Rumorpile: Mercedes-Benz To Build Out A Subbrand For Electric Vehicles

BMW I think failed in many ways with the i Series, too customer built, too high a price with too limited range. GM hit the note right and I think if MB does it right with range and style, they will succeed with BMW failed. I only hope Cadillac is being aggressive to build properly priced EV's and plug-in Hybrids into their lineup.

So they'll have:

Mercedes-Benz

Mercedes-Maybach

Mercedes-AMG

Mercedes-EV?

I guess a sub-brand makes sense, but I don't know what they'll call it.  The sub-brand is probably something that would only last 15-20 years, because in 2040 probably every C-class and E-class will be an electric car.  You wouldn't need an electric sub-brand when everything is electric, and no reason making up another letter class when they have the current model names in line.

Creating separate, unique models is the wrong way to approach it. 
If automakers truly believe EVs are the way to go, they need to offer EV power trains in existing cars, to make their acceptance as smooth & seamless as possible. I4, V6, V8, EV in the same vehicles.

The BMW i cars are flops; no surprise at all that they're halting expansion.

Mercedes is very late to the game here; for the supposed 'future of the auto industry' - MB is going on 15 years behind Tesla. 

That's almost as long as MB was behind the invention of the modern auto.

Mercedes has waited until the public and the battery technology was ready.  EV's still have low sales, by 2020 they should gain some more support.

Making an electric E-class isn't going to make the best electric sedan, because the E-class is designed around a gas engine and 9 speed transmission and a drive shaft down the middle.  An electric car doesn't need all that, they can put a flat floor in, more interior room, a front trunk, etc with a chassis made for batteries and electric motors.

The Mercedes electric sedan is supposed to be one of the 3 quickest cars they make, they are coming for Tesla, and they won't have the production and ramp up issues or lack of advertising, or lack of dealer network holding them back.

MB should've developed & debuted new technology that propelled EVs forward, don't you think?
Instead of conceding the luxury EV image to Tesla… and still no flagship EV from MB… but years in the future?

Asleep at the switch, some might say.

So, are they going to be selling this sub brand on the same lots as the rest of MBs lineup?

Well of course; they sell cargo vans right. next. to. the S-class.

Well of course; they sell cargo vans right. next. to. the S-class.

LOL! It is a genuine question though since it is obvious that they don't want their EV cars to intermingle with the rest of the group. Now if the down voter could offer a counter to that assertion, that would be great (as opposed to just being a brat about it).

They sell AMG on the same lot, this is no different. I don't think they will looks stupid like BMW's EVs. There are supposed to be 2 sedans, one could be $100-200k, I'd imagine the small one they would want to be closer to E-class money. And they have 2 crossovers coming. As long as it doesn't look like that F2015 concept car and looks like the Vision Gran Turismo thing they will be in good shape.

They sell AMG on the same lot, this is no different. I don't think they will looks stupid like BMW's EVs. There are supposed to be 2 sedans, one could be $100-200k, I'd imagine the small one they would want to be closer to E-class money. And they have 2 crossovers coming. As long as it doesn't look like that F2015 concept car and looks like the Vision Gran Turismo thing they will be in good shape.

It is very different or else these would not come out as a sub brand. The AMG may be considered a "sub brand" but it is more along the lines of the V Series for Cadillac (obviously on a grander scale though) while the EV sub brand sounds like it is going to be more like how Scion was to Toyota, which was clearly a fail just like the BMW EV route. Now, I am not saying that is how it will go because there isn't that much information to go off of but that is the feeling I am getting here. Time will tell until the Paris debut.

Without question; MB has been watching BMW's floundering with the "i" sub-brand, and they are hedging their bets by intentionally not 'cross-pollinating' the core lines with this EV experiment.

Meanwhile, they will spend 10 times the money in development, testing, branding, advertising, etc… when instead they should pour those monies into developing a unilateral platform that readily accepts both ICE & EV powertr—— HE-EEEEYY! LOOK @ OUR NEW REBADGED NISSAN PICK 'EM UP TRUCK! IT'S THE MERCEDES OF NISSANS!

And yet Cadillac's flagship product is built on a Chevy pick up chassis.

Mercedes has their chassis right on. Fwd car, C/E-class share, S-class is a modified bigger version of that, GLE/GLS share a crossover chassis, SLC/SL share.

