balthazar

^ I realize there is blocking under the camo (note my quoted post), but blocking will raise a given point on a vehicle; it's additional material. In the pic, the blocking is still lower than the cowl height in the teaser- which is why either • the cowl heights are radically different, • the hood is not there under the camo, or • the teaser image is tweaked/not accurate. I'm now thinking back to the teaser art of the G6 and the level of accuracy there. Have to remember not to even bother judging these teaser images anymore.

Yes it is. Something majorly different is going on here, tho. Teaser shot shows a hood/cowl so high it's nearly at the top of the sideview mirror, at least 3/4 the way up it, yet the middle shot, complete with blocking on the fender tops, sure looks a lot lower. Cowl height is a rigid hard point. Unless... the camo truck actually is missing the hood and the blocking is on the inner fender tops. There does seem to be a lot of the wipers showing. If that's right, GM is really playing 'dirty pool' with us peekers.

Not sure which is the best forum to stick this- would be nice to be seen publicly- move thread at will. Nice overview of many of the GM plants, esp with the names from the heights of GM's success. 'NUMMI' may have significance to those into Vibes & matrixes, but 'Fremont' built the cars people treasure & collect. This info (and more) will eventually get into the upcoming C&G Wiki, but this is especially nice because there are numerous pics. Even driving by these sites seldom gives any indication of the size of these complexes. http://canadianponcho.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=118110&p=3&topicID=37134625&page=1&sort=newestFirst

The middle pic is not the same truck as in the teaser photo- so I wouldn't judge anything from it. I say that going on the theory that this teaser pic is the most recent & accurate.

Looks like the beltline radiuses upward slightly, but the character line that's horizontal goes nicely into the bedrail. What I'm seeing tho is a tremendous height difference between the beltline & the cowl; you guys see that the peak of the hood at the cowl looks to be @ the top of the sideview mirror? That's an interesting, and unusual, trait there. I theorize the truck may have an unusually high cowl to give the front end more visual height, and thusly, 'more brawn'. Clamshell hood is not currently common, either. There may be more thinking in this design than at first glance; we'll see how it pans out in the round.

>>"Actually, the Sprinter was marketed solely as a Freightliner in the US until 2003 when Dodge gained access to them as well. Mercedes badging didn't start until 2008 and even then only on the "limo" models. It wasn't until the Dodge version was canceled with the severing of the Chrysler-MB link that Mercedes expand their branding to the entire line. "<< Wait, so doesn't this mean to the average dumb consumer that mercedees just rebadged a... a... Dodge ???

Personally, to me it's 100% obvious they're not domestic products. I'm gonna go ahead & guess that same quick realization occurred to at least a few others, too. So 'Mercedes', 'Dodge' or 'Freightliner' - same difference. Now; times 10 with the doblo. >>"but you're not all that savvy about cars... so I wouldn't expect you to know that. "<< Yeah- the day I memorize the intricate shell games mercedees plays is the day I take up crocheting & burn my library.

Sure- the average car buyer is pretty clueless. But we've just spent 4 pages here arguing what a comparison shopper the savvy commercial buyer is. And these things even had the same model name seems damned near impossible to miss, even for the clueless. In looking at the specs, I see the doblo is a manual-only van. That's going to cut WAY into it's market potential here. All those flower shop women are going to balk at that. It also a lot smaller (55" load floor) inside than the just-announced Dodge C/V, with only a 3/36 warranty. Not good with known turbo problems. If Dodge offers it's unlimited lifetime powertrain warranty on the C/V, it certainly seems the more compelling choice.

Dodgefan ~ >>"I'd like to know how many people were even aware the Dodge Sprinter was a Mercedes product."<< Gee, I wonder Oldsmoboi ~ >>"right... cause the $10k price premium to start really hurt the Sprinter."<< Absolutely- like most all mercedes; overpriced.

Price is going to be the prime factor- it's going to have to seriously undercut the competition for a fiat van to gain any traction in the market.

Hauls sh!t around, reliable : Note American flag on japanese truck. When you have professional pride : Money involved aside; it's still illustrative of the concept. You KNOW the 2nd truck is going to take real good care of your vehicle. In other words, the vehicle says something to the consumer. The concept of a nice work truck is no different than what you see in the real estate business. An agent in an altima is just not going to inspire the same degree of confidence in their ability as one in a 550i. Like I said- it shouldn't be the case, but that's how most people form perceptions- superficially. Doblo says 'I'm a $8K van from India - keep me away from open flame'.

