balthazar

60/70s, whatever. G-wagon, with it's VW Thing-esque era of construction, is certainly rooted in the '60s mindset of 4WD vehicles; external hinges, the lights screwed to the fenders, exposed fasteners, it's 35 years overdue for a complete clean-sheet re-engineering. It's the German Jeep Wrangler.

And the Compass and the Renegade… but again; this may just be 'walking around' perception (OK, I KNOW the Renegade is teeny).

We still have a far better, FAR newer GLS at a cheaper price- why not build the GLS at a higher price point and eliminate the embarrassment & anachronism the G is in the catalog? Because "and then what?" - - - - - - U see the point, right?? The Escalade can co-exist even with an Omega-based SUV, at a higher price point, and remain unique, just as the G & GLS co-exist. Different appeals to different buyers. That's 'what'.

I did say I "believed" it was a mid-size but I see overall length is only 176"- that is pretty small. Doesn't seem it in person, must be the height. So; my (unintentional) mis-lead… but we've already established I'm nuts. Now, what sort of maladies should I keep in mind with this? It's a 1 owner, clean car fax, regular service, extremely clean condition 53K miles. 3.7 V6, 4-spd auto.

Nobody got it, so no one wins the free tank of fuel. Here 'tis, 2011 Liberty :

It's newer than 2005... I spent more than I had stated I wanted to, but that's a given in car shopping, IMO.

g-wagon does NOT 'sell'; 200 units a month is a drop in Mercedee's bucket. It's "hand built" because it's ancient construction method won't work with modern assembly robots. Also probably cheaper to hand-assemble it rather than dedicate an assembly line to a few hundred cars/month. But the fact remains; the GLS is 50 years newer, far better and cheaper,

Again; I understand that's been the terminology, but you see my point WRT the Impala wagon and a Traverse? If there was a tangible reason to change the terminology, I would crawl back under the stairs and zip it. I'll go one further; I'd be on board with calling a station wagon with those 3rd row, rearward-facing jump seats (IE: a '76 Buick Estate Wagon) a "5-door", because PEOPLE go thru DOORS. Otherwise, a trunk lid is a door too, and accepting that could signal The End of Times. I'm done now. - - - - - Exterior is white. And no; Balthy would never go japanese. 2 questions left...

Ask yourself this, Moltie :: what has functionally changed with the vehicle itself when -for example- a 1980 Impala station wagon was a '4-dr wagon' but a Traverse is a '5-door'? Once you eliminate the impossible that there's no functional or usage difference, whatever remains, no matter how improbable much the status quo, must be the truth marketing."

Actually, 5dr is the standard designation for 4dr hatchbacks, has been for 3-4 decades. We live with 'standard designations' that call a mercedes s-class a "full-size" when it is the same overall length as a Plymouth Volare. We also live with dimensions (sanctioned perhaps by the Environmental Protection Agency?) that categorize front hip room with a measurement that completely ignores the inevitable center console everything on wheels has now, when the same given vehicle withOUT a console got the same exact full-width numbers. I'm aware of these things, but it doesn't make them technically correct. If you really subscribe to the theorem that a passenger or driver is going to enter a -say- Ford Explorer thru the rear lift gate, where they are not legally allowable to ride there, THEN climb over TWO rows of setbacks to get behind the wheel…. you are making your overlord masters VERY happy.

