balthazar

“And it’s not aluminum. It’s a stronger, smarter, safer premium luxury vehicle.”

Brake & Equipment Warehouse in Minn, they did my fronts in '05. Then, it was $40/WC, now it's up to $75/per. Sigh. Still; a vocal resto service called White Post Restorations, which advertised a bunch in vintage circles, charged $140 in '05.

Rear is looking much better, still have to bore brush the axle tubes out : (Very) mild upgrade on the running board : Took one RR wheel cylinder apart - it was frozen. Took repeated hosing downs with penetrant (Aero-Kroil; the absolute BEST) and some pounding with a hammer/punch. I'm not quite sure exactly how that entire pile of sand/dirt got inside the dust boots (which were in excellent shape) : The pistons are reusable (one on the left is cleaned up above, did the right one after the pic), and the spring & internal seals are fine. They must've been rebuilt by the previous owner, but I think at least this side RR wheels were in the mud or something & shipped water/dirt inside. The cylinder itself I'm going to have to send out & get sleeved with SS; these are not repro'd and even rebuild kits seems to be nonexistent.

S-class has gotten extremely bloated & heavy, it needs a instant crash diet. No doubt MB will follow Cadillac here & finally address it's weight issues. Of course, "buyers aren't going to wait a few years for a high end sedan that doesn't weigh 3 tons'. If the 'CT6' {shudder} comes in around 3900, that's going to be felt on the road immediately. ATS is far closer (tho still lighter) that most of the rest of it's segment, and the road test reviews favor it's roadability because of it.

No one buys the CLS or gran coupe- it's pointless to compete with flops. And as rebadged sedan versions of existing sedans, there's too much overlap. 2014 MB CLAh, FWD ~ overall length: 182", MSRP: $31,605 2014 Cadillac ATS, RWD ~ overall length: 182", MSRP: $33,065 What in the World are you talking about ??? Are you suggesting another sedan, the same exact size, except FWD in order to "be in the market" ??? Or perhaps Cadillac needs to drop the price a few hundred, give it a cheap chassis & interior, and you'll sing the ATS's praise. Fact of the matter is; Cadillac was out first in this segment, with a better product getting much better reviews, and MB -instead of building the car they should of in the first place- is instead diverting funds to even cheaper, MORE downmarket models. I've never seen a more robust 'toyotafication' of a brand. First in what segment, the ATS was supposed to compete with the C-class, A4 and 3-series. The SRX is supposed to compete with the RX350 and Lincoln MKX, but now Lincoln and Lexus both have a compact SUV, so Cadillac needs a crossover that is smaller and cheaper than the SRX and they need something between the SRX and Escalade. Cadillac needs an entry level SUV more than a sedan, the GLA, X1, Q3, MKC, Lexus NX, etc, that is a quickly growing segment. Perhaps instead of a sedan below the ATS they can put a hot hatch which would appeal to euro minded buyers, without just being another sedan in the line up. Again- there's too much overlap here also- the c-class & CLA class are the exact same size (CLA is actually longer due to the ponderous FWD overhang), and the prices are too close with a LOT of overlap. Makes no sense. And with the CLA @ $31K to start, its closer to the ATS's segment than the c-class is- they're automatically cross-shopped (by those who don't put the badge as reason numbers 1-10 on their list). But suggesting bringing out the same size car, seemingly as a ill-handling FWD cheap sedan, is about the worst course of action Cadillac could take. Any sub-ATS car (shudder) should be much more unique, say; like the ULC concept. Cadillac needs a much more targeted approach than just 'produce anything we can think of and see what sells'.

2014 MB CLAh, FWD ~ overall length: 182", MSRP: $31,605 2014 Cadillac ATS, RWD ~ overall length: 182", MSRP: $33,065 What in the World are you talking about ??? Are you suggesting another sedan, the same exact size, except FWD in order to "be in the market" ??? Or perhaps Cadillac needs to drop the price a few hundred, give it a cheap chassis & interior, and you'll sing the ATS's praise. Fact of the matter is; Cadillac was out first in this segment, with a better product getting much better reviews, and MB -instead of building the car they should of in the first place- is instead diverting funds to even cheaper, MORE downmarket models. I've never seen a more robust 'toyotafication' of a brand.

