balthazar

You're wrong Balthazar. The 7-series doesn't share an engine with the 5-series. It shares it's engine with the 1-series, 3-series, 5-series, X3, X5, X6, 5-series GT, 6-series (in Deutschland only), and Z4. though it does get a special tune to bump it up 15 HP over it's lesser siblings. Oooooo, a whole 15 HP to differentiate it from the entry-level 1 series flop. Nice separation from the bottom of the barrel to the top. Way to craft a flagship.

Early heat here not appreciated, but seasonally adapting in order to survive. Last summer was rough- we had better not get the same heat waves this time. And the F'ing mosquitos can all die, now.

7-series has a 3.0L 6-cyl <- by far the most popular choice- the same engine that's the most popular in the same-chassis 5-series. As the flagship, the 7-series should have it's own engines, or at least engine tuning if shared. Reportedly, the 6-cyl XTS developed more HP than the 6-cyl 740's 315, but where the production spec will fall remains to be seen. '300' is NOT an official number, but 300 is well within competitive trim of 315- these cars do NOT race. The 6-cyl XTS will not compete with a V-12 7-series (that no one buys) just like the V6 S-class doesn't, either.

The 5-series/7-series 'twins' manage to stand on their own. Flagships don't compete on what they share with other cars- they compete on what they offer the consumer segment.

>>"People want techinolgy and if that is what they want you need to give it to them. Henry Ford may have had the right idea on making all Model T's black but people wanted other colors they also wanted an affordable 6 cylinder, Chevy gave them that and took the lead in the market for years. Henry used logic to sell cars when people wanted something else."<< Chevy went to a 6 in '29, while Ford continued with it's 4 (thru '31). Ford's 4 outsold Chevy's 6 in '30 almost 2:1 (1,140,xxx vs. 640,xxx). Your conclusion based on cylinder count is a very large leap, and Chevy did not 'take the lead for years', either. Chevy eclipsed Ford in '32-34, but Ford eclipsed Chevy '35-37. In many years, they were nearly dead even (1931: 619K vs. 615K). The market, even then, is too complicated to make singular-cause arguments.

Always great:

I smell a plan.... -- -- -- White bentley convert, looking typically cheap from the rear, piloted by an 75-80 yr old guy. Ferrari california (had to google for the model name; ferrari changes them constantly), the one with the pushed-in ass and the stacked exhaust tips. Guy was over 60, easy. '55-57 Chevy longbed pickup project.

Punch-bent or mandrel ? (thinking punch for $425)...

Did you check with LMC Truck ?

>>"Plus Corvette sales are down, raising the price higher probably isn't going to help the Corvette recover..."<< Profit over volume.

No story really on the mercedees, an old s-class died in my driveway and it had to be pushed into the street to allow a Chevy to get out. Turned out only to be a bad battery, so I guess I can't really fault the engineering... tho I had ample time to note antiquities such as the 3-piece front bumper, something Chevy last did around 1964.

This a good spot to relay my mercedees pushing story from this weekend ???

^ That's a temporary effect at best. Long term, as the association of 'mercedees' increasingly includes numerous cargo vans, that perception will lose its luster. It's an obvious attempt to sell off the 'M' image, when they already have a commercial truck brand in the market.

Agreed- these seem to be 2 different take on a similar theme; not the same car. Don't fall in love with the non-production bits of the design; they won't be in the showroom if the car makes it.

You see no eroding of U.S. perception/image in Mercedees selling a same-badged stripper cargo van???

I haven't seen many '66s over the years, but they always stop me in my tracks. Still waiting for the Germans to produce something as unique and dynamic...

>>""Buick Avant"<< A bunch of different designs show up via Google under that name- interesting. I like it FAR better than the recent 'Riviera' proposal.

>>"They'd probably appear slightly different here. You see all kinds of Mercedes vehicles like that in Europe... it's not just a luxury brand there. "<< Sure, but this isn't europe, and the US market is stupendously happy thinking mercedees is nothing but 'ultimate lux' here, yet the sub-compacts, the FWD, the 4-bangers and the MB Econolines are still coming. A fat push into the taxi market can't be far behind. It's a hard downmarket push vs. the perception, but the bean counters gotta have more beans, I guess.

Why these aren't badged as Freightliners boggles the mind. A cheap-ass cargo minivan with black plastic all over it.... and a giant mercedees' car grille up front. BRILLIANT.

WOOTWOOTWOOT!!!!!!

Isn't this going to compete with mercedees other minivan?? Way to maintain/advance the luxury perception with all that unpainted black plastic. Downmarket, thy name is mercedees. "Mercedees- Can We Build One for You?" (Oops, that one already used before...)

That's the best angle. There were more of this one, no? The name of it is escaping me....

I burnt a crater into one knuckle welding a few weeks ago- definitely DO NOT weld naked. That said- I can't complain because I hate welding with gloves on, so I don't. Small price to pay for 'forging' steel in your own garage, I sezs.

'semi shag' carpeting sure sounds wrong in early '70s GMs (Fleetwood aside). I had a '72 with the DeLuxe interior and it had loop pile. ^ Agreed on the toned-down rear of the '73.

"Ram" is just semantics. Don't the Durango & GC share the same filthy greasy oily bits & a 'grille & badging' (and some other trivial stuff)? >>"I just don't see the point in keeping GMC around"<< Read the thread- it's all in here. Or keep burying your head, makes no difference.