smk4565
-
Posts
13,686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Gallery
Events
Store
Collections
Everything posted by smk4565
-
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.
-
Average car is around .30 today,the best ones are around .23 or .24. Some crossovers are in the .31 to .34 range.
-
The G80 would make the most sense since it is already in production, and they just need to turbocharge the 5.0 V8. A turbo V6 for the G70 or whatever the Genesis Coupe becomes would make sense, the Genesis Coupe should get the 5.0 V8 because then they can sell it to Mustang fans that love 5.0 badging.
-
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.
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
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.
- 49 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
The new Prius is god awful ugly. When you see it in person there are so many angles, and weird cut lines.
-
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.
-
Should have a way better aero number than .32. The Bolt isn't really a great looking car, tall hatchbacks tend not to look that good, so it isn't like they had to sacrifice aero in terms of great looks. Part of keeping EV range up is also cutting down drag.
-
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.
-
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.
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
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.
-
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.
- 49 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- BMW i
- Electric Vehicles
- (and 4 more)
-
I am holding out for the Hellcat version. Once sales slide in year 3 or 4 FCA's solution will be to add more power and let the same chassis and sheet metal soldier on 10 more years. Anyone realize the Jeep Compass is going into its 11th model year without a re-design? I think the current body style is going to continue to 2025, and they are adding a Pentastar V6 in 2019.
-
We can do it with the 2002 Camaro, but with accurate numbers. The 2002 Camaro Z28 was 310 hp and 340 lb-ft and those are probably down rated numbers, dyno tests thought that car was making more like 335 hp, but the Corvette was 350, so they wanted it to look less. Base 2002 Camaro was $18,415. In today's dollars that is $24,649 today, so the 2017 model at $26,300 is pretty close. They held the line pretty well there. 2002 Camaro Z28 was $22,830 which is $30,559 today. Which is close to where the V6 Camaro is, with similar performance to the V8 of the day. I am on board with the V6 of today is equal to the V8 of 2002, so in this regard they kept the price in line with inflation. But the performance is the same, most cars today are faster than their 2002 counterparts. The lower end Camaros are still in the affordable realm, but my fear is since they are focusing on the high power, high trim models, you have to build the chassis to handle that power and you drag the lower end models up the price ladder or just drop them altogether. To use the Mercedes SL example, the 2003 SL500 did 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, today the SL550 can do it in 4.3 seconds, and the price with inflation is the same as it was in 2003. If you look at the 2002 Mustang GT, those had a 260 hp V8 for $23,220 which is $31,080 with inflation. You can buy an Ecoboost Mustang which is faster than that car for $25,645 or get a V8 GT for $32,645. For $1,500 more than a 2002 GT, today's GT blows it away. The Mustang's value quotient has increased in the past 15 years.
-
Where did you come up with that one? They were not priced like "everyman's" car, that's for sure… unless you mean every man wanted one. They've long been just about in Cadillac price ranges. And the SL absolutely changed it's mission; it was a stripped down, utilitarian car with crappy build & engineering quality for decades (it also had a straight 6 in the '50s, 60s and 70s)… now it's priced tremendously higher and is a loaded up, blingy luxury car when it originally was a sports car. (The '76 SL was $20K, by '89 (13 years later) it was $64K…. but WHO CARES??) At least I understand that singular automotive models DO change over time. $20,000 in 1976 is $85,234 today. A 2017 SL450 is $86,950. $64,000 in 1989 is $125,623 in today's dollars. In 1989 Mercedes only sold the top of the line 560SL, in the 70s they had the 350, later the 380 around 1980, and 450. And optioned up SL550 today would be $125,000. A 2000 SL550 was $82,600 base price, which is $116,084 in today's money. Today the SL550 is $110,500 base price. They have done a pretty good job keeping the car in the same price point of the market.
-
So much so that the ZR-1 ended production in 1995, took until 2009 to come back, the NSX limped on with no sales until 2002, died, came back in 2016, and the Viper has never sold well, and is now being put out of production. Meanwhile in the 90s, Porsche was the only German company really building super cars, now they all do. BMW and Mercedes back then and 850i and SL600 type cars, but they were tanks with V12s, meant for luxury not track performance. The LT1, LT4 C4, LS1 C5 Vettes took its place for it was CHEAPER to build because the LT5 was an expensive powerplant and low and behold, the LT1, LT4 and LS1 Vettes were even faster, lighter and actually, those caused even MORE havoc to the Germans and the Italians forcing the Germans to really offer a zillion 911 trims to specialize to dominate and the Italians to offer more expensive low end 308/328/348/F355/F430/360 Modena/458 and so forth and so forth.... I don't think Ferrari or Lamborghini have ever cared what the Corvette did, different segment, different buyer. Porsche makes 100 versions of the 911 so they can hose buyers $750 for painted AC vents, and $2500 for personalized door sills, or charge you $20,000 to take out the back seat.