As with any scenario of various degrees, this is generally true. People are superficial- a beater work truck doesn't instill first impression confidence for too many people (it should be irrelevant, of course). I can run a list here of contractors who have put a lot into the appearance of their trucks, far beyond the functionality aspect, far beyond what even a sensible budget would allow. This is a very real pride in appearance and a desire to be perceived as professional and successful. A truck you can be proud of & want to take care of is a rolling business card for many guys. One guy I know has a very successful towing business. He's proud of his trucks; his name is on every one. So what's the business case for an $800K tow truck with scissor doors & one-off 24"s?? Pride. Contractors go with what they know and what's been proven. Fiat is neither. Any perception there is, is generally negative, not positive. Smart business is about reducing your exposure to risk. A Fiat truck is a risk, plain & simple, until time-proven otherwise. Sorry, but the euro experience for fiat holds no water here. The doblo is wondrously misshapen- it's not geared to this market or it's segment. For it's sake- I hope Chrysler can reskin it before it's brought to the lots.

How many flower delivery shops are there, anyway? It certainly seems the de facto example of a small business w/ a delivery vehicle. Around me, the Transit Connects seem to all be trade service vehicles as opposed to retail-related. Then again- a lot of them are unlettered. I looked into the specs of one- at least you have 6.5' behind the seats- not bad. I want to check one out in person- but it'd still never work for me. My reaction is just that the Ram is such a strong, dynamic product with a strong image... and the doblo just seems the opposite of that. Ram is primarily a private conveyance, or privately-owned commercial, I still think it should've been left with Dodge marketing-wise, and a commercial truck division opened for vehicles such as these. IMO- the grouping is an obvious attempt to link these unknowns to the Ram's earned reputation. I'm not sure that the 'Lamprey approach' does the Ram series any favors. Guess we'll see what the numbers are.

^ seriously doubt it. Bundling these with the 'Ram brand' is something that is not going to work like they think it will.

2nd porsche pan-enema in a week. 1st one, white, was in an industrial-zone of Trenton, pulled over & getting a ticket. 2nd one , dark blue?, was in a tiny rural town, picking up 2 pizzas. porsche officially builds land yachts now- these things are huge & quite bloated.

Ford built his first car in 1896, and 2 other Ford car companies failed (1899-1901 & 1901-02) before the Ford Motor Company started in 1903.

Who's (on) First? It seems there's a minor collective historical shift going on. The Buick Motor Company was incorporated May 19, 1903. The Cadillac Automobile Company was incorporated August 22, 1902. With the demise of Oldsmobile, the previous longest manufacturer in the U.S., Wikipedia (and other) sources have reshuffled the criteria a bit. Wikipedia currently says this in the Cadillac entry : >>"Cadillac is currently the second oldest American automobile manufacturer behind Buick and among the oldest automobile brands in the world. Depending on how one chooses to measure, Cadillac is arguably older than Buick. Since GM has discontinued offering Oldsmobile, Buick has the distinction as the oldest American make."<< Wikipedia currently says this in the Buick entry : >>"Buick is currently the oldest American automobile manufacturer, and among the oldest automobile brands in the world. It originated as the Buick Auto-Vim and Power Company in 1899, an independent internal combustion engine and motor-car manufacturer, and was later incorporated as the Buick Motor Company on May 19, 1903"<< This is the same sort of thing, apparently, that many people do with "Mercedes-Benz", calling it the oldest manufacturer, when in fact these were 2 separate & unrelated companies that did not merge until 1926. Here, people are 'reverse-engineering' Buick's history to include previous commercial entities such as the Buick Manufacturing Company of Detroit (1902) and the Buick Auto-Vim & Power Co (1899). In all my time spent reading up on early history, this inclusion of earlier efforts in the time-line of Buick is a first. It's basically been within the last year or 2. -- -- -- -- -- So in keeping things fair, it should be noted that the Cadillac people (the Lelands) began with the manufacturing of internal combustion engines for trolleys & power boats in 1896, and this was an outgrowth from the Leland, Faulconer & Norton Machine Co, which was incorporated on 09-19-1890. If we're going to include Buick's roots, we should do so with Cadillac's, IMO, and this would solidly reestablish Cadillac as the oldest American marque. I'm all for including the earliest rumblings of a company, the roots, the catalyst... yet at the same time, it's pertinent to mention the present-day company's start date, too. Anyway- I found it interesting (and in need of full disclosure). -- -- -- -- -- BTW- R. E. Olds built his first vehicle in 1887, and started his first company in 1890 (haven't located the exact date on that one yet).