All 4 electrics can share one platform. They are spending $8 billion in the next 2 years on plug in and electric cars, so yes it is expensive but they don't operate on a shoe string budget like some luxury car makers.

• Escalade is not Cadillac's flagship.

• There are no 'Chevy chassis's'.

• Daimler is buying trucks from the same manufacturer whom they compete with (Infiniti). Besides, whose chassis would you rather have under your truck; nissan or General Motors? 

• I specifically said Daimler should engineer a platform than can accept either ICE or EP. Not or.
It's of no significance that 'all 4 EVs share the same platform'-  how is that "leading"?

Engineer a configurable chassis, then offer full EP on the core vehicles, rather than blow thru billions to bring yet more alpha-nonsense sedans out. It's stupid… MB seems to believe the way BMW is doing it is stupid… yet they still won't commit to doing it the right way.

It is of my own personal observations that I deem sub-brands a failure.

Sub brands that fail from my own observations are sub-brands that should have never been brought forth as the existing brand could do the job perfectly had the billions of R&D money been spent PROPERLY on the cars from the brand that exists...

Saturn and Scion come to mind.

GM spent billions trying to improve on quality and new manufacturing techniques  by introducing Saturn with all new factories, workers and dealership networks....

Imagine what miracles Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac would have done had these billions been spent on them?

Toyota did the same for SCION because the Toyota brand became too dull and bland and full of geezers buying into the Toyota brand.

SCION was geared for the young crowd, but geezers bought SCION.

Imagine how Toyota the brand could have reversed this trend if Toyota the corporation would have spent the money correctly in giving the youth what they wanted in AFFORDABLE Supra sports cars, sexy Celicas and the like?

Anyway....back to Mercedes Benz.

I think this will fail too.

WHY?

Because Mercedes Benz has name recognition as it is....

Awesome name recognition.

Mercedes should use this to beat up on Tesla on name alone.

If the appropriate money was spent on engineering a great EV that is that beats up on a Tesla.

This way, by creating an EV sub brand....they limit their financial resources to actually engineer a great EV...

BMW's iBrand in no way trounces Tesla's engineering...THAT is why BMW is failing...

SMART and Maybach also lead me to believe that Mercedes Benz has no phoquing idea how do sub-brand.

General Motors may have failed with Saturn....and they failed with Lasalle...

But Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick (still alive and kickin') did succeed.

Pontiac and Oldsmobile died because Saturn and SAAB stole the necessary funds to do things right....

OK...money was bleeding form the late 1970s....other factors killed GM's umbrella formula. But Pontiac and Oldsmobile were downright popular brands that lasted 100 years!

And yet Cadillac's flagship product is built on a Chevy pick up chassis.

Mercedes has their chassis right on. Fwd car, C/E-class share, S-class is a modified bigger version of that, GLE/GLS share a crossover chassis, SLC/SL share.

All 4 electrics can share one platform. They are spending $8 billion in the next 2 years on plug in and electric cars, so yes it is expensive but they don't operate on a shoe string budget like some luxury car makers.

And both Chevy and Cadillac are owned by...GM as opposed to Benz borrowing a Nissan which is not owned by them. Understand the difference yet?

Daimler has a partnership agreement with Renault-Nissan.  The smallest Infiniti crossover is built on a GLA chassis with a GLA engine.  There is some shared engineering on front drive product to save on costs.  Nissan has also outsold the Colorado over the past 10-15 years or however you want to measure it, they aren't some loser when it comes to pickups, and we still don't know anything about the Mercedes pickup, or if it will even be sold in the USA.  

Saturn was not a sub-brand nor was Scion.  Those are brands.

Mercedes-AMG is a sub-brand.  These 4 products could be called Mercedes-EV rather than Mercedes-Benz.  But it will start with Mercedes and have a 3 point star.  And making a pure EV E-class would be a dumb idea since you have huge hood space to accommodate a V and a center tunnel for drive shaft and exhaust, both of which an EV doesn't need, you don't need a huge firewall behind the engine block.  An EV needs a place for batteries, and can have a flat floor, more space, more open dash board, etc.    The B-class EV is an example of the wrong way to build an EV, but they made it for compliance purposes.

Mercedes will have 10 plug-in hybrids, so if you want some electric drive capability on a C-class, GLE, E-class, etc, they are selling that option.  If you want a Tesla style car, they will have that option too.

