balthazar

I dont see how keeping 'Charger' & 'Challenger' distinct is any more difficult than keeping the numeric gumbo that is BMW distinct.

Public opinion is made over time, not via this year's marketing. The 2002/3-series had NO market success here until decades after it debuted. Bold IS called for, look at the OP- Cadillac hasn't been a 'floaty ride' for many years, yet for too many, the uniformed perception lingers.

OMGYES. The car that blew everything anyone else made up to that point (and long afterwards) out of the water. There's no way this car could ever earn a legitimate 'jeers'.

And in perhaps another geo-demographical testimonial, I've seen 3 fiats.... and 4 panameras around here so far.

Hopefully they are working on quality & reliability over styling for a change.

>>"Look at the history of the German luxury compact sedan class; the BMW 3-Series has 33 years"<< The 3-series was in NO WAY a "luxury car" when it debuted, and still wasn't decades later. Some would still argue that point today, tho it's made forward strides there. But "luxury" in the '70s or 80s?? The only aspect that would qualify there would maybe be price. It also was not perceived as luxury in those decades. Perception is usually built upon product delivery. If the ATS performs & is built comparatively, the perception will follow. Look at Cadillac's entry-level perception pre-CTS... and now.

Irony: I owned the same '65 (2-dr sedan), which I sold and immediately after had begun the transformation into the '62, IE: has been gutted & 14" rear tires were fitted... but the project stalled & it was never finished. The '65 was also the same Nightwatch Blue. Why no price on the '65?? Hmmm.... If the interior was as decent as the exterior seems to be... and there was little rust/rot... how much would I be willing to pay?

Yea- rebuilding a 13K mile motor is quite pointless.

Love '68 CdVs- great lines, great powertrain.

We've seen the bmw conceptually before :

The entire thread is in regard to a Gen1 Seville. You addressed the Gen1 Seville and asked for a 2-dr version called an 'Eldorado', when there already was a co-existing 2-dr Eldorado... that was 100% different from the Seville. What they later became is irrelevant here. You should've just said a 'Seville 2-dr' to be clear.

'Eldorado 2-dr Seville' ??? Unless you're talking about '56-60 (and I know that you are not), that's rather mixed-up. A 2-dr Seville would be as much an 'Eldorado' as it would a Camaro.

Tires and shocks are reactive also; hopefully mercedees has a parallel 30-year engineering plan to supersede them, too. "good stuff"

That's primarily underhood changes- a different attraction totally from the visual of a concept car. The stereotypical concept car revolves on a roped-off turntable, untouched by consumer hands but positively ravaged mentally. The stuff of dreams and aspirations, The Next.

Yes- I see the exact same unit in the '78 sales brochure as an option (across the board)- brushed aluminum plate & crest included. This one allowed you to change the channels with the hand unit instead of on the head unit- had a digital channel readout on the mike. Cadillac also had a rather utilitarian Delco-tagged unit that was just a standard mike. Cadillac had 6 different sound system options that year.

The engineering phase of the Seville BEGAN with the X-frame, but the production car is no X-frame/X-Body. The engineering costs alone pushed the Seville's intended base price up by 75%. It's (unintentionally) disingenuous to refer to the production Seville as 'heavily a Nova'. Half a roof stamping.... c'mon. My '59 shares the entire greenhouse with all other GMs makes and the car is still less than 10% shared with other Divisions.

Theres a BIG problem WRT concept cars, and it isn't money- it's where we are on the design timeline. Pretty much right at the end. You look at a decade - decade comparison over the course of the industry's history, and there are distinct differences in design & it's evolution in every one : '00-'10, '10-20, etc. By the time you get up to the '80s, general design is gelling & slowing. Now, we've been in a design holding pattern since the '90s... and there's nothing earth-shattering coming in the 'teens, either. IMO, this is clearly evidenced by how frequently we get either retro- or 'production' concepts. We NEVER got retro cues anytime before the 1990s.

It'd be helpful if we had those sentiments coming down from the top, but instead we get the exact opposite.

[67impss ~[/b] >>"This car based on the X body (Nova) was nothing like a Nova or the clones."<< Not X-Body, K-Body. >>"It had FI IRS a stretched wb and all the lux that Caddy could throw at it."<< Solid rear axle. [redfish ~[/b] >>"What the bright trim around the door edges standard?"<< No- door edge guards were optional equipment. • • • This is the car that set mercedes back on its heels. Cadillac really nailed the stance & body on this car, IMO. It's well planted, wheels/tires fill the wheelwells nicely, body has a similar sectional radius as the current Rolls- looks expensive. I also always liked the front-rear taper in the body. There's a forlorn Elegante near me- has the buckets/console interior and the black/silver paint. Without the vinyl top- those were pretty sharp (and still are when in good shape).

>>"Plus, Mercedes is planning a 2800 lb E-class"<< Believe it when I see it - that sort of weight range is impossible in that size class anymore. Or have they hinted they're going to strip the safety & electronics out of it?

CTS sold 5200 units in Dec. Last time I checked, 5200 is more than 800.

For grins n giggles, here's a '75 mercedes s-class interior

>>"I don't think Buick competes with Lincoln or Lexus."<< "I don't think hyundai competes with mercedees or BMW" Or, oh wait- in this case are we allowed to look at the individual models concerned instead of rocking off 1990s stereotypes.