Keep your friends rich and your enemies rich and then tell apart which is which!

[Suaviloquent]

 

Well then I'm a sheep.

 

I love Cadillacs. I aspire, like how my dad mentions - to own a Cadillac. Now it's no longer about what the company makes. I like the badge, and I love the styling from the CTS and CT6.

 

My dad is still very fond of the Impalas, especially the Impala SS he used to lease from the company allowance way back when.

 

When he saw the new Impala in 2014 he instantly recognized it from the badge on the C - pillar. And Impala, big, floaty, cushy and luxo, that's his fav.

 

I would like to be able though to get him a Cadillac down the line, he can enjoy his retirement then in a very smart, and luxo rebirth of Cadillac.

 

And I know very much the classic myth that S-Class owners get a new one every 2 years.

 

Years ago, a former school teacher (who is a Lexus fanatic becuz Lexus......but his biggest reason to buy a maxed out IS and RX was the legend that has become their quality and reliability)...he told me some of his investment banker friends...all they did replace S-class every 2 years. They'd been doing it now for 16 years. YEA. They didn't really shop outside, they had thought about 7 Series or A8, but really superficially.

 

The biggest thing is that the most lucrative customers are current customers. Our marketing course was so much about remembering when you do a big change, think of ways to mitigate any side effects on current customers.

 

That's what the XTS was I think. When the new CTS came out, there had to be a luxo car for near the same price, but much larger car. It was a 2 pronged attack. 

 

I think everyone knows most Benzes have $h!ty resale, but most cars past $100k....they have $h!ty resale unless it's a Lexus or Porsche or a limited quantity model or special edition of a high volume model. When most of those cars are also leased, it's a question of whether it'll be competitive or not - but there's no hassle with trade-in or selling a car private party wise.

Oh good grief Sauve. Stop being a drama queen about it. You know full well how badge snobbery works and to me, that is a sheep mentality. There is no other way to put it.

 

 

Ok Surreal, I am not being a drama queen. You get riled up too easily, especially for this, where I'm just sharing my dream and life experiences.

 

If you do not like story time, then I can't help you here, and you can keep opinions to yourself, because I don't like being called out for stuff that ISN'T bull$h!.

[Suaviloquent]

I can agree that brand snobbery exists, I am a Cadillac snob after-all.

 

But I think it's just a superficial part of every car.

 

Ultimately people use the G-class to tote around their kids and get groceries. There's the entire function of a car that it still brings to the table.

 

Maybe they want an old style behemoth. I've been fortunate enough to be able to try to life the hood or open the doors to one of these things. They're heavy as f***.

 

Anyone with the money to get these, they have one of each. Or they can get one of each. Who cares if they are brand snobs? 

 

That's more of a characterization of the person, not the car. Who cares if it depreciates like consumer electronics? It's now an icon, and I think there's no reason to modernize too much, because it's appeal would be truly lost.

[surreal1272]

Well then I'm a sheep.

I love Cadillacs. I aspire, like how my dad mentions - to own a Cadillac. Now it's no longer about what the company makes. I like the badge, and I love the styling from the CTS and CT6.

My dad is still very fond of the Impalas, especially the Impala SS he used to lease from the company allowance way back when.

When he saw the new Impala in 2014 he instantly recognized it from the badge on the C - pillar. And Impala, big, floaty, cushy and luxo, that's his fav.

I would like to be able though to get him a Cadillac down the line, he can enjoy his retirement then in a very smart, and luxo rebirth of Cadillac.

And I know very much the classic myth that S-Class owners get a new one every 2 years.

Years ago, a former school teacher (who is a Lexus fanatic becuz Lexus......but his biggest reason to buy a maxed out IS and RX was the legend that has become their quality and reliability)...he told me some of his investment banker friends...all they did replace S-class every 2 years. They'd been doing it now for 16 years. YEA. They didn't really shop outside, they had thought about 7 Series or A8, but really superficially.

The biggest thing is that the most lucrative customers are current customers. Our marketing course was so much about remembering when you do a big change, think of ways to mitigate any side effects on current customers.

That's what the XTS was I think. When the new CTS came out, there had to be a luxo car for near the same price, but much larger car. It was a 2 pronged attack.