Sometimes a new idea/name gells immediately. Sometimes…. it takes time. So when exactly am I going to STOP cringing when I read 'CT6'?

'48 Caddy Series 61 Sedanette, nice shape, black, rollin'.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything. No offense taken. Problem is Seville, for example, started out as smaller than the others alternative to imports, then 20 years later it was renamed SLS/STS, then CTS is supposed to be the entry-level model with the STS on top of the line, then all of a sudden an ATS comes by and the CTS takes the place of the old STS... It's been a mess... OK, but you ARE talking about a nearly a 40 year span of a model name there; I love the consistency of long-running model names but I don't feel such must also remain static to both the rest of the portfolio and it's competition. I can't agree in calling that 40-yr name history "a mess". Agreed. Well they did to a degree, having at various times; Series 61, Series 62, Series 63 (deVille), Series 64 (Eldorado)…. but LaSalle was a separate division and the top line (Series 75 aside) was the Series 60 Special…. yet SOMEHOW!!! people didn't assume it meant a sort of 'entry level' line; imagine that. Logical, yet not completely. THAT'S EXACTLY where I would like to see Cadillac go: ATS, CTS, Escalade, Fleetwood… a mixture of both systems, because Cadillac shouldn't have to stoop to the 'our customers are morons' level of a naming 'system' when there are positives to BOTH systems as exampled above.

I wonder if whatever weight savings via the vehicle will just be offset by increasing the cargo weight/load. Of course, wouldn't be a factor on empty 'return' trips.

Whatever MB claims the 'S' stands for is irrelevant / not understood outside of Germany, as we're frequently preached to regarding using -for example- 'Fleetwood' outside of predominately English-speaking countries. It has never been marketed with it's letter 'defined' outside of Germany, furthering the case that most people associate no meaning to it whatsoever.

Here I agree with you also, none of the other 'systems' is either 'logical' or enticing. Still, one can split hairs within the alpha-numeric world, and 'CT6' is so disappointing. I know, and I've said it before; product is the Prime Directive and the name is of fleeting consequence, if any, but so many eyes are going to be on this car with such high expectations, you want even the opening shot to be a direct hit.

Sounds excellent, now they need to get a quality person heading the Division, and I'm getting very little impression the current head is it.

No offense, but bull$h!. This is commonly touted as "necessary", yet it has never been show to be factual in automotive history. Oh sure, some will point to well-off brands and say 'it works for them', but that's not in anyway 'proof' of anything.

'Mercedes-AMG'… does this mean they are dropping 'Benz'? Or is it 'Mercedes-Benz-AMG'? 'Mercedesamg'? Seems name juggling is spreading like malaria. Looking forward to the proposed new emblem that looks a whole lot less like a sink drain, too. Guess fog lights are optional at the C/AMG level . . .

From the numerous commentary I've read on this, and I would tend to agree it's probably correct; NYC is a much more global city, at least perceptually. This is all fine & well, but a Divisional Engineering department & budget is far more significant. 'Cadillac Engineering' was touted in press releases a number of years ago, but I never got a firm idea of the structure of such- anyone know and details?

'CT6' is awful, IMO, just awful. I can actually get behind (not that it's my first choice of a tactic) 'CTS', but combining letters & numbers together into a 'name' is the farthest leap to attempt when they mean nothing. And if that wasn't bad enough in my opinion, setting up a brand to have a 'cookie cutter' naming scheme is the absolute barrel bottom. 'A1, A2, A3' is a pre-school mentality when were talking about an average 50-yr old, 2nd largest purchase in one's life product. All it says is --NOT that it's promoting 'brand awareness; God; I am so sick of that false premise-- but our customers are complete morons who can't figure anything out about what they've decided to purchase. There is still time to change final details, GM has happily done this on some recent occasions. We're far enough out on a reveal that this very early name release could just be a 'water tester'. I vehemently hope a heritage name from Cadillac's history is used instead; we're being led to believe this is an extremely important vehicle, it needs a stand-along nameplate to go along with the presentation. 'Fleetwood' would be outstanding.

