balthazar

I believe the numbers I saw was the 3 would have to move at between $50-55K to break even/ turn a small profit. The $35K claim is already out the window, IMO

I dunno: Mustang GT350R runs $65K, does 0-60 in 3.9, 70-0 in 141 and hits 1.1Gs. Rumored to have matched the 911 GT3's lap times. That meets mu definition. So does this, BTW :

Engine cranks really slow (by design). I couldn't find a cranking speed spec, but I can tell you the 239 idles at 400 RPM.

Uh… no. - - - - - 1967 XP-837 Mimi 'Maro :

The first 15 seconds frames my auto 'heart' nicely; sculpted sheet metal, fins, special details, big motor, high performance, great great sound. Then thru 0:45 with the lights; just gorgeous.

Q2 numbers are out. Q1 Model S sales : 12,851. Q2 Model S sales : 12,420. Q1 Model X : 204 Q2 Model X : 2400. That's a to-date half-year sales total of 27,875. Adjusted sales pace for 2016 : 55,750. Musk stated he wanted to sell 90,000 in 2016. Not seeing the exponential 'sales growth' so far.

Like a Mustang GT?

I don't have a hard definition to answer that, but then again, I don't place a great deal of significance to the term. Pressed, I'd say 'Lamborghini / Ferrari', but I could just as easily say 'Hudson Italia'. Very amorphous term.

CORRECTION : I was not aware of the range in Range Rover MSRPs. The site I was looking at was convoluted, and I didn't see that the Sport & Evoque were that much lower. Frankly, I find the brand confusing & the appeal amorphous, but that's neither here nor there. But still, perhaps that's a excellent model for the G to emulate: a sub-brand with smaller/cheaper models in the same vein (after the mandatory full redesign, of course), leveraging the G-brand to higher sales. I doubt anyone who wants a SUV with the latest & modern amenities is cross-shopping the G and the GLS, so there shouldn't be much cannibalizing.

GLS is a soft roader, and it starts $23K below the base SWB Range Rover. It also has very little cred in this circle. Range Rover is the best comparison, and it arguably has better cred, to start because it's from THIS CENTURY. The LWB RR starts @ 108K, the $62K GLS isn't even in the same ballpark. G-wagon isn't an 'exotic', it's just a 'lunch box' the rich like to paint non-factory colors and change the rims on. It's like the brick wall the kids like to 'tag'. RangRove outsells the G nearly 9:1. MB has fallen too far behind to see from here.

We're going to again state the "appeal" is 300 units/month. With that firmly in mind, "who cares" if it gets changed/ vastly updated? IE; loose 300…. gain 2300 ??? (Range Rover/RR Sport monthly sales, MSRP starting @ $84K-$110K, depending on WB/powertrain).

RE depreciation / the link above :: G-wagon is down supposedly @ 8% after the first year. Interestingly, the Wrangler, mentioned often in this thread, is at 7%. Hmmm. Point being, and based on MSRP, the Wrangler costs the owner $2300 in depreciation after year 1. Where the G-wagon falls flat on it's nose is that it's MSRP starts where it does, and 8% here equals $9600 after year 1. Solidly over $10,000 based on the ATP, in 12 months. Whoops- You dint save $h!e, and your 'best', sucks.

Was on Edmunds, using the builder there. When I clicked on G550, it gave 3 exterior colors to then chose from. Clicked around some more, I did find a list of 15 colors BUT 8 of them are gray and black. Not bad, but not befitting the price- needs to be a LOT better.

OH NO you don't. Here 'we' only quote base MSRPs. G-wagon is a "$119K vehicle". i8 and R8 are sports cars and the Continental is no where NEAR the price of the g-wagon. Invalid. Just looked briefly at the g-wagon builder…. did everyone here know the 550 is only available in black, white or grey? Only 3 colors???? This is what I have been referring to- there's no choice!

• Then why update any of the cars?? Why not still sell the 1985 S-class, the one with the giant 'any color as long as its black' rubber bus steering wheel, with the horrendous pleather n plastic interior and 150 HP? • The reason G buyers buy the gas V8 is because THATS ALL THERE IS. You guys still aren't getting where I'm coming from; there could be MORE G buyers with MORE options. Right now there's NO options. And holding the Escalade up is invalid- you know that SUV has a myriad of problems.