-
4 cylinder Camaro is $26k, the V6 is more. The sales chart doesn't lie, Camaro is down every month, people wonder why. But you can't see out of if, and the price keeps going up faster than competitor cars go up. And the options list runs the price up fast.
- 146 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2017
- 2017 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
- (and 4 more)
-
I know most new car buyers are older, and most 20-somethings or the average 20-something isn't buying a $30k new car. I said the 20-somethings there are buying cars, there are some out there, or maybe even in the 25-34 demographic that are going to buy a new car for $25-29k, there isn't much choice, except a rental spec Camaro or Mustang. In 2002 a V8 Camaro was $22,300, the same as a Camary XLE. Todays Camry XLE is like $26,000. Now todays V6 is also 2002's V8. In 2014 $24,700 was the price of a Camaro V6, now it is $29k for a base V6. Nearly $5,000 increase in 2 years. Put any options on that car (like $1,500 for an automatic transmission) and you get to $35k really quick, even for the 4-cylinder car. The Scion tC is $19,300 right now, and has 180 hp, Toyota could easily make a Celica for $20k base. It is a Corolla chassis with a coupe body and pick a corporate 4-banger to put in there, even the Camry's 4-cylinder/6AT in a 2,900 lb car or whatever a tC weights can feel peppy to drive. We aren't talking sub 6 second 0-60 time, but it could be a sporty looking car with some fun factor for younger buyers. And do you think 20 something year olds could have afford Camry XLE price tags? Like I said... Civic Si and Golf GTIs were the cars that mommy and daddy bought for them. How much did those go for? 15 000? Pontiac Firefly turbos and Cavalier Z24s... Asuna Sunfires... Ford Probes too. Those being the most expensive that the average joe 20 year old bought with mommy money! Camaro LT1 V8s were out of their reach... A 2002 GTI bas was $19,460, VR6 had an MSRP of $20,845. The GTI 337 (limited edition) was $22,775. Base 2002 Camaro $19,015 and the Z28 (LS1 V8) was $23,430. They were pretty much the same price.
- 146 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2017
- 2017 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
- (and 4 more)
-
Every mid-engine car in today's world is expensive. The Corvette has been front engine, rear drive for 60 years, why mess with what works. The Mercedes SL has sort of been the German equivalent to the Corvette Convertible, both came out in the 50s and have been going ever since. The SL was mostly V8 or V12 since the early 70s (brief run of straight six in the early 90s) and they offer a V6 now since today's V6 makes the power of an early 2000s V8. Bu they kept the car in the same segment with the same mission. When time came for a hardcore sports car, they did the SLR, the SLS Gullwing, the AMG GT, they had a different car fulfill that mission. They didn't throw away the SL's heritage or mission because they wanted to chase Ferrari all of a sudden. I would like to see a Corvette with a base V6 (maybe turbo) the V8 would be Stingray, and a 600 hp V8 could be Z06, $48-80k price range. This would fulfill the purpose of the Corvette being the every man's performance car, being what it was in the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Make something else above Corvette if they want more. Just like I think Cadillac should have an Omega SUV above Escalade that is high performance. But they have drawn some line in the sand that Escalade is the top Cadillac, nothing can ever surpass it, even though it is built on a Chevy pick up truck chassis.
-
So much so that the ZR-1 ended production in 1995, took until 2009 to come back, the NSX limped on with no sales until 2002, died, came back in 2016, and the Viper has never sold well, and is now being put out of production. Meanwhile in the 90s, Porsche was the only German company really building super cars, now they all do. BMW and Mercedes back then and 850i and SL600 type cars, but they were tanks with V12s, meant for luxury not track performance.
-
I know most new car buyers are older, and most 20-somethings or the average 20-something isn't buying a $30k new car. I said the 20-somethings there are buying cars, there are some out there, or maybe even in the 25-34 demographic that are going to buy a new car for $25-29k, there isn't much choice, except a rental spec Camaro or Mustang. In 2002 a V8 Camaro was $22,300, the same as a Camary XLE. Todays Camry XLE is like $26,000. Now todays V6 is also 2002's V8. In 2014 $24,700 was the price of a Camaro V6, now it is $29k for a base V6. Nearly $5,000 increase in 2 years. Put any options on that car (like $1,500 for an automatic transmission) and you get to $35k really quick, even for the 4-cylinder car. The Scion tC is $19,300 right now, and has 180 hp, Toyota could easily make a Celica for $20k base. It is a Corolla chassis with a coupe body and pick a corporate 4-banger to put in there, even the Camry's 4-cylinder/6AT in a 2,900 lb car or whatever a tC weights can feel peppy to drive. We aren't talking sub 6 second 0-60 time, but it could be a sporty looking car with some fun factor for younger buyers.
