 10% of what Ford was.

Why is the A-M so slow?

I'm not sure 'ordering' was a thing then.

MB c-class sedan starts at only $41K. Sonata is probably the best vehicle under $42K. What's 2 thousand dollars spread over 96 months? Very interesting...

Aren't you an American? Same goes for Europe! I was in the UK last week, getting new tyres for my British Leyland P76, and they still have rim sizes in INCHES there! Probably too fucking stupid to comprehend how to go full metric - wonder when they're going to do that. - - - - - There IS NO math or computations involving an engine displacement call-out on a motor vehicle. It's not part of a formula, you don't have to involve it in any conversions, dissection of it's meaning is not required for legal operation... you don't do ANYTHING with it. No one is required or even asked to convert CI to soda bottles. The designation literally just sits there like a cartoon outline drawing of a ladybug. Just like when VW was selling the original Beetle in the US 50 for decades with "1600" on the decklid; if you own a Challenger 392, EVEN IF you're continually shipping all around the world and driving it in various counties, it literally doesn't make a goddamn difference what units the size is called out it. Saying all engine displacements should be done in one size "cause math" is even more fucking stupid than saying everyone in the world should speak one language. THAT at least involves interaction/ communication, commerce, understanding, etc... but try and push that idea.

1915 Chevrolet dealer, Friendship WI ~

INteresTING !!!

^ I don't know offhand about that question, but GM also had an X8 design proposal. They ALSO had a vertical X-16 marine engine with 1200 HP.

There was a water-cooled SOHC version intended for aircraft, but this air-cooled X8 was for automotive duty. Ford developed a ton of wild, unusual engine proposals in this era - among them an aluminum-block, air-cooled OHC V-12 of only 128 CI.