Luckily Mercedes is not limited to $12 billion over 5 years for new product.   And they won't build stupid stuff like a plug-in hybrid sports car that costs $150,000 that is slower than other $150,000 sports cars, or an ugly looking box on 3 inch wide tires.

• Center tunnel has no impact on sedans, as none have center seating (front) anymore. Fill it with batteries.

• Firewall is necessary for 1. crash standards, and 2. battery fires. It doesn't take up any room anyway.

• There are no operating portions of an ICE in the dash boards of cars, therefore going to EP is not going to mean a smaller dashboard. And there is no "etc" in the things you mentioned above.
 

Hybrids are getting passed by for the most part, it's not the leading edge anymore. Plug-ins are a compromise compared to where Tesla is dragging Mercedes, kicking & screaming.

Without question; MB has been watching BMW's floundering with the "i" sub-brand, and they are hedging their bets by intentionally not 'cross-pollinating' the core lines with this EV experiment.

 

Meanwhile, they will spend 10 times the money in development, testing, branding, advertising, etc… when instead they should pour those monies into developing a unilateral platform that readily accepts both ICE & EV powertr—— HE-EEEEYY! LOOK @ OUR NEW REBADGED NISSAN PICK 'EM UP TRUCK! IT'S THE MERCEDES OF NISSANS!

 

For a second there I thought you were talking about the rebadged Nissan van with the bow tie on it.

My bad.

The Bowtie brand doesn't self-proclaim it is 'the best or Nothing', does it? Where is the "Best" EV sedan? 

For a brand we hear spends "way more" than anyone else, my question stands; why not engineer a vehicle that simply can have either power train built into it?
Because MB is certainly coming off here as an also-ran...

My bad on the mis-understanding of sub-brands...

However, Ill still stick to my guns and say Mercedes has no idea how to sub-brand...

Before Daimler bought AMG, AMG was an independent company hot rodding M-B products with their own in-house hardware. In this scenario, AMG was not a sub-brand.

Daimler bought AMG and the way M-B does AMG today, AMG is just a trim package...especially when there was AMG "sport" models not too long ago that were above the regular M-B cars and below the "real" AMG badged cars....

The AMG treatment is done on all of M-B's models. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Making it by definition, a trim package on the same level as 'SE', 'LT', 'GL' and so forth and so forth.

I gather that a "real" sub-brand would be how Chrysler USED to do the Imperial line-up  back in the 1950s before the Imperial became a model of its own. \

In which I will keep my opinion in that sub-brands suck too much to do right taking away from the core brands...

That is why its easier, and more efficient to do what M-B is doing with AMG...

But I could be wrong in viewing this mess of an opinion this way...

Why doesn't Cadillac build the CT6 off the Escalade platform?  They are about the same size.  Oh right, different purpose for the vehicle and building a CT6 on a 5,900 lb truck chassis would make it slow and thirsty with bad handling, the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.  Maybe the Cruze and Corvette shoudl share one platform since they are both Chevy's of similar size.

Tesla doesn't build cars on a gas powered car platform.  They have a flat floor, more leg room for passengers and the rear middle seat is actually usable and more front console space since you don't have to build around a tunnel.  The Volt was always dogged for poor interior room and gen 1 was a 4 passenger car because of the tunnel of batteries running down the middle.

Obviously Mercedes wishes to build the "Best" EV platform there is, so they want to start from scratch and not use the MRA platform or load 500 lbs of batteries under the hood of an S-class.  They know what they are doing when it comes to building cars.

The sub-brand is where I am not sold, because they can make an EV sedan faster than an E63, or faster than an AMG GT, so that should be an AMG model.  Or how awesome would a 600 hp electric Maybach be that has no engine noise. 

AMG is more than just a trim level.  TechnicallyAMG  is their own company that is an wholely owned subsidiary of Daimler.  AMG has 1,400 employees and a CEO and they do their own engineering work on the AMG models.  Yes they AMG-ify every model Mercedes makes, but they do modifactions to the transmission, build their own V8 and V12 engines, there are modifcations to the body and underpinnings of the car and so on.  The C63 AMG is actually 4 inches longer than a C300, because AMG put a longer hood on it to fit the V8.  It isn't like they just drop a more powerful engine and fancy wheels and call it a day.