-
Now to jump in the Deloran and go back to 1991, when Dodge, Chevy and Acrua supposedly put Ferrari and Lamborghini on notice. The Ferrari 308 and Mondail were crap, but everything in the early-mid 80s was crap. The Contach came out in 1974 and 1990 was the last year. If you look at the 1985-1990 era they had a 455 hp V12. Those ran 0-60 in 4.7 seconds with a top speed of 183 mph. In 1990 the Diablo came out, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds top speed of 202 mph. The Ferrari Testarossa came out in 1984, 0-60 was 5.2 seconds, top speed 180 mph. the 512TR came out in 1991 and did 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, and did 195 mph. The Ferrari 348 was good for 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, top speed of 170 mph in the early 90s. 1991 Porsche 911 Turbo did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds 12.9 seconds 1/4 mile, top speed of 166 mph. Here are the numbers for the NSX, Corvette, Viper. The ZR-1 did 0-60 in 4.9 seconds, a 13.2 second 1/4 mile and top speed of 171 mph. The 1991 Acura NSX did 0-60 as fast as 5.7 seconds, but 6.3 seconds with the automatic, top speed was 168 mph. The 192 Dodge Viper did 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, top speed was 165 mph. All 3 of those cars were slower than a discontinued Contach. The Porsche 911 was more in line with Viper/Vette/NSX pricing and it could out accelerate them all. The ZR-1 and Viper were fast for their time and much cheaper than a Ferrari or Lambo, but others had already hit that level of performance.
- 146 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2017
- 2017 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
- (and 4 more)
-
1969 is a long time ago, doesn't matter today. To me the Camaro should be a car that a 20-something can afford. Stagnant wages in the US and student loan debt is a whole other topic/debate, but there are people in their 20s buying new cars. Most of these people are probably in the Focus/Civic price point, but I there are younger buyers with no kids looking to spend $25k on a car and want something sporty, they don't want a Camry because their parents have one. They have limited options. And I'll say that I think it was a mistake for Toyota to kill the Celica, they are killing Scion, hopefully they bring the Celica back as a $20-25k sporty coupe, even if it is front drive with 200 hp. Young people would like it. Young people don't want a Corolla that is boring as wallpaper paste. Then you have Camaro/Corvette buyers who's kids are grown and gone, maybe they want a 2nd car, at these prices they might think it isn't worth it to drop $40k on a V6 Camaro, their daily driver Avalon or Impala already has that and is easier to get in and out of. The Supra is coming back, but I know it won't be cheap, Toyota is going to be going after Infiniti or maybe higher trim Camaro buyers. But again nothing for the average income folks. And maybe people wanting crossovers is also killing the sports car.
-
As far as Cadillac goes they have been trying to build their image since 1982, after the V8-6-4 fiasco. And new competitive product has been "a couple years away" since the Allante was in development. 30 years later, still waiting for the product and image. Based on Hyper's reasoning, we are led to believe that people would not spend $200,000, or even perhaps $125,000, on a Cadillac sports car, that is bought and serviced at a Cadillac dealership, with Cadillac dealership amenities. Yet that same buying public will spend $125,000 on a sports car at a Chevy dealership, and take it to the Chevy dealership to have it serviced by the same guy that works on Sonics and Cruzes. Whether the mid-engine Corvette is $70,000, $100,000 or $200,000, the sales price of the car is pretty much set by how much it costs to develop and build it. So if we just say, GM has made a $100k car called Zora and it has no logos or badges on it, which dealership should it be sold at? The clear choice is Cadillac. This idea of the Corvette will compete with the World's best is ridiculous. I just read the 2018 Aston Martin Vanquish will have a V12 with as much as 800 hp. So does the Corvette need an 800 hp V12 now? It isn't a Corvette if it costs $300,000, then it is just another crazy priced exotic that they make 500 a year of.
-
First off the ZR-1 or NSX didn't wake up Ferrari. Ferrari F40 came out in 1987 and could do 201 mph. It can hang with a lot of modern day super cars and it is nearly 30 years old. In fact, the 2017 Acura NSX or Corvette Z06 can't hit 200 mph. And my complaint about Camaro and Corvette together is they are pricing them way above Chevy prices. Chevy won't have a sports car people can afford, Ford can cash in with the Mustang (as they already are beating Camaro in sales) and even the Challenger outsold the Camaro last month and the Challenger sucks. I think we are only a a few years away from the Camaro costing more on average than a Cadillac ATS, and when that happens it will sell like a Cadillac ATS. And Ford will laugh and laugh all the way to the bank. I have said in the past I don't think any Camaro should have over 500 hp, once you get above 450-500 hp that is Corvette territory. Corvette I'd like to see start at $48k with a V6 and top out around $90,000. I would keep it similar to Porsche Boxster pricing. I am also 100% in support to GM building sports cars and super cars above $100,000, and I am all for them building 600 hp cars. Those should be Cadillac's though. the high price and high power should be at the high end brand. Chevy should build a sports car the average income can afford. That being said, if Chevy were to push Camaro to the $47-90,000 price point, and Corvette to the $100,000+ price point and introduce a new sports car in the $25-35,000 range, I could see the logic to what they are doing. But I feel like Chevy is leaving their customer behind as they chase these high prices.
- 146 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2017
- 2017 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
- (and 4 more)
