balthazar

Escalade : check. XT5 : check. 'XT7' : check. XT4 : OK. XT3 or XT2 ?? No way. Leave the tiny cheap CUVs to mainstream brands. Like mercedes/ BMW/ Toyota/ Chevy/ Ford/ Nissan/ Ford. Cadillac doesn't need to spread their catalog into every vehicle segment out there, their volume doesn't support it and their goals don't need it.

[ragged sigh] I realize they don't sell the Big E in China, that was clearly stated above, also. Since we are responding to each other, please take note of my point; that the Escalade's displacement is NOT a reason not to sell it in China, that 'reason' doesn't hold water.

Who cares where the other brands are at?? We're talking about the Escalade and where IT'S at. 6.2L engine is NOT a detriment to Chinese sales because realistically the only displacement decrease would theoretically take it to is between 3.0 & 4.0L, which like I said; the difference is only 5% of the vehicle price, or in other words, negligable. This tier of buyer is not pinching pennies, everything it this price tier is about conspicuous consumption. It would be interesting to see a 4.2TT V8 in the Escalade, but it would NOT be interesting to see a 2.4L engine there, regardless of stated power specs.

3 - 4 liters is the same tax rate. You'd have to go from a 2.xL to a 3.xL, and the increase there is only 3%, not 8% (as of 2010). Everything OVER 4.0L is the same rate; a 4.1L is the same as a 8.2L. That's $4500 on $150K, not $12K. Big deal, those paying these prices are grooving on overpaying, anyway, if it even matters.

- - - - - Just poked around the net- the last displacement tier for the Chinese market (as of 2010) was a 20% displacement tax on engines over 4L. It's 15% on engines between 3 & 4 liters, so --unless some chucklehead is proposing an Escalade with a 2.9L engine (12% tax)-- the difference between, say; a 3.9L Escalade and a 6.2L Escalade is 5%. Boo frickety hoo. It's a luxury product, people; can't afford it, import a Trablant. As usual, the scary, dark displacement tax is nothing to agonize over. Many countries have moved away from displacement taxes to other metrics.

^ Shirley you don't think those price differences are solely due to displacement tax! Incorrect, it is still corporate average fuel economy. The Escalade is exempt, numerically. GM sold 10 million vehicles in 2015.

They're "not buying" German luxury sedans either. BTW- the Escalade is exempt from CAFE.

Mentioned it in December, but got to move it around in the lot/shop: '70 Catalina 2-dr hardtop. What a glorious boat.

A3 ~ overall length : 176" width : 71" weight : 3200-3600 HP : 185-220 MSRP : $32K ATS~ overall length : 183" width : 71" weight : 3400-3700 HP : 272-335 MSRP : $34K Cadillac ALREADY HAS a car in the same segment as the A3!! Otherwise Cadillac is playing a marketing shell game and wasting precious funds to build a car 3" shorter and $2000 less. NOW, if the idea is to make the NEXT GEN ATS a bit smaller & (MUCH) less powerful (and hopefully NOT FWD), that's another discussion (regardless of the fact it would be going backwards in perception). But it would cataclysmically stupid to bring out ANOTHER sedan alongside the ATS.

Yes- a 'final day' pic. A bunch have gone down this same driveway over the years. I should temper the comment on getting a Cat coupe; I already own a '64 GP myself. My buddy & I have been talking about what it would need to get driving again (it's a 56K mile original and has been in the garage all the while the Cat was outside).

Sent my old '64 Catalina down the road today. Going to donate it's power train & frame in the restoration of a '64 GP. She was a strong runner 20 years ago and I enjoyed the hell out of driving something that old then as a daily/only vehicle. Would like to pick up a clean Cat coupe in the future...