I think everyone knows most Benzes have $h!ty resale, but most cars past $100k....they have $h!ty resale unless it's a Lexus or Porsche or a limited quantity model or special edition of a high volume model. When most of those cars are also leased, it's a question of whether it'll be competitive or not - but there's no hassle with trade-in or selling a car private party wise.

Oh good grief Sauve. Stop being a drama queen about it. You know full well how badge snobbery works and to me, that is a sheep mentality. There is no other way to put it.

Ok Surreal, I am not being a drama queen. You get riled up too easily, especially for this, where I'm just sharing my dream and life experiences.

If you do not like story time, then I can't help you here, and you can keep opinions to yourself, because I don't like being called out for stuff that ISN'T bull$h!.

Seems like it's you that's getting riled up because it sure isn't me. Where anywhere did I call you out on your post as being "bull$h!"? That's all you Sauve. I am speaking from my experience as well so to simply dismiss mine because you think your "storytime" is more important or relevant or whatever you think it is so much that you feel slighted by my response, is rather short sighted and honestly kind of childish. Just saying.

and my point about this has always been about the buses mentality and it can just as easily applied to the out of touch douchebags that clamped for the also way overpriced H1 while never using it for what it was designed for. It's all about that "I got to have this cachet time" SHEEP mentality.

Edited July 8, 2016 by surreal1272

[balthazar]

We're going to again state the "appeal" is 300 units/month.
With that firmly in mind, "who cares" if it gets changed/ vastly updated?

IE; loose 300…. gain 2300 ??? (Range Rover/RR Sport monthly sales, MSRP starting @ $84K-$110K, depending on WB/powertrain).

[smk4565]

It is low volume for sure, but so are Rolls-Royces, Bentleys, Ferraris, Aston Martins, Audi R8s, Acura NSX, Lamborghinis, etc.  The G-glass is an exotic car in the SUV world.  There are several V12 sports cars out there, mid-engine supercars, etc.  But until the Bentley Bentayga hit the market, get G-class was the only exotic SUV out there.  That's what makes it special, and the Bentley can't go off road, there is still nothing like a G-class.

 

As far as the Ranger Rover goes, the better comparison is probably to the GLS, even though the GLS is a little bigger, they line up more on price, features, etc.

[ccap41]

The Rover has serious off road capabilities though. It is larger like the GLS but the GLS is good for parking in the grass to watch fireworks or something but that's about it.

[balthazar]

GLS is a soft roader, and it starts $23K below the base SWB Range Rover. It also has very little cred in this circle.

 

Range Rover is the best comparison, and it arguably has better cred, to start because it's from THIS CENTURY.

The LWB RR starts @ 108K, the $62K GLS isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

G-wagon isn't an 'exotic', it's just a 'lunch box' the rich like to paint non-factory colors and change the rims on.

It's like the brick wall the kids like to 'tag'.

 

RangRove outsells the G nearly 9:1. MB has fallen too far behind to see from here.

Edited July 8, 2016 by balthazar

[smk4565]

The Range Rover is a legit off roader for sure, one of the best out there.

 

The real Range Rover, as I call it, that starts at $85k sold 1,044 units last month.  The Range Rover Sport that starts at $64k sold 1,500, and that isn't a true off roader, and the $41k Range Rover Evoque isn't even a Range Rover.  So if we look at the real Range Rover it outsells the G-wagen by 3 to 1, but starts $35,000 cheaper too.

 

I think the GLS  can hold its own off road, they do sell an off road package for it.  It is no Range Rover, but it could mop the floor with a Lexus RX or Acura MDX or any of those car based crossovers.

[ccap41]

GLS is a soft roader, and it starts $23K below the base SWB Range Rover. It also has very little cred in this circle.

 

Range Rover is the best comparison, and it arguably has better cred, to start because it's from THIS CENTURY.

The LWB RR starts @ 108K, the $62K GLS isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

G-wagon isn't an 'exotic', it's just a 'lunch box' the rich like to paint non-factory colors and change the rims on.

It's like the brick wall the kids like to 'tag'.

 

RangRove outsells the G nearly 9:1. MB has fallen too far behind to see from here.

Just out of curiosity... what do you consider an "exotic"? I had this discussion with my friends awhile back and it seems everybody has a different perspective of the phrase "exotic car".

[ccap41]

The Range Rover is a legit off roader for sure, one of the best out there.