They say everything is cyclical. This is excellent news- Cadillac was pretty autonomous up thru the 1970s, if the new GM gives Cadillac it's head' and own engineering, we could be looking at the groundwork for a true renaissance.

To your common point WRT Cadillac tho- all the models/bodystyles were NOT available at launch with the '14 s-class. We're waiting 2 model years now for the hybrid to come back - an engine that was already offered in the s-class in '13. There's only been 1 body style for the s-class until just this minute, too; where is the s-class convertible? How is this 'sloppy, failure-ridden approach' OK for MB again??

s-class is nearly 5000 lbs (4600+), no competitor "needs" to be 3995 lbs. The tech required at this level precludes this. Hm-mmm….. wasn't the s-class --when it was reskinned for 2014-- missing BOTH the hybrid AND the diesel? You have to go back to 2013 to find the S300 (350), and it was rated at only 240 HP. I don't get the whole 'shining car on the hill' mentality WRT the s; it's unwarranted. -- -- -- Here's the bottom line for how you break into a segment. The self-proclaimed leader of the segment, the s-class, offers you this generic cup of vanilla : Cadillac has already shown designs as striking as this : If they can bring 7/10ths of the above to the showroom, that's a sharp elbow into the segment, without any of the pressures to move thousands per months to boot.

In that I need to pull the other rear axle shaft, I want to have 2 tires on the ground up front for piece of mind (driver's side was up on a jack stand) …. so I finished off the 2nd front brake today: reused the races (which were excellent), but new grease seal & new bearings. All greased up & reassembled, it's really nice to see the front wheel spin (move at all!) smoothly & silently. Also attached a replacement driver's side step plate. Back to working on cleaning out the rear & pulling the other rear wheel.

'57 Chevy Bel Air 2-dr sedan, white over turquoise, minty, Cragers, rollin. '34 Ford 3-window coupe, likely fiberglass, copper, minty, rollin. I usually see the 'fail hurrah' drives in the month of Sept, before car guys tuck their hot rods into the garage for the winter.

I've driven a 3-spd, 3-spd on the column, a 4-spd and a 5-spd, but it's been over 15 years since I've been 'sticking it'. Without putting my skill to the test, I'd say I very well may have 'lost it'. I prefer an automatic, anyway. But if I'm going to drive my truck this fall, I'm going to need to require the skill cold, esp with a non-synchro 4-spd.

MB is building their own image problem right now; the self-proclaimed best / like no other is flooding the market with a cheap econo-box FWD appliance at a sub-average MSRP, instantly beginning to tarnish their rep in exchange for money… then they lifted the nose from said cheap compact and put it right on the new s-class. One of the quickest about-faces in recent memory. I don't think anyone who can justify overpaying what they do for an s-class is going to have their ego stroked when SNAP-recipients are pulling up in a new CLAh right next to their s-class @ WalMart.

Rear 15-in drum after cleaning it up. Pretty sure this is an original drum, not bad for being 74-yrs old: Some real filth inside the pumpkin, plenty of fluffy rust dust and an inch & a half of sludge at the bottom. Physically everything is fine at this point (operational evaluation is down the road), but it needs a ferocious cleaning: Strikes me funny: You often hear 'bench racers' comparing specs, performance RWD folk talk about getting a 12-bolt to replace their 10-bolt, or having a Ford 9-in. 'Bolt' terminology refers to the number of RING GEAR bolts, not the rear cover bolt count. Yes, there is such a thing as a 12 bolt cover with a 10-bolt ring gear. The strongest automotive RWD rear you can install is a Dana 60- that's a 12-bolt, 9.75" gear. Beefy. My COE's Eaton rear is Model 13800, rated for 13000 lb duty. The cover is 12-bolts, the ring gear is 13-in, everything inside is safety-wired…. but it's a "SIX BOLT" rear. That, folks, is funny stuff.