balthazar

lexus has absolutely no design direction. I can't find one square foot on the above SUV that I don't find design fault with.

E-class "ain't world class" compared to the S-class, either. But neither the E or the CT6 are going up against the s-class, are they. Is the CT6 being priced like an E-Class a compliment to Cadillac or detrimental in the luxury realm? That's the question I'm asking. And the answer is pretty clear. CT6 pricing reportedly ends where the s-class starts, which rules out a situation where they directly compete, either by manufacturer intent or consumer perception. THAT'S the answer I see... What answer do you see?

E-class "ain't world class" compared to the S-class, either. But neither the E or the CT6 are going up against the s-class, are they.

IMO, one of the more significant things toyota can claim is paying 150% of market value to thousands of tacoma owners for premature & catastrophic frame rot, then promptly crushing said buy-back Tacomas. An OEM buy-back & crush program is certainly very uncommon. And the 50% over market value, while of course a nice gesture for the inconvenienced owners, still smacks of a bit of something else, too. Well, Chevrolet has something similar way back in it's past, the 1923 Series M Copper-Cooled cars, but there only 100 units had gotten into private hands. 759 were built, almost all were destroyed : only 2 cars are known to survive today. The difference in the 2 scenarios seems obvious: by 1923, Chevrolet had only been in business for 12 years, and the Copper Cooled engine was uncharted technology. In circa 2012, toyota had been in business for 55 years, and there was no new engineering in a stamped steel frame. In fact, the same concept & practice RE frames was under the Copper-Cooled Chevrolet.

I know I could learn it, but it's not remotely interesting to me, esp with just about no rhyme or reason to it. I'm much happier knowing, instead, that a '65 Catalina 2-dr sedan is a '25211'.

I have honed 'cyber digging' to a decently keen edge, I must say. In another, off-topic subject, I have overturned numerous published sources on key facts. If you're interested, you can get pretty motivated. Just don't ask me to learn mercedes model codes (W212, etc etc)- I still haven't gotten a firm grasp on the published alphanumerics.

I think the base wheels actually appeal to me more than the Platnum jobs. Both are very well done.

The '81-83 Imperial thing is an interesting question. I went off digging into this and all '81-83 Imperials are VIN coded (2nd character) with 'A', which signifies the make (Imperial). 5th digit (model) is 'Y', again indicating Imperial. Chryslers are coded with 'C' (Plymouths were 'P' and, for some reason, Dodges were 'B'). It was legally an 'Imperial Imperial' rather than a 'Chrysler Imperial'.

But you were talking about ACCELERATION TIMES of the BASE MODEL, of which the S350 IN 2014 was, was it not? Isn't the '350' portion of the name the indicator there? Did you miss my repeated mention of the model year 2014? Such was the case for the S-class (0-60 time of 7.0 secs) less than 24 months ago. "Inexcusable" some MB fans would say (were they not abject apologists). Still not seeing how you could possibly excuse that, especially for someone all too quick to bring up past automotive examples AND defend Absolutely Everything mercedes does. 7.0 secs to 60 is, as you might volunteer- slower than a V6 camry.

Trying to get back into this project. Got a buddy of mine being point man on the electrical segment, which is a great help. Today we disassembled the taillights/bracketry and the 3rd stoplight, cleaned all the grounding surfaces, smeared a pinch of dielectric grease on them and buttoned them all back up. Ran continuity tests, fixed one grounding situation in one tail, and got both tail's running & brake lights, plus the 3rd brake light operational (off 6V lantern battery). Felt pretty good to see a flicker of 'life' from the beast. Rest of the wiring is a hot mess, good thing there's just not much to it.

So, how come it was OK last year to be that slow??

Considering the base MB S350 did 0-60 in 7.0 secs in 2014, I would agree that; yes- a upper 5 sec range for the base CT6 is a huge step up from that.

Model S - at a range rating of circa 265 miles - doesn't really suffer from range anxiety like those EVs that are good for only 40-50 miles.

CTS-V has no sales problem. Cadillac is not in a sales race with mercedes (tho the question of whether mercedes is in a sales race with toyota/Chevrolet remains on the table…)

The above is a very well put analogy, hyper. With EVs being at their (second) dawn, it remains to be seen how much is 'out there' as far as progress/ gains goes. But in the short term, I think you nailed it.

So clean :

Article says a lot of the same things I've been saying for a while now. Tesla isn't a Gov't department, it's a business, with investors. Without a profit, the company will fail… at some point. Loosing half a billion a year is not a sustainable scenario. Model 3 is the most important vehicle past, present or future @ Tesla (as I've also stated before). It alone will save or sink the company. I have a feeling Musk would have liked to also make it a high-priced car and coattail on the image the Model S has created & benefits from, but the Co. desperately needs economies of scale to eventually make a profit, thusly it's priced at 1/3rd the other 2 models. That's many many market tiers below where the S sits, and with a LOT more competition. So not only will the development costs be very formidable, so will marketing and a serious attention to quality/reliability. Add to that a possible introduction date up to 5 years from now (based on past track record), and the 'problem solver' comes with numerous problems of it's own. I like the S, I see them everyday whispering around. It's slinky, and even tho it's styling is not what many would say is 'leading edge', it has presence. However I think the X was a major misstep- it's priced too high and the falcon doors are both gimmicky and without benefit (how are the front passengers supposed to exit in the oft-portrayed uber-tight parking spaces??) I am very interested to see any released figures comparing pre-orders (if released) for the Model X vs. actual sales.

I have always admired your lightning strike capabilities.

^ IMO, that's COMPLETELY different than continually having your hands off the wheel. RE MB's rumored pricing : if 2 all-plastic headlight assemblies are "worth" $3000, AD had better be every bit of $15000, relatively speaking. Either that, or drop the headlight cost to what it should be: $200 each. I can tell you this- if it's priced the same as 2 headlights, I'm not going to start off feeling very confident in the system's engineering….

http://www.boredpanda.com/renaissance-mechanics-photo-portraits-freddy-fabris/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=BPFacebook

Just watched a vid of a Tesla 'self driving', IE: it steered itself and (after the driver flicked the lever), it executed a lane change- all on a major highway. My observation; the driver said he was 35 yrs old, and he was 'still checking his surroundings, making sure everything was going OK', and of course he was still stuck there sitting upright behind the wheel…. only now he had NO WHERE to place his hands. They fluttered in mid-air, briefly crossed on his chest, and repeatedly 'air grabbed' the wheel because seventeen years of driving conditioning had made it very hard to 'let go'. So I ask you all; of what benefit is this to the average driver? Are only the youngest of drivers going to be able to acclimate to 'hands-off' driving? And, perhaps more importantly; WHERE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PUT OUR HANDS?? I just do not see a considerable take rate for this feature, despite how the media is hyping it as Sliced Bread 2.0.