 

The real Range Rover, as I call it, that starts at $85k sold 1,044 units last month.  The Range Rover Sport that starts at $64k sold 1,500, and that isn't a true off roader, and the $41k Range Rover Evoque isn't even a Range Rover.  So if we look at the real Range Rover it outsells the G-wagen by 3 to 1, but starts $35,000 cheaper too.

 

I think the GLS  can hold its own off road, they do sell an off road package for it.  It is no Range Rover, but it could mop the floor with a Lexus RX or Acura MDX or any of those car based crossovers.

The Evoque has a lot of off road goodies doesn't it? Like multiple terrain management, raise and lower suspension accordingly, those fancy front cameras to look around obstacles as you're creeping around them?

[G. David Felt]

 

The Range Rover is a legit off roader for sure, one of the best out there.

 

The real Range Rover, as I call it, that starts at $85k sold 1,044 units last month.  The Range Rover Sport that starts at $64k sold 1,500, and that isn't a true off roader, and the $41k Range Rover Evoque isn't even a Range Rover.  So if we look at the real Range Rover it outsells the G-wagen by 3 to 1, but starts $35,000 cheaper too.

 

I think the GLS  can hold its own off road, they do sell an off road package for it.  It is no Range Rover, but it could mop the floor with a Lexus RX or Acura MDX or any of those car based crossovers.

The Evoque has a lot of off road goodies doesn't it? Like multiple terrain management, raise and lower suspension accordingly, those fancy front cameras to look around obstacles as you're creeping around them?

 

I also thought the VW / Audi / Porsche had those same features, adjustable suspension, camera, various crawl modes, etc.

[ccap41]

 

 

The Range Rover is a legit off roader for sure, one of the best out there.

 

The real Range Rover, as I call it, that starts at $85k sold 1,044 units last month.  The Range Rover Sport that starts at $64k sold 1,500, and that isn't a true off roader, and the $41k Range Rover Evoque isn't even a Range Rover.  So if we look at the real Range Rover it outsells the G-wagen by 3 to 1, but starts $35,000 cheaper too.

 

I think the GLS  can hold its own off road, they do sell an off road package for it.  It is no Range Rover, but it could mop the floor with a Lexus RX or Acura MDX or any of those car based crossovers.

The Evoque has a lot of off road goodies doesn't it? Like multiple terrain management, raise and lower suspension accordingly, those fancy front cameras to look around obstacles as you're creeping around them?

 

I also thought the VW / Audi / Porsche had those same features, adjustable suspension, camera, various crawl modes, etc.

 

They very well might.. I honestly don't know. 

[balthazar]

CORRECTION : I was not aware of the range in Range Rover MSRPs. The site I was looking at was convoluted, and I didn't see that the Sport & Evoque were that much lower. Frankly, I find the brand confusing & the appeal amorphous, but that's neither here nor there.

 

But still, perhaps that's a excellent model for the G to emulate: a sub-brand with smaller/cheaper models in the same vein (after the mandatory full redesign, of course), leveraging the G-brand to higher sales. I doubt anyone who wants a SUV with the latest & modern amenities is cross-shopping the G and the GLS, so there shouldn't be much cannibalizing.

[ccap41]

I think Range Rover is like AMG to Mercedes though.. AMG is their sub-brand. 

[balthazar]

Just out of curiosity... what do you consider an "exotic"? I had this discussion with my friends awhile back and it seems everybody has a different perspective of the phrase "exotic car".

I don't have a hard definition to answer that, but then again, I don't place a great deal of significance to the term.

Pressed, I'd say 'Lamborghini / Ferrari', but I could just as easily say 'Hudson Italia'. Very amorphous term.

[smk4565]

 

GLS is a soft roader, and it starts $23K below the base SWB Range Rover. It also has very little cred in this circle.

 

Range Rover is the best comparison, and it arguably has better cred, to start because it's from THIS CENTURY.

The LWB RR starts @ 108K, the $62K GLS isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

G-wagon isn't an 'exotic', it's just a 'lunch box' the rich like to paint non-factory colors and change the rims on.

It's like the brick wall the kids like to 'tag'.

 

RangRove outsells the G nearly 9:1. MB has fallen too far behind to see from here.

Just out of curiosity... what do you consider an "exotic"? I had this discussion with my friends awhile back and it seems everybody has a different perspective of the phrase "exotic car".