smk4565 ~>>Well Cadillac is getting a sub ATS sedan and 2 crossovers below $39k, so unless they are $34k and $37k (unlikely), one of them will have to be priced under ATS.<< I've not yet read any pricing info, but at this point it's all conjecture. Like most people, I feel starting pricing is pretty much immaterial. It's the SIZE that I'm concerned with; Cadillac should never build something smaller than the current ATS. smk4565 ~>>I think Cadillac is afraid to build an Omega crossover…<< It might be called 'product planning' rather than "fear". smk4565 ~>>...because it would be better than the Escalade, and then what?<< Who says, where & why? And then; nothing. smk4565 ~>>If they call it XT9, you can't have Escalade sitting in the middle of an XT naming system, and if they make it better than Escalade and cheaper than Escalade, you don't need an Escalade anymore. So it becomes a bit of a catch 22.<< It's a "catch 22" like the GLS is better & cheaper than the horrible g-wagon, or maybe it's not a catch 22 in even the remotest sense. smk4565 ~>>I think there is a think at GM that the Escalade is the top SUV, therefore every other Cadillac SUV gets dumbed down on a Chevy chassis.<< There are no "Chevy" chassis's, especially in the truck segment; haven't been for decades. smk4565 ~>>Just like how for the past 30-40 years the Corvette had to have the horsepower and performance of any GM car.<< Except the handful of times when it didn't. smk4565 ~>>When Cadillac should have a sports car above Corvette. But Cadillac won't get a sports car better than the Corvette, because GM top brass won't want the Corvette to look bad.<< That's just about impossible, with the Corvette making ferraris and numerous other so-called 'supercars' look bad as it is.

A grand Cherokee is a 4-dr with a lift gate; passengers don't enter the vehicle thru hatches/lift gates, therefore they are NOT 'doors'. I mean, I could enter a sedan thru the trunk & climb thru the fold-down rear seat, but that doesn't make the trunk a 'door' either. Sorry, I refuse to succumb to this 'it's got moar!' marketing effort. 1 question per post, please! My official judgement is I've answered 8 questions, that leaves 3 more available in "11 Questions". Almost there!

^ Escalade already is $70-100K. But it's going to move up in price in the near future, just like every vehicle moves up in price. There is no demonstrable reason to move the E to a unibody. And a fat 'NO!' to a sub-ATS anything at Cadillac. Please.

>>GMT-360<< Nope >>Explorer/Mariner<< Nope >>Jeep Grand Cherokee... 2nd generation between years 2002-2004<< Nope >>soccer mom stigma<< Nope >>tough?<< :shrug: >>I can't see Balthy going w/ a Mopar<< ​I've owned 2 MoPars out of my 23 vehicles, and there's defiantly some vintage ones I would LOVE to own...

I've spoken to David temple numerous times, we've worked out some concept detective work together (I maintain my own XP/SO car list). His Motorama book is excellent. The above link is pretty much what's in said book, but clearly he states at least 2 Corvairs were built, and the red one was seen by 2 witnesses in the late '70s, then it disappeared. It, at least, seems to have a chance of still surviving. But yes; apparently 2 repros have been built, which means the one I posted is one of the repros. Very nice, either way!

Found a series of 5 pics, all obviously recently taken, but no info. Repro or original?? Owner stated it 'took 8 years to get it like it is today' - still unclear if that means restoration or fabrication…. but I believe I heard not too long ago that the Corvette Corvair had been found. Same owner also owns the 9th '53 Corvette, which has a GM Shop Order # and featured 4 large diagonal gills on the front fender… but on one side only. Unrestored in pic.

V6

RWD / 4WD I believe this would be considered mid-sized. Like you have anywhere to go on a Saturday night. SUV

C'mon : 11 Questions : you have to ask questions answerable only by 'yes' or 'no' & try to deduce the vehicle. Start over!

• • • SEARCH IS OVER, PAPERS SIGNED! • • • Perhaps we might play '20 questions' to see if you guys can ID it. Let's make it 11 questions tho.

"FAIR" ??? How so? Big Gov't is automatically entitled to revenue streams….. why again??

Nobody in the U.S> buys the g-wagon, it's a niche within a niche, sales-wise. A non-player. Mostly because; not the pricing... but the fact that you can't just stick fat tires on a 1960's SUV and expect it to sell.

Also making sure I got it right : "BMWM760IXDRIVE". That is some naming convention!

All the dismissive commentary about 'people who buy this class of car aren't going to the track' jumps readily to mind, esp in ight of the fact there has never been an 'M7' before... OR….. are the Germans watching Cadillac a bit closer than perhaps the'd like us to believe?

A 2-yr old vehicle isn't "old"- this is not a 'piece of mind' regarding mechanicals/reliability; it's vanity. He's entitled to his reasoning, just call it what it is.