balthazar

>>"What really matters is what each of us thinks, leaning on "sources", or "parties" is what creates all the strife in the first place. I prefer those who think for themselves."<< Excellent sentiment. With the proliferation of 'sources' out there, and every idiot with a domain name blogging away- there's a source to support the daily beheading possums & drinking their still-warm blood. I read some dueseys. One would think that there would be an opportunity there to see a increase in individual thought, but IMO the electronic shortening of the attention span forces most everyone to conform to labels in order to find any audience at all. In other words, less critical & individual thought, less analytical discussion and more vilifying of the opposite camp & conformism. I see it with regularity on the news- opposite political positions aren't even hearing the other side; they're not having the same discussion. Frankly, Camino, I question whether the concept is possible anymore.

I noted, not complained. Glad I did whatever I did- that's a damned cool shot there, DD!! Prolly quite difficult to get the whole body from above without a lift platform, eh? At least we can see what the designers saw, instead of only what cats & sitting geese see. It's not so much the angle as it is the distortion in a lot of those low-angle shots. 'course, DF will still think this a 'dealer classified shot'.

I fail to see how a political topic is any more troublesome to skip over than one about anything else someone doesn't care to click & read thru.

T/A rims look pretty good on it. I see splitters there; too bad not much can be done to the 305 underhood.

Seemed to me from the beginning that the decision to locate a nuc plant on the shoreline of the Ring of Fire was a questionable decision. I hear the 'ocean water' claim, but placed at higher elevations, away from heavily-populated areas seems to 'hedge the bet' more. Or... the major fault lines for Japan are off the east coast- where the plant is. There's plenty of ocean water on the west coast with only short, minor fault lines there.

'pocket rocket' - glad things stylistically didn't go this way.

Those forward-tilting hoods are horrible to work under/around.

It can; yes but there's often too much distortion in those close/low shots. Esp with a car as chiseled & angular as the CTS.

I have to agree with most of SAmdei's general rant- and just about all of you are north of me in size. It's not so much 'fitting' in a given car, it's the ability to move around some. Seat bolsters are great for canyon-carving, but you are forced to sit in one position. Consoles are 'sporty' and hold all your junk, but they're intrusive and inhibit knee room. Laid-back windshields are great for CAFE-dynamics, but it brings the angle up even with your head, and once inside, the tumblehome is just beyond your ear. My knees get stiff (movie theater- aisle seat only), and I need to flex during longer drives. Some of the vintage stuff I drove in the past was GREAT in this manner- more vertical glass, higher roofline, no hulking console, more overall ROOM. I prefer it. Modern 'mid-sized' cars without a doubt will keep me in trucks for the foreseeable future.

Why not motor down here to central Jersey with it. I'll buy a tankful of premium if I can press the 'burn' pedal for half of that tank. I rolled thru the local Cadillac dealer's back lot with my son- expressly to show him the silver CTS-V coupe in the back. He was quite awestruck by it- even mentioned it again a few days later. Killer design.Not sure why everyone feels the need to crouch down to shoot it- the car is quite low in today's world of pregnant cow sedans; low-angle shots diffuse that. Just my 2 cents...

^ Agreed- there's quite enough for people to occupy their hands with now- for 95% of driver's the left foot is doing absolutely nothing. Cleans up the console area, too.

lol-ing at people calculating the age of a car in the junkyard and assuming it was on the road until yesterday.

smk4565 ~ >>"There was the Jag E-type which has become pretty legendary, but no one else has mounted a serious threat to the SL over it's history."<< Oooooo; a poster! Repeat: where was the luxury in a '50s or '60s SL convertible? Crank windows, no A/C, power steering optional, only 6 cylinders in a V8 world, '69 was down 60 HP over the original version. Mmmm- so 'gold-standard'. smk4565 ~ >>"A Chevy truck with extra bling and chrome isn't a good flagship either."<< it's not a 'Chevy truck', all the same platform vehicles are co-developed for each division. >>"You don't want to be known for making a big gas guzzler, that is what did Hummer in."<< Mor laffter: s-class : 19 MPG s-class hybrid : 19 S63 : 15 S65 : 12 known for making big gas guzzlers, right? And there's a whole bunch other m-b models clocking in under 15 MPG. Guess m-b is goin' under!

Hard to believe tires were a monster ride changer, but will check it next time I see him/it.

The statement that 'cars are using their interior space more efficiently' still misses the fact that they have so much less interior space. An eggshell is masterful at maximizing interior space; doesn't mean I want to be crammed inside one.

Buddy has a Fiesta- I like the car overall, within its segment, but found the ride surprisingly rough. Perhaps I've been out of this segment -ride test wise- too long. Ford makes some very good product, enjoy it!

So only non-SUV, non-CUV, 4-doors can qualify in this example ? Gettin' pretty nitpicky...

More hilarious than your crusade to convince the world BMW uses metal grilles. I still remember being behind an early '60s SL roadster on the street. Had a steel gas filler pipe that stuck 6" out the back of the rear fascia, with a 4" rubber boot around it. Built like a kit car, no attention to detail, no luxury amenities, no power. Where was the luxury in the '50s & '60s again ?? 'Tin-standard' is more like it, if even that.

The CL isn't a sedan ? {'No- it's a coupe'. Whatev; it's a non-SUV, non-roadster; I think you kno what I mean.} Regardless- sedan vs. sport car vs. SUV- any one could be a 'flagship'. mercedees claims it's the s-class, when frankly, it should be the SLS. If they had done it right and made the maybach a mercedes, your hierarchy formula would work there. But most people would agree that the old school 'biggest is most expensive' think went out a few decades ago. It did at Cadillac ('76 Seville).

s-class starts @ $91K and it's the largest sedan. CL starts @ $113K G starts @ $105K SL starts @ $102K SLS starts @ $183K ^-- all smaller than the s-class = 'largest sedan smack in the middle of it's pricing tiers'.

Yer but 3 months ahead of me, Roger. Where'd the time go?

Mustang !

For a company that's made almost 7 billion profit in one quarter; 3.75 million for this level of disaster, where damages may surpass $50 billion, seems rather... low.

Still not liking it much. The span from the top of the hood to the top of the wheelwell opening is getting huge, and that's where this car deceives as far as apparent size goes. Wheelbase is shorter, which while it may possibly make for more trunk room, it will make for tighter door openings definitely & less interior room most likely. The wheels moved in the wrong direction. It's just looking bulky and a bit bloated so far, and the frontal overhang looks a LOT larger than the current car. Really looking forward to side-by-side pics.

Why not stay with the 2500? Costs? Purchase price, and really- more truck than I currently use.