 

I would consider exotic a combination of rare, expensive, powerful, bold/unique styling, and capability or performance beyond 95% of other cars.  Or some combination of those traits.  I think an exotic has to stand out looks wise, but also be in that top 5% of performance.

[balthazar]

Like a Mustang GT?

 

Edited July 9, 2016 by balthazar

[smk4565]

Like a Mustang GT?

 

Mustang is not expensive nor dies it have power and performance in the top 5% of car models. Corvette Z06 performance level I'd say is enough to get to that level, but the Corvette isn't rare. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Koenegsegg, Paganism, McLaren, I'd call exotics. They are on another level of performance and rare.

[balthazar]

I dunno: Mustang GT350R runs $65K, does 0-60 in 3.9, 70-0 in 141 and hits 1.1Gs. Rumored to have matched the 911 GT3's lap times.
That meets mu definition.

 

So does this, BTW :

[oldshurst442]

I dunno: Mustang GT350R runs $65K, does 0-60 in 3.9, 70-0 in 141 and hits 1.1Gs. Rumored to have matched the 911 GT3's lap times.

That meets mu definition.

 

So does this, BTW :

 

Plus that GT350 has an exotic like flat plane crank V8..

Same like Ferrari.

Only bigger cubic inches making it more exotic because even rarer.

 

And that Mopar in the pic...is most definitely exotic for its day.

 

Too many people equate exotic with foreign...

[balthazar]

Plus that GT350 has an exotic like flat plane crank V8..

Same like Ferrari.

 

 

Too many people equate exotic with foreign...

^ You may have just done that : flat plane cranks are commonplace. Guess what else runs one- the EcoBoost Mustang.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-plane-silliness-how-crankshaft-press-release-duped-stephen-kim

[oldshurst442]

 

Plus that GT350 has an exotic like flat plane crank V8..

Same like Ferrari.

 

 

Too many people equate exotic with foreign...

^ You may have just done that : flat plane cranks are commonplace. Guess what else runs one- the EcoBoost Mustang.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-plane-silliness-how-crankshaft-press-release-duped-stephen-kim

Thanx Balthy.

 

Long read. I skimmed through it.

Will read tomorrow at a much slower pace so I could process  all of the info.

 

Will you be requiring the same cut from the $24 000 difference like the author suggested too?

Edited July 13, 2016 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

It's just typical marketing ploys; create buzz… which is fine if there's something to buzz over. 

[oldshurst442]

It's just typical marketing ploys; create buzz… which is fine if there's something to buzz over. 

Yeah. I figured as much 1/4 of the way through the article. And the article says that exact same thing at the end. The marketing geniuses have worked their magic undermining the rest of what makes the 5.2 liter great.

I need to read the whole thing slowly though because the article seems to underline the real engineering feats of the 5.2 liter Voodoo.

[ccap41]

 

 

Plus that GT350 has an exotic like flat plane crank V8..

Same like Ferrari.

 

 

Too many people equate exotic with foreign...

^ You may have just done that : flat plane cranks are commonplace. Guess what else runs one- the EcoBoost Mustang.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-plane-silliness-how-crankshaft-press-release-duped-stephen-kim

Thanx Balthy.

 

Long read. I skimmed through it.

Will read tomorrow at a much slower pace so I could process  all of the info.

 

Will you be requiring the same cut from the $24 000 difference like the author suggested too?

 

..could one of you copy and paste that here as I cannot access Linkedin from mah work computer..?

[balthazar]

Piece is too long to quote here IMO, but here's the first 3 paragraphs :

 

All I want for Christmas is a flat-plane crank. Everyone’s talking about them. All the cool kids have them. Ford even put one in the new 2016 Mustang GT350. It says “flat-plane crank” right there on the valve covers, and just about every blog and magazine article ever written about the GT350 can’t stop talking about it. Per Ford’s press release, “Unlike traditional V-8 engines, the all-new 5.2 liter uses a flat-plane crankshaft more typically found in a Ferrari sports car or in a racing application.” Sounds mighty impressive, doesn’t it?