Not a lot of evolution in Engels oversight, esp vs Exner.

Would be interesting, at this price, so see engineering bent a bit toward eliminating some of the panel seams. The shot of the intake: yikes! Think how cool it'd be if the car came with a 'carved from one block' look, with this same styling. I like it, much more interesting & aggressive than ferrari- which have become so 'soft' IMO.

Saw a Lumina sedan with a large 'GM' white decal on the backlight. I've never seen a 'GM' banner on a car before. Also saw a real sweet '55 DeSoto Fireflite sedan- bright turquoise over white over black. Wish I had gotten a pic.

Agreed- of course they know; they just don't care to publicize it. Their prerogative. While I would like to know too, the only place those numbers will have significance is internet forums where people will use them to trash the CTS from the coupe & sportwagon angles.

• Sure- the '57 is legendary, I was merely reacting to your term 'introduced'. Perhaps I mis-interpreted. • The '58 is no '57 IMO, agreed, the '58 just gets a bit fussy, but I have read some opinions that like the '58 more. In the rear I could see that, but not the front. '58 is still a pretty, classy car, but the '57 shoulder-brushed 'magical'. • Note I said "A converts' - there I meant Adventurer. IIRC, I've seen Adventurers in the 190K range, tho I believe it was a '59. • A lot of the historical reviews tend to eat up a lot of space with another history recap, when IMO that space would be better utilized examining the details of the car. Personally, I hate wading into an article on -say- a '62 Buick Wildcat and the piece starts with the '54 Century and takes the scenic route to '62. IMO, the only thing generally mandatory is a contrast with the previous year/previous generation- the bulk of everything else is off-topic. That's me, because I've read it all, already & I don't need a refresher.

>>"Ok let try this, "The Sky I Blue"........... What no It's Pail Blue paraphrased contradiction? LOL! There is no need for you to be a Pelican. "<< Are you sure English is your first language? I swear I don't know if I'm having a discussion with your ideas or just with your grammar/ atrocious typing ability. And then there's lines like the above where I have no earthly idea what you're trying to say, but... at least you amuse yourself. People and surfboards are not measuring devices. A tape is, however. The omission of the bed length in a presented truck is conspicuous, IMO, yet we have tenths of an inch on the overall width. Lacking that, it is quite practical to scale up from a known dimension. But you go ahead and reject that and instead judge the bed usage requirements of the segment consumer at large with your laser vision. Where's the number from GMC is what I am asking.

The prime point WRT the SSR is the utility aspect, not the pricing. This is not meant to be an all-points comparison analysis. I take no issue with the Granite SUV, in fact I like this thing quite a bit. GMC would do very well to make their mission new levels of configuration & utility-based engineering (let Chevy get some scraps of it after a 5 year buffer). >>"Use the surf board as a good judge of size. Note it is a little more than your claimed 3 feet."<< Holy crap: It's a computer rendering. Real surfboards are 5-8+' long- this is an impossible gauge to use. Is the Granite bed 7'?? 6'?? Really ?? Automotive illustration exists to bend rules, that's time-proven common knowledge. If you scale off the profile pic of the PU (20" rims), it definitely appears to have a bit less than 4' of bed length. Transit Connect has 6' (50% more)- but that's not marketed as a people mover. Besides, the enclosed cargo area allows all sorts of stowage & capacity the open Granite does not. And while GMC themselves say this is an 'opinion gauge', not a pre-production vehicle, if it does get green-lit; it'll be hugely 'production-ized'. Who know how it would turn out then. But an open bed invites harder usage and a different class of usage. Couple that with GMCs reputation, and I still question a 3.9' bed 'trucklet', no matter how cute it may be.

They are. Most HUMANS don't act like that.