balthazar

'54-57 Cadillac Arlington Green, nice! :

The mid-60s Pontiac yellow seen above was Mayfair Maize - you can google just "mayfair maize" and see dozens of pics. I never cared for it, just seems washed out & bland to me. Also doesn't match the aggressive nature Pontiacs usually had then, IMO. The way GM ran in the heyday was the Divisions had their own names for the same colors. Check this chart to see an example. The except was Cadillac, which had it's own color palette. I believe there was a general color pool decided upon, and each Division took their choice. Most colors overlapped, but some were quite limited, in only 1 or 2 Divisions. Sunfire Red was only found on '64 Pontiacs & Buicks. Nice color, kinda an iridescent red :

A bunch of really nice greens in the last 10-15 years, after being just about non-existant for a long while before that. Seems they don't stick around long, unfortunately. Green is a vastly under-utilized hue. However; yellow, you can have. Strongly dislike almost all yellows.

'more performance' does not equate to '25 HP' : at that level it's impossible to discern the difference... so as a 'performance upgrade' it's rather pointless (except to Daimler, whom happily pockets the profit). Otherwise, it sounds like a boy racer kit. I would still prefer strengthening the 'V' brand with optional equipment, and fleshing out the VSport with a good intermediate power level, rather than effectively downgrading the V by making it 'less than top shelf'. The 'V' should continue to spread it's reputation & dominance.

What are the hardware upgrades on a black series over the stadard AMG?

Then why not slot something under the V, a 'sub-V'... maybe call it the VSport. I just think it muddies perception & clarity when packages are 'one-upped'. Frankly, without thinking about it, I wasn't sure where the 'black series' fit in the Daimler scheme, except that 'more names' generally means 'higher model'.

From the folks who bring you this :

FAR too busy, not getting any "sporty" impression, either. Color is nice, tho, reminds me of the circa 2000 Firebirds hue. The general state of auto design is really starting to concern me.

I would vote for retaining 'more serious hardware' under the 'V-series' - keep that at the top of the ladder & strengthen it.

I was going to suggest exactly what you did; I would not care to see Chevy Trucks & GMC combined.

They why the hell make all the 'merry X-mas'/ look what I have generously bestowed upon you with' fuss if it's a lot of nothing???? Make up your mind! ha. ha. Problem is not with GM or us, but auto design as an overall. You can hop up & down all day about a singular tweak to the same 3-element front end sketch all you want but others see the larger picture. Pull back some; the TV picture is mostly colored dots so close up. You may have a vested interest in whipping up the consumer market... others obviously do not. You're still too close to the TV. That's pretty surprising in & of itself. It was a nice, purposeful, evolutionary progression of the iconic design (as it should be), but "startling"? Perhaps it's merely your choice of wording that's askew here... GM hasn't left me behind; 3 GMs in the driveway today, next replacement is likely another in a string of many. Doesn't mean I am driven into a spasmatic fanboi frenzy with each & every bumper cover re-mold. Also doesn't mean each & every bumper cover re-mold is "moving forward", either. You really are an unhappy & intolerant person, aren't you? Anyone who disagrees with you is varying degrees of a. stupid, b. blind, c. stuck in another time period, d. stuck in an alternate reality, and/or e."holding GM back" Get over it; people WILL have different opinions than yours, and in a discussion of overall design, that's ALL we're dealing with here. Don't discount that it may be YOU who are 'holding GM back' in accepting whatever comes out the plant doors, meanwhile others may be looking farther down the road. IMO, unfortunately, that road is short & finite, but I am more than willing to be proven (happily) incorrect.

I can't remember the last time a revolutionary or even strongly polarizing design came out. OEMs really don't need to bother with camo on prototypes, the unveiling doesn't seem to reveal any surprises anymore. This week's Lambo reveal is a perfect example of this. I've said it before; we're at the 95th percentile of auto design.

I'm not getting anything "amazing" from those sketches. -- -- -- On another note, I wonder where cars are going to level out WRT overall height- will we get back (on average) to where we were in the 1950s, at 60" tall? The screen shot car looks to be on stilts. I was behind a new hyundai out on the road the other day, and rolling next to it was a circa '85 Olds Ciera. Amazing to me, but the hyundai looked like a solid 6" taller than the Olds (looked it up: it's 4"), wider, much less visibility and just heavier (it is of course; the lightest Ciera was 600 lbs less than a Sonata). The bulk of each new generation is neatly shadowing the bulk of people, size/weight-wise.

Weight & stress-wise it should be fine. But you need to insure there are no sharp metal edges against the strap anywhere. And it totally depends on how you orient it; too wide a 'U' under the tank & it may shift with the fuel sloshing, and weaken/break the front strap. This is a dicey temporary repair - you need someone who is really experienced here to analyze the scenario. In order for it to last a short while, until you can do a real structural repair, the tank can't move. I say all this obviously without seeing it. If a friend 5 minutes from me asked me this question, I would still say; I need to see it to say.

These cars have nothing to do with racing, besides; "no body remembers that"... but most can easily see how unimaginative/repetitious it looks now. Time for a new 'debut hue' - Daimler needs to shake things up some, since they aren't doing it with design.

Yea, larger displacements often work under relatively lighter loads, burning surprisingly less fuel. That 5.3 posts a nice power/MPG combo.

Wonder why it is daimler canNOT debut a new model in any other color than a drab, dull silver?

>""It's the only way to bring customers back to sedans"<< wha?? Sedans are 90% of the non-SUV market, globally speaking. What decade is this guy in?

reg's link says MB's ABA is 57! Isn't that Buick territory?

Good thing these have decent driving dynamics, because the rest of the package is tired tired tired.

The '25 Rolls Aero Coupe is a misnomer; the car was originally built as a convertible; it was completely rebodied by a coachbuilder in Belgium in 1934. So while it's bones are Rolls, it's really a customized car. It strikes me because if it WERE built by Rolls in '25, it would be well ahead of its time... and Rolls has NEVER been known to be a styling leader. As it is, (and it is striking, tho I hate the round Hobbit door), it's someone else's vision of a design that Rolls had nothing to do with, and it's 'merely' contemporary rather than leading edge. By rights, it should be called a '34. Always grooved on the Phantom Corsair. Thanks for the pics, dfelt- here's one more I think is worthy (the '69 prototype) :

I don't know for sure, but I would believe they could be used legally. They are not conceptually or operationally different that a regular trailer, just without the deck. And if a tow dolly is legal without brakes, why would these be different?

2013 MSRP: Equinox 2LT FWD : 27,740... 2LT AWD : 28,620. Difference : $880 - not a huge amount. Did a location inventory search to my zip : of 25 Equinox's, 10 were AWD, 15 were FWD. I don't see the above ATP numbers moving much.

Legacy Average Transaction Price : 23,3xx Equinox ATP : 24,8xx Outback ATP : 26,5xx I don't see where one here is "CHEAP!!" and another is "NOT CHEAP!!". Regal is a higher price class than Chevy / Subaru - doesn't apply here.

'62 Ford station wagon, full-size, dark blue w/ full woodgrain sides, excellent condition, parked by private home garage.