balthazar

Next gathering, suddenly stand on your chair, bellow out 'ONION SAUCE! ONION SAUCE!' and stampede out the front door before anyone can think of a reply. Then the next gathering- there'll be a new story. Lather, rinse, repeat, eight times (or a considerable number of your choosing).

Hope they fit the rear seat/legroom issue on the clone!

No; the '61 Plymouth is ugly, there's no arguing that. It's funky bold, but I don't think it's good looking at the same time and I'd never buy one. '60 is a little better, still wouldn't buy one. I'm more of a '57-61 DeSoto man. But you do realize the inverse of your statement : >>It may not have what YOU find attractive, but that does not mean it don't look good.<< is ALSO true : It may be what YOU find attractive, but that does not mean it looks good. Right? I mean; RIGHT?? - - - - - The lexus LC is a stellar example of poor design, automotively. A lot of fussy, disharmonious details that don't work on their own, certainly don't work together, and frankly, are completely arbitrary. Then there is the surface planing, especially in profile- no cohesive approach, just disharmonious intersecting edges. The envelope is 'broken' at the greenhouse. I'm all for something fresh in automotive design –God knows we're starved for it– but at the same time I'd like to see 'fresh' paired with 'great'. IMO however, it's all been done before.

Mercedes, tho they stamp the same nose on everything, at least looks contemporary IMO. BMW is just incredibly dated. "Tonight we're gonna party like it's two-zero-zero-five!" You may like predator face, but that doesn't mean it works AT ALL with this car. In fact the WHOLE THING is 1 thin cracker away from being designed by Lego.

Mercedes keeps topping themselves in exercises of the pointless. Do they have some sort of convoluted marketing research that is telling them a CLA is too large for some buyers, so another shorter model on the same dopey chassis is some sort of answer? The CLA already requires amputees-only in the rear seat, can't WAIT to read review of how utterly useless a shorter CLA is going to be. And looky-gee- the s-class coupe is going to share the same nose with yet a CHEAPER crapbox. But it's all OK because: SALESSALESSALESSALESSALES!

Meh- no Duesenbergs.

For sale out of Philly, lots of parts (some lettercar), asking $18.5K. Loads of potential for a road burner.

To nitpick, the 1985 Eldorado convertible was the same length as the recent S-class... so one could call that "full-size" and then say "32 years"...

But 'convertibles don't sell' (even tho you continually berate Cadillac for not having one) & the 6-series coupe outsold the 6-series convertible & 'the 5-series paid for the 6-series', so the model was free so why did BMW drop it? [Nutso, party of one, your rubber room is ready!]

SO you're saying that if Rolls didn't sell the 200-some converts they do a year, that they would NOT be a luxury brand??

Then why did they discontinue the $77K 6-series coupe?

Egg-zactly. And THAT'S how a brand can be a 'luxury brand without a coupe & convertible'- their OTHER products can still be luxury products. Noooo- there are still R&D costs, certification costs, advertising costs, supplier costs... cars are not built like Legos. If the 6GT (whatever it is) loses money, it loses money. Now, a brand may choose to lose money on a vehicle, but has such a calculated risk ever been documented to have a net positive?? How would it even be possible to estimate such a thing? Much like the fashion industry, there's an AWFUL LOT of supposing in the auto industry.

Tell me; how many Malibu's does Chevrolet sell JUST BECAUSE there's a Camaro convertible across the showroom? In hard numbers, please.

Contemporary house in Princeton with a Tesla S and a nissan leaf in one driveway.

IIRC: 27%. Regardless... and I'm not at all saying I would not love to see another killer CTS/5 coupe... I'm saying no one shopping for a sedan from Brand X will NOT buy simply because there is NO coupe version. Coupes don't sell sedans (and coupes don't sell), but I still stop & stare when I see one of those CTS coupes (in invariably impeccible condition).

^ And this is the popular armchair fallacy RE the industry; 'Cadillac is hurting for volume because they don't have a convertible and a large coupe' ~ they never were huge contributors; no one has ever bought a Brand X sedan just because there is a Brand X convertible. Cadillac volume is relatively low because they have a small catalog, and frankly, I think that's where Cadillac wants to be- around 200K in U.S. sales. But the idea that a sedan or CUV buyer won't buy one because another model he DOESN'T want ISN'T there is illogical.

LINK

I wouldn't change the look much at all; 'CT6 customers love the styling, which is why it's outselling the 7-series 2:1 now".

apparently its some sort of steerable (there were geared 'turntables' above ea wheel pair & something akin to an 'axle' between) outrigger counterweight for one of those triple-boom cranes:

My new truck tires were delivered today! 31.00R51's!

^ Perfect, because everybody knows we'll all be in autonomous EV vehicles in 4 years, so the timing is excellent!

How do you think the Japanese built better products?- GM forced them to. '70s Japanese cars were horrendous. And what about the General Motors & the Japanese effect on Germans products?

In model year 1980, U.S. manufacturers sold 7,601,819 units. Of that General Motors sold 5,053,190, or 66% of domestic production. Fold the 2.37M imports in and the number is 51%. I hope GM 'looked at itself' WRT 'building better products' to address the 'awful 1970s car they made' after seeing those numbers. But ever-increasing inroads by foreign manufacturers will only lower those numbers by sheer math. Would I care to see GM at 51% again? Not really... tho I would LOVE to see domestic manufacturers back at 75-80% of the market.