But here’s the thing. My wife’s minivan has a flat-plane crank. The mail truck that delivered my delinquent HOA bill this morning has a flat-plane crank. Every ricer that ever put a fart can on his Civic has a flat-plane crank. Even my three-year-old daughter’s bicycle has a flat-plane crank. Mind you, this is a machine so fierce that only training wheels can harness its fury. How is it possible that these flat-plane-crank-equipped technical marvels somehow flew beneath the radar? That’s easy. Before “flat-plane crank” became a sexy new catchphrase, no one cared if an engine’s crank was flat, quasi-flat, semi-flat, kinda flat, or not flat at all.

If you want really want to buy a new Mustang, and it really needs to have a flat-plane crank, why not get the 2.3L Ecoboost model for half the price of a GT350 that also has, you guessed it, a flat-plane crank? I’ll gladly take a small cut of the $24,000 I just saved you. The inconvenient fact that the GT350’s flat-plane crank layout “typically found in a Ferrari” is also typically found in fire-breathing grocery-getters puts the silliness of all this flat-plane hype into perspective.

[ccap41]

lol they are conveniently pushing back that all 4cyl engines are flat plane cranks but never mention the work that goes into making one with 8 cylinders and the benefits of a flat plane crank vs a cross plane crank in said V8.

Edited July 13, 2016 by ccap41

[oldshurst442]

Yeah....but a flat plane crank is a flat plane crank...

 

Marketing takes over...

THAT is what the article is all about.

There are many other fantastic things the Voodoo engineering does (I havent read the article in detail yet)...but  strictly marketing the Voodoo as a flat plane crank diminishes all other aspects of it...

 

And the faux pas I made earlier is what Balthy is trying to convey to me....and SMK...

 

I dont know how to post that link any other way CCAP.

[Drew Dowdell]

lol they are conveniently pushing back that all 4cyl engines are flat plane cranks but never mention the work that goes into making one with 8 cylinders and the benefits of a flat plane crank vs a cross plane crank in said V8.

 

Actually, the article points out that there are very few benefits to a flat plane crank. Slightly lower rotating mass is about it. The performance that Ford gained in the 5.2 mostly came from excellent engineering at the other side of the engine... .the valvetrain. 

[ccap41]

 

lol they are conveniently pushing back that all 4cyl engines are flat plane cranks but never mention the work that goes into making one with 8 cylinders and the benefits of a flat plane crank vs a cross plane crank in said V8.

 

Actually, the article points out that there are very few benefits to a flat plane crank. Slightly lower rotating mass is about it. The performance that Ford gained in the 5.2 mostly came from excellent engineering at the other side of the engine... .the valvetrain. 

 

Sorry I can only read what Balthy copied and pasted in as I can't get to Linkedin from my work computer. 

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

lol they are conveniently pushing back that all 4cyl engines are flat plane cranks but never mention the work that goes into making one with 8 cylinders and the benefits of a flat plane crank vs a cross plane crank in said V8.

 

Actually, the article points out that there are very few benefits to a flat plane crank. Slightly lower rotating mass is about it. The performance that Ford gained in the 5.2 mostly came from excellent engineering at the other side of the engine... .the valvetrain. 

 

Sorry I can only read what Balthy copied and pasted in as I can't get to Linkedin from my work computer. 

 

 

Well, when you get home... you can read why all the fuss over a flat-plane crank in a V8 is just marketing fluff.  It's confusing why Ford decided to promote that rather than the real engineering feats in the valvetrain.  Probably simpler. 

[balthazar]

Article does mention that Cadillac introduced the cross-plane V8 crank, IIRC in the 'teens.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

lol they are conveniently pushing back that all 4cyl engines are flat plane cranks but never mention the work that goes into making one with 8 cylinders and the benefits of a flat plane crank vs a cross plane crank in said V8.

 

Actually, the article points out that there are very few benefits to a flat plane crank. Slightly lower rotating mass is about it. The performance that Ford gained in the 5.2 mostly came from excellent engineering at the other side of the engine... .the valvetrain. 

 

Sorry I can only read what Balthy copied and pasted in as I can't get to Linkedin from my work computer. 

 

 

Well, when you get home... you can read why all the fuss over a flat-plane crank in a V8 is just marketing fluff.  It's confusing why Ford decided to promote that rather than the real engineering feats in the valvetrain.  Probably simpler. 

 

Oh it is probably waaaaaaay easier to market "flat plane crank" and Ferrari compard to complex valvetrain words. lol

[smk4565]

Ford GT is an exotic, the rest of their line up now and through history is not.

[balthazar]

Not true.