balthazar

It does, tho perhaps the article meant 'in continuous use'. Not an excuse IMO.

Hope they keep the current DNA strong- don't need 'new for new's sake'. Just minor changes generation-generation.

• Ferrari sells about 8K cars/yr. Reportedly the brand makes $90K profit per vehicle based on the balance sheet, tho fully 30% of the brand's business is merchandise. • Porsche reportedly makes $17K profit per vehicle on 238K. I wonder if the car third of the business is profitable by now- I believe the SUVs are carrying the cars from what I read some years ago. • Cadillac sold 356K last year at an ATP of $58K. Just going by straight numbers --which is probably low due to China's huge prices-- that's $20 billion in revenue. I wouldn't worry that Cadillac isn't making money due to sale levels.

Germans triplets (that's THREE brands) don't unilaterally exceed Cadillac in every metric. In fact, they must exceed each other in a multitude of ways & criteria- doesn't mean any one brands' Model X 'is the best'. Of course- the triplets aren't dead even model for model with EACH OTHER, right? So does that leave room for individual preference anywhere?? I've read that 'Buick loses money', 'Chevrolet makes no money'... which if true would only leave GMC & Cadillac to have generated the $10 billion profit last year. Or are you trying to say Cadillac also made no profit? Is GMC carrying the whole Company? We will likely NEVER know exactly how Cadillac's book fall, but there's NO QUESTION the brand is highly profitable WITHOUT selling 2 millions units world-wide. The Divisions' goal is 500K, not 2000K+. And that's COMPLETELY FINE, despite whatever standard you want to hold a brand that has utterly no interest to you, to. So you can put to rest the whole tired schtick 'mega-millions sales are necessary to make any profit' - it's obviously not remotely legitimate.

Drivers ARE passengers.

Oh yeah, I forgot : SALES is the Only True Metric. Vat a dummkopf I ist.

'46 Cadillac Woody Wagon, for sale via Hemings: $135K

Boom.

No- that's 'shell game' tactics in my book. Awful sneaky of Tesla. Doesn't change my point, IMO: what initially was only bandied about as "$35K", then as "$42-49K" is now surpassing $60K, all within a 1000 cars production time. Frankly, I don't feel the common Bolt sticker of $43K (not including any "estimated savings"/ credits) is "affordable" either.

Conceptually, or course it's not. There's NO automotive design concepts left to discover- it's all been done before. I tell you, for those championing the futurist move to autonomous community pods for transportation, the stylistic time was never riper. >:/ Here's an old 4-door coupe :

But the '59 CdV's roofline wasn't visually the same as a '59 Chrysler or '59 Galaxie or '59 Rambler or '59 Mercedes or '59 BMW or '59 toyota or '59 Alfa Romeo or '59 Holden or '59....

2018 Model S 75D starts at $62.7K according to OEM website. Motor trend just printed an EV comparison with a Model 3, and it's sticker was $60.5K. That's a ways away from 'affordable, both in general, and relative to the Model S.

It's still yellow tho, right?

Yea- I'm not able to offer input on different hardware variances/ windows/ scrolling- I only use one entry portal.

Dave- there's no "4-dr coupe", it's simply a more sloped rear glass on the same 4-dr sedan. Maybe if we collectively drop using the mis-nomer, it'll go away. That aside, the 'fastback sedan' is actually an attempt to do something different. Sure other brands are going to offer their version- the industry is STARVED for ideas right now. Not that the fastback thing is anything more than a crumb of an idea, but I welcome/hope for design diversity. I'm talking about generalities- the range between 'cheap' sedans and very expensive ones, stylistically, has immensely contracted.

Yes. Call it 'forced homogenization', to be more accurate. Still, there has to be room for improvement.

That's some... yellow... paint.

Obviously, this very thread invites suggestions. Will try and send you something tonight. Slider in & of itself seems fine.

Any design is a subtotal of it's parts, or like ccap says; a package deal. But any given sedan can be topped with some variety of rooflines & greenhouse details- creating a differentiated package. Why should all brand differentiation be primarily clustered in the grille/headlights & tails? And in heavy traffic, most of what you see is a field of greenhouses. This was not meant to be a criticism of greenhouses, but it IS indicative, IMO. Everything has become so depressingly homogenized.

How much leeway do you have in the layout of the page? Esp content vs. ads?

Those all look to be the 'same thing' IMO. No distinction, no class tiers. ccap- you don't see any degree of difference in the top pic at all?

Discussion about automotive design is part & parcel of C&G. To paraphrase the question above - How does one car in the 2nd pic look 5 times more expensive than the other? What details in the lower pic telegraph that to the average consumer?

What other models the brand has starts at is immaterial. 450K people aren't buying the Model S- they are NOT consumers for that car, or sales would be a LOT higher than 23K annually. When pre-ordering was opened up, there was only a concept image and the scant description of "an affordable Tesla sedan starting at $35K". Of course, the tax credit information was a well-known component, also. So how can any other conclusion be reached with those few facts? If price was not a factor for '99%', why did Model S sales drop 6% last year? 100s of thousands of buyers could be in their Teslas RIGHT NOW (assuming -for the moment- production capability). "$35K (=$27K)" was a factor in 2/3rds of the pre-orders, if not 75%.

One of these 1980 cars's MSRP was 3 times that of the other. Can you guess which was the expensive one: Now to the point. One of these 2017 cars is 5.6 times the price of the other. How can you tell?