No dingus; the concept vehicle from 2011 or so, the one I posted on the prior page. I wonder if the "all new" G is going to be just like the prior gen Silverado, where people stand off to one side and ponder if its any different. And how is it the current chassis, which is all V8s, can't handle a V6 or 4T?? This answer doesn't answer the question. People who buy the G aren't looking at the other melted plastic SUVs at MB. So why don't G shoppers get any choice on their vehicle, which is supposed to be the (SUV) flagship?? It's the oldest, least techy, least modern and most restricted SUV in the catalog. Pretty piss poor flagship. From the camo shots, looks like they are still being denied entry to the 21st century.

I wonder if it's really going to keep those same, clunky, non-integrated, U.S. Mail-jeep turn indicators, plopped on the top of the fenders with thick exposed rubber gaskets. Or, are those one of the features the SO SO MANY buyers don't want to change? WHERE'S THE CONCEPT VEHICLE???

Off road capability is pointless- they don't get taken off road. But those other SUVs aren't the G and don't command it's prices. Undoubtedly there are those who prefer/like the G and don't care for the overwrought plastic-ness of the others, but don't want to stop @ every other gas station on the way to Starbucks (not the the other MB SUVs are great on mileage, either, but they're better). I know smk would support this, it's a way to BOOST SALES and INCREASE REVENUE, the mercedes brand's sole purpose as a marketer. It's no different than bemoaning there aren't higher trims on the Escalade that can bring in more money/sales. Either this line of thinking is legitimate, or it's not/unproven. I'm just trying to talk these scenarios out…

Agreed- it can't take more than $20K to build the G, EVERYTHING has been paid for developmentally decades ago. It's just material costs. Like I said; I'd guess that at $100K, $75K is profit. What's surprising is, as money-grubbing as Daimler is, they ignore the G completely. It's like 20 years overdue for replacement… not sure 'better late than never' still works in this scenario... Read my posts; I'm not saying pitch to those buyers, but the buyers they turn away because : 13 MPG.

HP cannot be "irrelevant' because it constantly gets quoted in even this thread, as vastly significant.

Bugatti Veyron MSRP is 1.7 million. - - - - - I dunno; I thought that was easily as relevant….

HAPPY 4TH!….. but not for the COE. Did a pre-flight check; shortened the throttle return spring, connected the fuel pump wire, connected the battery…. crossed fingers and threw the ignition toggle. The electric 6-volt fuel pump hummed, the clear plastic fuel filter filled with fuel, then the carb got misty inside… so the fuel system is operational. After retightening a clamp on the in line fuel filter; no fuel system leaks. Cranked the motor… but all it wanted to do is crank. Pulled a plug to ground it to the motor- no spark. Power goes from battery, thru ignition switch, thru a ceramic ignition resister (continuity checked fine) and into the coil. Suspecting the coil may be the issue. It's a 'Ford' script coil, I didn't replace it, of course you can't open them, and I don't have any sort of coil testing equipment (if there are such things)… so hopefully that's the culprit. Off to do internet research….

I'm just taking a similar trac WRT MB as you do WRT Cadillac, so you can see how it comes off. Because, you know, that filter is seeming broken. Besides, you are doing the VERY SAME THING; you constantly trumpet MB sales records & rates, yet you're excusing the lousy sales of the g-wagoon. Odd.

But Jeep sold 225,000 Wranglers last year. Fact is, g-wagoon doesn't sell, the numbers are terrible. Daimler makes like $75,000 profit on each one, but they are wasting the potential to vastly increase sales by limiting the trims, by having laughably-outdated construction/ dated hardware, and not offering hybrid, plug-in and non-13 MPG variants. There are potential 'fans' out there that don't buy it because it's such a one-trick dinosaur. Daimler could sell 1000/mnth in the U.S. if they made it more appealing to more people. And, you know, blow up the assembly plant and build something new. This is going on 5 years old already :

It doesn't (usually) matter if a Buick & Cadillac model in the same segment are somewhat close in price- they're 2 distinct brands.