Daimler has a partnership agreement with Renault-Nissan.  The smallest Infiniti crossover is built on a GLA chassis with a GLA engine.  There is some shared engineering on front drive product to save on costs.  Nissan has also outsold the Colorado over the past 10-15 years or however you want to measure it, they aren't some loser when it comes to pickups, and we still don't know anything about the Mercedes pickup, or if it will even be sold in the USA.  

 

Saturn was not a sub-brand nor was Scion.  Those are brands.

 

Mercedes-AMG is a sub-brand.  These 4 products could be called Mercedes-EV rather than Mercedes-Benz.  But it will start with Mercedes and have a 3 point star.  And making a pure EV E-class would be a dumb idea since you have huge hood space to accommodate a V and a center tunnel for drive shaft and exhaust, both of which an EV doesn't need, you don't need a huge firewall behind the engine block.  An EV needs a place for batteries, and can have a flat floor, more space, more open dash board, etc.    The B-class EV is an example of the wrong way to build an EV, but they made it for compliance purposes.

 

Mercedes will have 10 plug-in hybrids, so if you want some electric drive capability on a C-class, GLE, E-class, etc, they are selling that option.  If you want a Tesla style car, they will have that option too.

 

Luckily Mercedes is not limited to $12 billion over 5 years for new product.   And they won't build stupid stuff like a plug-in hybrid sports car that costs $150,000 that is slower than other $150,000 sports cars, or an ugly looking box on 3 inch wide tires.

Two words for you.

So what? You want to basically insult Cadillac and GM for using the GMT platform for the Escalade but still give a free pass to Mercedes going one step beyond that and using someone else's truck. Maybe if you would stop sticking your foot in your mouth regarding this, you would not get called out on it so much.

 

Without question; MB has been watching BMW's floundering with the "i" sub-brand, and they are hedging their bets by intentionally not 'cross-pollinating' the core lines with this EV experiment.

 

Meanwhile, they will spend 10 times the money in development, testing, branding, advertising, etc… when instead they should pour those monies into developing a unilateral platform that readily accepts both ICE & EV powertr—— HE-EEEEYY! LOOK @ OUR NEW REBADGED NISSAN PICK 'EM UP TRUCK! IT'S THE MERCEDES OF NISSANS!

 

For a second there I thought you were talking about the rebadged Nissan van with the bow tie on it.

My bad.

 

Apples to oranges. Mainstream Chevy borrowing a van from mainstream Nissan? Odd but not unusual nor does it cheapen the overall brand. Luxury car makers Mercedes borrowing a pick up from mainstream Nissan is a different beast altogether. Your trolling was obvious and debunked.

Why doesn't Cadillac build the CT6 off the Escalade platform?  They are about the same size.  Oh right, different purpose for the vehicle and building a CT6 on a 5,900 lb truck chassis would make it slow and thirsty with bad handling, the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.  Maybe the Cruze and Corvette shoudl share one platform since they are both Chevy's of similar size.

 

Tesla doesn't build cars on a gas powered car platform.  They have a flat floor, more leg room for passengers and the rear middle seat is actually usable and more front console space since you don't have to build around a tunnel.  The Volt was always dogged for poor interior room and gen 1 was a 4 passenger car because of the tunnel of batteries running down the middle.

 

Obviously Mercedes wishes to build the "Best" EV platform there is, so they want to start from scratch and not use the MRA platform or load 500 lbs of batteries under the hood of an S-class.  They know what they are doing when it comes to building cars.

 

The sub-brand is where I am not sold, because they can make an EV sedan faster than an E63, or faster than an AMG GT, so that should be an AMG model.  Or how awesome would a 600 hp electric Maybach be that has no engine noise. 

Seriously? 

Good grief. No wonder no one can talk to you. You just go back in the same pointless circle every time Mercedes gets called out.

Mercedes isn't building a luxury vehicle on a Nissan pickup.  They might also use the Nissan chassis, but their own suspension, engine, transmission, body panels, interior, etc.  Until we see it, it is hard to judge it.  Mercedes wants a commercial vehicle pick up, they traded their A-class platform for Nissan's tuck platform to make it feasible.  Commercial vehicles are part of their business in Europe.  It might still be the best commercial pick up there is.

Mercedes isn't building a luxury vehicle on a Nissan pickup.  They might also use the Nissan chassis, but their own suspension, engine, transmission, body panels, interior, etc.  Until we see it, it is hard to judge it.  Mercedes wants a commercial vehicle pick up, they traded their A-class platform for Nissan's tuck platform to make it feasible.  Commercial vehicles are part of their business in Europe.  It might still be the best commercial pick up there is.

