balthazar

Looked over a '67 Buick Skylark 4-dr hardtop, but the car was rusted, rotted & loaded with Bondo. 'Custom' green & lime paint, black interior, factory A/C, SBB V8. If it was your dream car and you could get it for less than $500, you'd have a crapload of work to do.

By your own emphatic definition, it is impossible for the CTS & XTS to appeal to the same consumer, as one is FWD & the other RWD (when either is not AWD).

^ An excellent point. However, the rear treatments on MOST cars are rather bland. mercedees, BMW, audi; Snorefests, all series. Yes, I am thinking of the tailfin era, where both ends had the hardware to delight & entertain. Not that I expect tailfins (real tailfins) to return... but a return to a similar effort of styling would be nice. I'm just not sure there's much that can be done.

'66 Olds Cutlass 2-dr hardtop, completely stripped into a race car- exterior sheet metal (but not the hood or decklid) and the dash were the only Olds parts left. Even the front & rear glass was Lexan. Rough shape.

e-class stops the chrome beltline trim where the black plastic triangle of the sideview mirror mount starts- that reeks of cheapness & highlights the plastic. CTS does it cohesively, and runs the trim right to the lower corner, takes the eye around the sidelights round-trip, rather than stopping it cold. Cadillac did it right. Frankly, I see no more 'mercedes' in here that a dozen other cars; it's not like mercedes is unique or proprietary in their greenhouse design. But we're talking about the most generic of sedan views; the profile view of the greenhouse. Where mercedes falls flat is that the '14 CTS overall makes it look, instantly, quite dated. Hard to avoid with how generic MB's look : pop the 'star' off and it could be a bunch of different brands (and it's "brand new" for '13).

'70 Chevelle wagons : Nomad (series 131/132), Greenbriar (series 134), Concours (series 135/136), Concours Estate (series 138) Total Chevelle wagon production for '70 was 40,600 units (35,000 were V8s). This one's not far from me, Camino, maybe 30 mins.......

Wow, that one shot (the 3rd pic) looks like high-gloss dynamite. The e-class looks 15 yrs old next to it. Going to be real interesting to see the whole enchilada.

I LOVE it when defunct brands make a return. How this story will play out only Time knows. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57575495-54/detroit-electric-set-to-launch-u.s.-made-tesla-rival/

That XTS hearse is SWEET!

I can see a lit central emblem (it's been done), but 2, that bright in the shape of the logo would be extremely tacky.

I've been tracking my MPG habitually for years. I don't know why I started or why I continue. Gives me something to do while the pump's a-pumpin'.

Just seems like the front end on these is... unrefined, somehow. It doesn't grab me. The car; the front end on the girl grabs me fine.

The lux imports made 'coal bin' grey/black interiors, somehow, fashionable. Me, all I can see for motivation there is cheapness.

1963 Buick Skylark coupe, some sort of yellow creme, extremely nice original shape, suspect lil old lady owner, will inquire if available.

Most sign places can cut vinyl from a .jpeg.... but I'd think it would be prudent to avoid the wiper sweep area.

^ There ARE no "Chevy engines", they've all been corporate since the early '80s.

^ Seems to be inaccurate. Aachen is a serif font, which 'GMC" is not.

'71 LeSabre 4-dr sedan, silver, very clean, police impound yard. '51 Chevy sedan, black, solid, missing hood & wheels, awaiting the hammer at the scrap yard, but sitting out front like a lawn ornament.

The 'hurt' is also ongoing- the push downmarket & FWD by the mainstream brands, all in the insatiable thirst for higher production.

Most of them are well below. Give the few that are above a few years, and their value will be below 100K, too.

mercedes sold 11,794 S-class in the U.S. in calendar year 2012. That's down from 2011 and a bit off the 2006 peak of 30,866. Clearly, the market is still speaking.

s-class wasn't a "high-end" lux car until the 1990s. 'Mid' is closer to the truth. But the problem is, the heavy reliance on fleet sales & heavy discounts. MB needs to address this. Charge closer to sticker prices and eliminate fleet sales and the s-class drops to a fraction of its volume. They can't do that.

The tall van is 76", that's only 6'4"; on the short side for BB players in general, no?

I've seen AMG badges on a BMW. In fact, I've seen a notable quantity of obvious fake AMG mercedees around here- the 'brand' is already experiencing dilution.

But those all fit horizontally; there is no need to store them vertically. Just looked at nissan's NV site, interior cargo length is 120", the high roof's height is only 76", which is 2 feet short of a sheet of drywall. It'd have to be at least 10" taller than 96 in order to turn it vertical inside. It's not for that. They have an admirable selection of interior-outfitting options, but none of them (shelving/ storage) extend higher than the standard-roof height of the van (the height of the glass in the vehicle). Again- bragging rights WRT interior cubic volume... for delivering balloons, is about all I can see it used for. Seems to make much more sense to split the difference with the standard roof (interior height : 56") and make it about 70" tall inside- that would allow average-height folk to stand up inside. Curious.