balthazar
-
Posts
40,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
583
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Garage
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by balthazar
-
I believe you will soon be schooled… that luxury sedan owners don't care to, nor are remotely interested in, drag racing.
-
Good point- and I agree. 'XT5' and 'CT6' I strongly dislike. Esp with 'Brougham' unused, in the wings. But don't gloss over the homogenization of the auto industry, where now 'X' for some dumb reason, means a car-based SUV. Hilarious. Again I ask; What's this ? 1868, FTW. There are others….. -
EQ S is pretty danged close to Equus. They could do better than that. I'd definitely like to see OEMs move away from dubbing the power trains as the model names. IE: changing the model name dependent on the engine. Which, that, they don't even follow.
-
The Trans Am was .32, the Firebird, at least the initial '82 with the 'bowling ball' wheels, was .29. Want to go back farther? The '48 Tucker was pegged at .27 (tho they rounded it off at .30), but the rear engine played a part there, not to mention the longer profile. - - - - - So in the same tunnel, the Volt is better than the Prius by .02. I think a lot of OEMs fudge their .cd numbers. How could anyone tell otherwise?
-
NPR story today; Atlanta wants to upgrade it's traffic signals. How old, you ask? Apparently, Atlanta has been suffering with signals last replaced in…. 1996. Who knew traffic signals were also subject to rapid technological obsolescence? The 'other shoe' to the story… and you know it was coming ~ The 'smart signals' are expected to cost $100,000 EACH.
-
The Bowtie brand doesn't self-proclaim it is 'the best or Nothing', does it? Where is the "Best" EV sedan? For a brand we hear spends "way more" than anyone else, my question stands; why not engineer a vehicle that simply can have either power train built into it? Because MB is certainly coming off here as an also-ran...
-
• Center tunnel has no impact on sedans, as none have center seating (front) anymore. Fill it with batteries. • Firewall is necessary for 1. crash standards, and 2. battery fires. It doesn't take up any room anyway. • There are no operating portions of an ICE in the dash boards of cars, therefore going to EP is not going to mean a smaller dashboard. And there is no "etc" in the things you mentioned above. Hybrids are getting passed by for the most part, it's not the leading edge anymore. Plug-ins are a compromise compared to where Tesla is dragging Mercedes, kicking & screaming.
-
• Escalade is not Cadillac's flagship. • There are no 'Chevy chassis's'. • Daimler is buying trucks from the same manufacturer whom they compete with (Infiniti). Besides, whose chassis would you rather have under your truck; nissan or General Motors? • I specifically said Daimler should engineer a platform than can accept either ICE or EP. Not or. It's of no significance that 'all 4 EVs share the same platform'- how is that "leading"? Engineer a configurable chassis, then offer full EP on the core vehicles, rather than blow thru billions to bring yet more alpha-nonsense sedans out. It's stupid… MB seems to believe the way BMW is doing it is stupid… yet they still won't commit to doing it the right way.
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
Without question; MB has been watching BMW's floundering with the "i" sub-brand, and they are hedging their bets by intentionally not 'cross-pollinating' the core lines with this EV experiment. Meanwhile, they will spend 10 times the money in development, testing, branding, advertising, etc… when instead they should pour those monies into developing a unilateral platform that readily accepts both ICE & EV powertr—— HE-EEEEYY! LOOK @ OUR NEW REBADGED NISSAN PICK 'EM UP TRUCK! IT'S THE MERCEDES OF NISSANS!
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
Well of course; they sell cargo vans right. next. to. the S-class.
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
MB should've developed & debuted new technology that propelled EVs forward, don't you think? Instead of conceding the luxury EV image to Tesla… and still no flagship EV from MB… but years in the future? Asleep at the switch, some might say.
- 49 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
I finished the first sentence & just KNEW the rest was utter drivel. The VERY next thing I did was type this. At times it feels like we haven't seen a single new auto journalist in like 25 years.
-
Creating separate, unique models is the wrong way to approach it. If automakers truly believe EVs are the way to go, they need to offer EV power trains in existing cars, to make their acceptance as smooth & seamless as possible. I4, V6, V8, EV in the same vehicles. The BMW i cars are flops; no surprise at all that they're halting expansion. Mercedes is very late to the game here; for the supposed 'future of the auto industry' - MB is going on 15 years behind Tesla. That's almost as long as MB was behind the invention of the modern auto.
-
• You said you were worried the Camaro was unaffordable to the youth, yet it is priced the same as it was 15 years ago. You were wrong there. • The 4-CYLINDER (not the V6) now has the acceleration of the V8 of 15 years ago; THAT'S were the performance has increased GREATLY. It is not "the same". Wrong again. The top engined Camaro is VASTLY faster than it's counterpart of '02. '02 Camaro V8 : 0-60 : 5.4, '17 Camaro V8 : 0-60 3.9. • The chassis built to handle it is on the showroom floor; you talk like it's not here now. • Chevrolet is focused on ALL models, hence the new 2.0T 4; if they were only 'focused' on the V8 there'd be no T4. • Camaro has plenty of volume to cover variants that will allow the 2.0T or equivalent model to remain in the lineup. Your worries are unfounded.
-
"11" does not mean all 11 are all in new segments…...