All I see are excuses why it's okay for Mercedes to borrow from a mainstream pick up maker and why it's not okay for GM to do it from within the company, even though the Escalade does not share one common exterior panel or interior piece with its GM cousins.

The Bowtie brand doesn't self-proclaim it is 'the best or Nothing', does it? Where is the "Best" EV sedan? 

 

For a brand we hear spends "way more" than anyone else, my question stands; why not engineer a vehicle that simply can have either power train built into it?

Because MB is certainly coming off here as an also-ran...

Mercedes rebadged ( extent of which is unknown ) Nissan = bad?  

Chevrolet rebadged 100% Nissan = good?

Seems Chevy is coming across as an also-ran in the Van segment.

The Bowtie brand doesn't self-proclaim it is 'the best or Nothing', does it? Where is the "Best" EV sedan?

For a brand we hear spends "way more" than anyone else, my question stands; why not engineer a vehicle that simply can have either power train built into it?

Because MB is certainly coming off here as an also-ran...

Mercedes rebadged ( extent of which is unknown ) Nissan = bad?

Chevrolet rebadged 100% Nissan = good?

Seems Chevy is coming across as an also-ran in the Van segment.

And before you start off about rebadging and the resulting also ran status, I have two words for you...Mercury Villager.

I think the sub-brand is strictly for brand identity and accounting. That way things can and will get written off and allocated differently. I don't see the issue with them doing this but unless something is coming out later this year I don't understand the "announcement".

 

Mercedes isn't building a luxury vehicle on a Nissan pickup.  They might also use the Nissan chassis, but their own suspension, engine, transmission, body panels, interior, etc.  Until we see it, it is hard to judge it.  Mercedes wants a commercial vehicle pick up, they traded their A-class platform for Nissan's tuck platform to make it feasible.  Commercial vehicles are part of their business in Europe.  It might still be the best commercial pick up there is.

All I see are excuses why it's okay for Mercedes to borrow from a mainstream pick up maker and why it's not okay for GM to do it from within the company, even though the Escalade does not share one common exterior panel or interior piece with its GM cousins.

 

I don't think it is a problem that the Escalade is built on a truck platform because Escalade buyers want a truck.   And the Escalade is the best cash cow Cadillac has, and sells very well for its price point.  I wouldn't mind them seeing an Omega based SUV that isn't 6,000 lbs and could go around corners and get more than 15 mpg. 

One of my biggest criticisms of Cadillac has been taking the SRX (now XT5) from a CTS based vehicle to basically a Chevy Equinox based vehicle.  And today all they have is a front drive crossover, when Cadillac in 2013 was saying RWD is the future of the company and we are going to focus on class leading handling and weight savings, blah blah blah.

We also don't know what the Mercedes pick up is yet, it is likely a work truck for Europe and developing countries, for that purpose a Nissan chassis, with 4 cylinder gas and diesel mercedes engines, 9-speed transmission, and 4matic system are probably more than sufficient to suit that market.

In reading some auto news from the UK, it seems that Mercedes had trademarked a range of names like "EQA" "EQB "EQX" and the belief is the Mercedes electric may be called Mercedes EQS( large sedan), Mercedes EQX (crossover).  Seems like it will still be Mercedes-Benz then EQ and a letter that lines up similar to what they have now or Mercedes-EQ S, Mercedes-EQ X, etc.  

EQ S is pretty danged close to Equus. 
They could do better than that.

I'd definitely like to see OEMs move away from dubbing the power trains as the model names. IE: changing the model name dependent on the engine. Which, that, they don't even follow.

Cadillac could do better than "SRX" when Lexus sells an RX, or better than XT5 when BMW sells an X5.  At least the Equus isn't on sale anymore.

It seems that Mercedes will have EQE and EQS sedans, and they did trademark EQG, so maybe an electric G-wagon one day, maybe they use EQM and EQX for crossovers since they used to have an M-class, seems like that letter would make sense.  They have to call it something, and I'm sure they want to relate it to the current C-E-S line they have now.

Mercedes-EQ S400 with 400 hp, Mercedes-EQ S500 with 500 hp could be a way to go, just make the number the electric power or do a 400, 500, 600 like Tesla does 70, 80, 90..  They'll figure it out.  The important thing to remember is Mercedes invented the car, and will reinvent it.

