balthazar
In Hibernation
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by balthazar
-
No; this is not an accident scene. Out in san francisco, apparently it is Great Late Night Fun for 8 hooded guys to wander around & tip smart cars over. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suspects-Flip-Over-Smart-Cars-in-San-Francisco-254177981.html
-
They are the anti-mercedes (except for the grille); tiny & utterly generic. '70 Ford Torino 4-dr sedan, pea green, unrestored, rolling, 'TORINO' vanity plate. '66 Pontiac LeMans 2-dr sedan, minty green, Rallye IIs, fresh, rolling. '65 Pontiac LeMans 2-dr hardtop, another shade of minty green, sitting alongside tract house, missing one front fender but otherwise clean. '65 Chevy Biscayne 2-dr sedan, burgandy, sitting on other side of the same tract house, a bit rough.
-
Cadillac isn't marketing to the so-called "traditional Caddy buyer" anymore. XTS flirts with this, but it's still a ways off of "tradition" on numerous fronts. ATS is outselling the CLA so far this year, but its a better car overall. Cadillac is not here to 'pump up the volume'- that's mercedees's mission.
-
'67 Malibu 2-dr hardtop for sale, pale blue, some surface rust, primer, 350/4-spd, daily driver for sale @ 9500. '66 Malibu 2-dr hardtop, black with monster cowl hood, parked for sale.
-
'66 Cadillac Fleetwood S60S, white, very clean, parked :
-
^ S-class sells below MSRP on average, with up to $30K worth of options added to that MSRP number. Daimler could peg the MSRP at $180K base- doesn't mean anyone is willing to pay that... and they're not. mercedes has to put up around $15,000 incentives to move s-classes, and one can only wonder what the real story is AFA fleet sales cutting into profits. In order to make that kind of claimed profit on the ATPs it's moving @ in general, the car must be much cheaper to build than most folk believe (gee; really??) The 'billion $ profit/yr' claim is highly suspect. MSRP on a 2013 S350 with NO options is 93905. cars.com shows a brand new one online, FL dealer, asking $80900. Where MB is making profit is on the versions they jack up to $200K or thereabouts- the profit there HAS to be $125K all by itself.
-
^ Far too much is labeled 'curves' when in fact it's much closer to swathes of fat. Just saw some nonsense Yahoo story where they ran a pic of serena williams and claimed she had a 'hot, toned physique' and a 'overall athletic build, {with} washboard abs'... but the google pics didn't show me any off that list of adjectives.
-
Haven't seen anything in months, finally today; down a dead-end street; a heavily patina'd '49 Cadillac sedan moldering in front of the detached garage.
-
-
• Of course there's "doubt" the names need to change- changing names is what GM does bestest... but seldom the 'wisest'. • 'CTS' has only been defined as denoting 'xxSedan' by extension of other, earlier models. It has never been marketed that way. We're going on 12 years with the CTS now, it's simply "C T S", everyone should be on-page with it... about 11.5 years ago at this point. • I ABHOR naming system's dumbed down to grade school levels. '1,2,3,4,5,6,7' has got to be the most moronic, "instantly understandable" system in auto history. Blech, and who asked? And taking the Exact Same Vehicle and changing its name for every engine fitment is likewise "confusing". • 'Not copying mercedes' - too late. That's already an inaccurate, non-linear and "non-logical" system, and here we're being told Cadillac needs to get away from being that. Which is it? And if you are looking to point out confusing, go straight to mercedes. The weakness there is epic. Jumbling 'S', 'C' and 'W' into the 'CTx' mix is even more confusing. Name the model, build various styles and call them the same name. "The Cadillac CTS, available in Sport Sedan, Sport Coupe, convertible and Sport Wagon."
-
People who claim they're "looking out for you" when all they really are is an inflexible, self-centered prick.
-
-
I know of an unusual rail arrangement in NYState where the freights used to have trouble going uphill, and IIRC that grade was 1.x%, to the point they dug a 1 mile tunnel thru solid rock and ran another ROW to bypass it. OK, so "3-deg" is way steep for rail. Pretty interesting engineering requirement when you think of cross country lines.
-
I never quite understood the whole franchise thing. Theoretically, it's supposed to prevent 'price fixing' or the like, but why -for EX- WallieMart doesn't face the same restrictions; IDK. I realize this was put in place eons ago- anyone ever hear -beyond this Tesla issue- any talk about abolishing it?
-
Regular trains -and I'm sure DD can back this up- usually keep grades below 3-deg. Makes sense- not much traction with steel-on-steel. Only other railed vehicles that exceed this are inclined trains, which are pulled by cables. I see online one in TN runs a 72-deg plane. I have considered this before driving some steep roads; on some hills you would swear the incline is 45 deg or thereabouts, but that's extremely steep to navigate. Again with the Talledega pic: looks like they have redundant equipment to hold the paver at 33-deg, this for something with a very low CoG & that often has tracks. But other than daredevils, no one would want to attempt going either up or down 45-deg with their car. But check out your suspects.
-
-
Sorry to be so literal, dfelt, but there isn't a public paved road in the U.S. anywhere near a 45-deg incline. See this... ...that's Talledega Speedway, and those are 33-deg banked turns. Steepest public street in the U.S. is claimed by Canton St in Pittsburgh, at 20-degrees. But I would think aside from living on one of these, there is always another route one could take. I just don't think it's realistic to expect zero hardships, having a RWD Camaro, in a northern clime, in a hilly locale. Sometimes; you can't have it all.
-
I guess thE camaro, RE tire width and power level, would be notably worse in the snow, because I got around fine for 12 years in a RWD pickup with no snow tires or TC. At least I assume it must be, or people just like to complain. Not sure which. Related to that, i certainly would not care to see the mission of a car like the Camaro ruined via compromise. Here, I'm talking about the rear seat. Need to transport 4 people regularly? Sorry, the Camaro is not the car for you. Otherwise, next up is a 4-dr Corvette for the same complaint.
-
This past winter is likely to convert a number of consumers, yes; the same way a number dumped SUVs when gas shot up. The trend passes pretty quickly, tho. I don't think NY/PA/NJ/DE would see a lot of AWD Camaro takers. Farther north, I wonder how well the Camaro or any other same-segment performance coupe sells as is. That said, like I said; it's a good idea for the option to be available.
-
-
-
Seems like some interesting points to weld together different property steels. Around the rear door latches & the roof rail, for EX.
-
Distinction & uniqueness in design is deserving of continuation. Current Camaro looks awesome still, to dump that and go with a generic pod and just glue the 'Camaro' nameplates on it is ridiculously stupid. In contrast, some cars out there recycle the same old elements for decades and everyone praises the "iconic look". Evolutionary is the way to go with the Camaro. I agree that weight is a small concern, tho in truth- the '67-69s weren't much lighter. Quoted weight of the '69 V8s was 3050, but my brother has an all-steel '68 Firebird (400), and with zero options and a few components removed he couldn't get his car below 3200 on the scale, and he was pursuing weigh loss for drag racing. And to be frank, I see a strong parallel with some luxury sedans; they perform very well even tho they weigh 4800 lbs or more. Camaro is no slug nor a slushbucket on the track. If we were all told it weighed 3300 and performed like it does, all would be well.
-
-
That's it. Click on the pic for the full-size image. Actually, it's coachbuilt, not from the regular catalog, but it's still pretty neat.