- 35 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- July 2016
- Mercedes-Benz
- (and 3 more)
-
^ Why did you not do that with the Camaro's 2002 $22K MSRP??? 2002 Camaro : $22,500. With inflation, to 2015 : $30,109. 2017 starting Camaro price : $26K. Let me anticipate you : you are going to say '2.0T vs. V8' but : '02 V6 : 200 HP (3323 lbs, 0-60 : 7.3 secs) '02 V8 : 335 HP )0-60 : 5.4 secs) '17 2.0T : 275 HP (3339 lbs, 0-60 : 5.4 secs)
-
Where did you come up with that one? They were not priced like "everyman's" car, that's for sure… unless you mean every man wanted one. They've long been just about in Cadillac price ranges. And the SL absolutely changed it's mission; it was a stripped down, utilitarian car with crappy build & engineering quality for decades (it also had a straight 6 in the '50s, 60s and 70s)… now it's priced tremendously higher and is a loaded up, blingy luxury car when it originally was a sports car. (The '76 SL was $20K, by '89 (13 years later) it was $64K…. but WHO CARES??) At least I understand that singular automotive models DO change over time.
-
• And the 4-cyl Camaro is….. TA-DA! a Camaro. Still gets these (handful) of "20 yr olds" into a Camaro, doesn't it? Or should the V8 still be $22K, the V6 $18K and the 4 $15K?? Camaro 2.0T, 6-spd, 275 HP/295 TRQ, 21/30 MPG, "excellent agility, ample grunt, not a stripper, still gets you many of the qualities that led C&D to name the more potent Camaro coupes to 10Best List for '16"", 0-60 : 5.4 (only 0.3 sec off the '16 V6)…. what's not to like?? "Gee, I got this brand new Camaro with close to 300 HP, I get 25 MPG, got great handling, looks…. bu-uuuuut a 14 year old Camaro cost $4000 less. $h!, I got screwed!" Yea; that's something no one has ever said. • Camaro is down in sales this year, but who cares?? Accountants for General Motors and dealerships. Who cares about them? Still on pace to sell around 75K- a excellent number for a car with such diversity of configurations. • And you yourself have often advocated for higher priced version if consumers want them/buy them. So if a $70K Camaro finds buyers, you're in favor of that, right?
-
• Camaro doesn't care where an old Camry was priced, it's a relevant as the price of bananas. Camaro is not being priced on a toyota boredom pod price timeline. • '17 Camaro starts at $26.3K, not 29K. That's a $4K increase…. in FIFTEEN YEARS. • Chevy will sell around 75K Camaros for '16- pretty great for a car that you are somehow worried no one can afford.
-
I will also note that she had a 5-spd manual in it. From the cars she listed, including early Beetles, I would assume she's been driving manuals for decades. IE; she's not new to it. Oh, and her circa '05 scion has like 130K on it. I did not enjoy the jerk & surge of being in a manual. The semi-frequent occasions where you have to downshift and wait for the revs to settle & the car move forward… where you lean slightly forward trying to 'will' the car to move forward…. is unsettling. IE; in 'power blasts' with a powerful car, they can be, of course, exhilarating. In a moderately-powered car, in traffic, no thanks.
-
Had an hour round-trip ride in a scion xd yesterday. Customer of mine. It was not as horrible as I expected. Me : "So why did you buy a Scion?" Her : "Because they're so reliable." Me : "Toyota's are the most recalled cars out there." Her : "This is a Scion." Me : "Same thing…" Her : "It's been really good for me. Oh, except I had the engine replaced." Me : "Did you say 'the engine'?" Her : "Yeah, it would not stop leaking oil." Me : "So much for being reliable." Her : "Yeah, I guess so." Nice woman, but that's a bit touched in the head, IMO.
-
SMK ~ • 20-yr olds don't buy cars, average buyer age is like 51. • The 'wallpaper paste' Corolla starts at $18130 with destination, no WAY a 'sporty' new Celica would start at $20K. The ATP overall for cars is $33K now. Your lense for cars & pricing is cracked. • Camaro starts right where the lowest possible point the Celica (which is not coming) could : $25,700.
-
BTW- the Ferrai 308 was utter garbage. Sure, it looked zippy, but it was slower than turtle piss. 16.7 in the quarter mile is no sports car.
-
1969 is less clear than one might think; Impala is a trim level of many on the full-size '69 Chevy. '69 Biscayne 2-dr I6 : $2687 '69 Impala 2-dr I6 : $2927 '69 Caprice V8 (only) : $3294 '69 Impala SS427 : $3349 '69 Camaro I6 : $2638 '69 Camaro RS/SS : $3118 '69 Camaro Z/28 : $3209 '69 Camaro ZL-1 : $7269 '69 Corvette : $4763 '69 Corvette ZL-1 : $7763 '69 Corvette coupe was 77% higher in price than the '69 Biscayne. '16 Corvette coupe is 104% higher in price than the '16 Impala. Considering there is a FORTY-SEVEN year span here, I see zero significance. Likewise, there is zero point to maintaining a set price gap over half a century! Frankly, that's STILL not a huge disparity between '69 & '16. MOAR ~ '69 Nova I4 : $2237 '69 Corvette ZL-1 : $7763 '69 Cadillac Calais 2-dr : $5484 '69 Fleetwood S60S : $7284 (excluding the Series 75 limos; not really consumer products) LOOK at the Chevy price swing! Look how it eclipses Cadillac! Which brand had higher prices & performance?? WILL THIS STUPID ARBITRARY GARBAGE PLEASE END NOW?
- 146 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- 2017
- 2017 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
- (and 4 more)
-
A Chevy cannot be priced outside of where Chevys are priced.