Cadillac could do better than "SRX" when Lexus sells an RX, or better than XT5 when BMW sells an X5.  At least the Equus isn't on sale anymore.

 

It seems that Mercedes will have EQE and EQS sedans, and they did trademark EQG, so maybe an electric G-wagon one day, maybe they use EQM and EQX for crossovers since they used to have an M-class, seems like that letter would make sense.  They have to call it something, and I'm sure they want to relate it to the current C-E-S line they have now.

 

Mercedes-EQ S400 with 400 hp, Mercedes-EQ S500 with 500 hp could be a way to go, just make the number the electric power or do a 400, 500, 600 like Tesla does 70, 80, 90..  They'll figure it out.  The important thing to remember is Mercedes invented the car, and will reinvent it.

Again, granting Mercedes excuses that you don't afford to anyone else.

What excuse?  They haven't even named the car yet.  

Where is Cadillac's electric car?  Maybe in 3 years we'll get a Cadillac Bolt with 200 front drive horses. And GM fans will say it is better than a Tesla or the Audi E-Tron or the Mercedes electric cars that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds.

Cadillac could do better than "SRX" when Lexus sells an RX, or better than XT5 when BMW sells an X5.

Good point- and I agree. 'XT5' and 'CT6' I strongly dislike. Esp with 'Brougham' unused, in the wings.

But don't gloss over the homogenization of the auto industry, where now 'X' for some dumb reason, means a car-based SUV. 

The important thing to remember is Mercedes invented the car, and will reinvent it.

Hilarious. Again I ask; What's this ?

1868, FTW.

There are others…..

First production automobile with gasoline engine, patent proves it:

Karl Benz invited the car, Bertha Benz was the first person ever to drive a car a distance of 100 km.  They invented the car, and cross country driving.  Benz invented the first gas engine with horizontally opposed cylinders in 1897 and they rear mounted it.    You're welcome Porsche.

• Patent doesn't prove anything. And that's a German patent; the Hill car is American.

Benz applied for a patent in 1886, issued later that year.
Seldon applied for a U.S. patent in 1879 but it was not issued until 1895.

Seldon car :
 

• Hill car was built in 1868. It was initially steam-powered, but none the less; it was a functional, 4-wheeled automobile, built 19 years before Benz's tricycle.

• Three wheels isn't a car anyway, it's a motorcycle.

BTW, "first car with an X engine" immediately puts a disclaimer on the claim, thusly disqualifying it. It's either the first self-propelled, 4-wheel vehicle, or it's not.
In this case, the Benz is obviously not.

In 1862 Etienne Lenoir built the first automobile with an internal-combustion engine. He had adapted his engine to run on liquid fuel and with his vehicle made a 6-mile trip that required two to three hours.

1858 - Belgian-born engineer, Jean JosephÉtienne Lenoir invented and patented (1860) a double-acting, electric spark-ignition internal combustion engine fueled by coal gas. In 1863, Lenoir attached an improved engine (using petroleum and a primitive carburetor) to a three-wheeled wagon that managed to complete an historic fifty-mile road trip.

What excuse?  They haven't even named the car yet.  

 

Where is Cadillac's electric car?  Maybe in 3 years we'll get a Cadillac Bolt with 200 front drive horses. And GM fans will say it is better than a Tesla or the Audi E-Tron or the Mercedes electric cars that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds.

I am talking about the naming schemes that you give Mercedes a free pass on while criticizing Cadillacs naming scheme. Good grief man. Try to keep up here.

Now that you say it though, where is the Mercedes EV? I hear and read a lot of talk but until I see one at my local MB dealership, it is just as much vapor ware as anything by Cadillac.

Mercedes has used s-class, SL, E-class, G-wagen for 40-60 years depending on the model. It has been consistent. The 10th generation E-class just went on sale, that is consistency.

Cadillac's oldest nameplate is 1999, their 2nd oldest is 2002 and they are about to kill it. They threw all there heritage names in the trash for alphabet soup. That is my criticism of Cadillac names. Cadillac's oldest nameplate is also the only one with a word name and it is their most successful. Yet they don't go back to Fleetwood or Eldorado, they want to sell a CT6 instead.