(hardtop suicide-door) sedan, my vote for the best butt on ANY car ever constructed, '55 Eldorado Brougham concept : (hardtop) coupe, '57 DeSoto Adventurer (exhaust ports should be open, tho): Wildcard, 1963 Chrysler Turbine: truck rear, '59 Elky :

I think I'm uncomfortable with Big Gov't being in such close collusion with Big Oil that they're obsessively addicted to getting their cut. - - - - - Let's take a hard look at the math, shall we? At this point we are really talking -budgetarily- less than a single penny. There were 115,000 EVs sold in the U.S. in 2015 (out of 17.3 million vehicles). 115,000 x 12,000 miles/yr = 1,380,000,000 miles driven. With 4.12 million miles of road in the U.S., that means all the 2015 EVs combined annual miles driven only covers 1 mile out of every 3 miles of road TOTAL. In other words, mark off a 3 mile stretch of a nearby highway. Run 1 Chevy Volt 1 mile down that 3-mile stretch 1 time in 1 year. That's your infrastructure wear from a 2015 EV in the U.S. If we can pick an equivalent MPG of 25, that means 55,200,000 gals of gas were NOT purchased. The federal gas tax is 18 cents per gal, or $10,156,800. That's a single modest 2-lane bridge replacement, if we're lucky. Fed took in $41 Billion in fuel tax in 2013. I am AMAZED Gov't even knows that penny is "missing". It's not because their project budgets/contracts are that stringently reviewed… it's just a 'new thing' Big Gov't can tax. That's their chief purpose- generating revenue streams (and protecting/augmenting them). That, and issuing 'reasons' they 'need' to justify yet another tax.

I'm not aware of any automotive laws that have retro-actively affected original equipment. IE: mandating GPD transmitters in vehicles that were built without them. Here in Jersey, I may never see an inspection station again- only checking emissions here, but not for diesels.

I started in a very entry-level position out of college with my one employer and by the time I left I was 1 notch below VP and running over half of the company's revenue & half the company's employees were reporting to me. In the process, I moved higher than people in the same department who were there longer than I. My wife has done the same, she'd transitioned thru numerous jobs & departments within her company over many years, always moving upward, and is officially a VP (tho there are many with that title). She has an excellent job in a huge financial company. This trajectory happens every day… but it takes dedication, value & hard work. Not everyone can bring that to the table, of course.

At some point, such 'tracking' will be hardwired into the car's system and uploaded after every operation. Going to start looking for a clean P-64, have it gone thru mechanically, equip it with a OD unit, 60 secs and the odometer is disconnected... and there it'll be; 'invisible' in plain sight. What about duallys - same weight as SRW trucks but 50% lower PSI on the road surface. And so it begins.

November 19, 1957 stock prices ~ General Motors : $35.70 Ford Motor Co : $42.60 Chrysler : $68.20 International Harvestor : $29.10 Studebaker-Packard : $3.70

But its not enough to just build these hybrids vehicles, you have to sell them. They've been on the U.S. market for many many years, including thru gas prices of well over $4 per, and they've yet to take off in any meaningful way. Introducing a hybrid is like introducing a convertible- people generally say 'that's good' right before they say 'but not for me'. And Tesla would never lower it's Model S to $45K- marketing/image problems aside, battery costs aren't that huge of a vehicle percentage and they're simply not going to see that huge of a cost drop, never mind what an OEM is wiling to pass on to the consumer.

Turbos are growing but were only 22% of the market last year, and that's after a half century since the first appearance. Hybrids have a LONG way to go to even equal that, never mind reach 50%. Probably a good 40 years to hit 50%, maybe 50.

OK, here's the opposite of what I said, let's see if it makes more sense : 'When state/federal programs run out of money, borrowing from other state/federal programs is a sound practice. It's a viable first course of action, above & beyond focus on curtailing project schedules and/or reducing expenditures." Doesn't sound smarter to me. Are these Gov't agencies… "too big to fail"?

Pulling from the general fund is only indicative of operating outside their means, nothing else. Get lean or get out. We've got to put the lid on spending somewhere & somehow.

This is, again, my beef with the narrative. States are not "losing money"; (in some cases) they're simply not making as much as they did earlier. But that's never the way it's worded, is it? Where is it written that peak revenue is guaranteed?

That's exactly where Gov't, as highly-compensated professionals/experts (supposedly- there are some amazingly stupid people on the public payroll), need to come up with the means to address this by every other available means BEFORE 'squeeze the public again' is automatically gone to. It is not supposed to be about 'protecting revenue streams' but protecting & serving the interests of the American citizen.