Next BMW i8 is supposed to have 750 HP and be all electric with a 300 mile range. So I applaud them for that because the current 420 HP $150,000 plug in hybrid is a rip off. Still 5 years away though.

Mercedes has used s-class, SL, E-class, G-wagen for 40-60 years depending on the model. It has been consistent. The 10th generation E-class just went on sale, that is consistency.

Cadillac's oldest nameplate is 1999, their 2nd oldest is 2002 and they are about to kill it. They threw all there heritage names in the trash for alphabet soup. That is my criticism of Cadillac names. Cadillac's oldest nameplate is also the only one with a word name and it is their most successful. Yet they don't go back to Fleetwood or Eldorado, they want to sell a CT6 instead.

None of those CUVs, that they get the bulk of their sales from these days, have the "heritage" you speak of yet I couldn't help but notice that you skipped over that part.

I'm with Balth btw. The letter schemes being used by car companies these days is just too generic and lacks identity. My point to you is that if it is a knock on Cadillac, then it is also a knock on Mercedes.

Starting a petition drive to rename the CT6 to "Brougham".

+1 ^^^^^^^ I am with bathazar on this in bringing back the names to Cadillac.

 

Mercedes has used s-class, SL, E-class, G-wagen for 40-60 years depending on the model. It has been consistent. The 10th generation E-class just went on sale, that is consistency.

Cadillac's oldest nameplate is 1999, their 2nd oldest is 2002 and they are about to kill it. They threw all there heritage names in the trash for alphabet soup. That is my criticism of Cadillac names. Cadillac's oldest nameplate is also the only one with a word name and it is their most successful. Yet they don't go back to Fleetwood or Eldorado, they want to sell a CT6 instead.

None of those CUVs, that they get the bulk of their sales from these days, have the "heritage" you speak of yet I couldn't help but notice that you skipped over that part.

I'm with Balth btw. The letter schemes being used by car companies these days is just too generic and lacks identity. My point to you is that if it is a knock on Cadillac, then it is also a knock on Mercedes.

 

Mercedes first SUV was the G, all their SUVs now have G in the name.    And hard for a GLK or GLC to have heritage when it came out in 2009.  But they have kept the naming nomenclature similar , and it is consistent across the line.  

Mercedes has used s-class, SL, E-class, G-wagen for 40-60 years depending on the model. It has been consistent. The 10th generation E-class just went on sale, that is consistency.

Cadillac's oldest nameplate is 1999, their 2nd oldest is 2002 and they are about to kill it. They threw all there heritage names in the trash for alphabet soup. That is my criticism of Cadillac names. Cadillac's oldest nameplate is also the only one with a word name and it is their most successful. Yet they don't go back to Fleetwood or Eldorado, they want to sell a CT6 instead.

None of those CUVs, that they get the bulk of their sales from these days, have the "heritage" you speak of yet I couldn't help but notice that you skipped over that part.

I'm with Balth btw. The letter schemes being used by car companies these days is just too generic and lacks identity. My point to you is that if it is a knock on Cadillac, then it is also a knock on Mercedes.

Mercedes first SUV was the G, all their SUVs now have G in the name.    And hard for a GLK or GLC to have heritage when it came out in 2009.  But they have kept the naming nomenclature similar , and it is consistent across the line.

Guess you forgot about the ML and your statement about the year the GLC came illustrates why Cadillac did what they did. The old name scheme had to go. As much heritage as those names held at one time, by 2000 no one gave two craps about them because Cadillac was no longer what they once were. The names became synonymous with the junk years at GM. To make a fresh start, they had to change the naming on them once the new models came out. Again, I'm not crazy about any of the letter named cars from any make. They just come off as generic, whether it is from Cadillac or Mercedes.

Starting a petition drive to rename the CT6 to "Brougham".

Maybe not Brougham, as Brougham sounds to old geezery but I still gave you a +1.

Id nix all the old names except for Eldorado and Id keep Elmiraj too.

Maybe even Allante and Calais.

Come to think of it, I think a CT6 could be called Calais and be successful. 

 

Starting a petition drive to rename the CT6 to "Brougham".

Maybe not Brougham, as Brougham sounds to old geezery but I still gave you a +1.

 

Id nix all the old names except for Eldorado and Id keep Elmiraj too.

I dont know what proper name a CT6 should have....I do want a name name.

I decided that Allante and Calais should be left in the past so I edited it  that part out in this post!!!