Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

smk4565

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,751

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Everything posted by smk4565

  1. smk4565
    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.
  2. smk4565
    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.
  3. smk4565
    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.
  4. smk4565
    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.
  5. smk4565
    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.
  6. smk4565
    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.
  7. smk4565
    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.
  8. smk4565
    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.
  9. smk4565
    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.
  10. smk4565
    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.
  11. smk4565
    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.
  12. smk4565
    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.
  13. smk4565
    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.
  14. smk4565
    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.
  15. smk4565
    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.
  16. smk4565
    GM is already developing a mid-engine sports car, the money is already being spent. Without question that should be a Cadillac. The best engineering, the best styling, the best performing cars GM makes should be Cadillacs. It isn't like I am saying stop development work on the next Equinox, Cruze or Malibu which are volume products that GM has to have, and divert resources to a Cadillac vanity project. In this case GM is already spending the time and money on a mid-engine car, giving it to Cadillac doesn't mean Chevy can't get a new crossover or sedan to market. The price escalation of the Camaro and Corvette is sort of like the size creep that occurs with Focus, Fusion, Cruze, Malibu. As those cars get bigger and more and more equipment, it pushes them against the Taurus and Impala, and basically the Taurus and Impala will be gone around 2020 so we can have $30,000 Malibus and Fusions. There is proof in the pudding too, the CTS used to sell 50-60,000 units a year, then they desired to make it bigger and more expensive in gen 2, and bigger and more expensive in gen 3, in the meantime killing the STS (their range topper at the time). So now you have what was the entry level CTS as the mid-level Cadillac and sales are about 15,000 a year. 60,000 down to 15,000. By 2020, I would not be surprised if the cheapest V8 Camaro is $48,000 and the cheapest V6 is $38,000 with the base car being $31k. I am not buying a Camaro so I don't care, but by 2020 they'll be selling 3,000 Camaros a month.
  17. smk4565
    One big problem with the XLR is it was less powerful and slower than the Corvette, yet $25,000 more. The other issue is they wanted to go directly against the Mercedes SL, and the Allante failed at that, Jaguar XK failed, Lexus SC failed, etc. No car survived, the SL is the last luxury roadster left. Audi never made a proper sports car before they made the R8, Acura was a car company for about 4 years when they launched the NSX. Cadillac just has to dive in and stay the course. Instead of GM pumping more and more money into making expensive Chevys, they should put those resources toward Cadillac.
  18. smk4565
    And that 638 HP Corvette had a Cadillac price tag. Maybe same price tag with that 469 HP Cadillac.Quite possibly a HIGHER price tag than it even.. And just to add to my post above... SMK... Find me the price tag of that 2002 Camaro SS anniversary edition and while you are at it, find me the price tag of the 2002 Pontiac Trans A WS6 collector edition (convertibles too) just to see how much those cost back in the day versus Toyota... But also do an equipment list comparison including the quality of the interior materials with the last special editions F-Bodies with a normal 2016 Camaro SS and see where the money went in the price tag. When you do that, I promise you, you will think the Alpha Camaro is a steal! Guys...the Alpha Camaro is much, much more than just a pony car... Once you folk realize what that means, then you wont be bitchin' about the price tag. Especially you SMK... You dont like BMW, but Mercedes Benz has NOTHING in THEIR stable either at ANY price point that beats the Alpha Camaro in performance... The upcoming ZL1 will EMBARRASS German cars twice and three times the ZL1's price tag in ANY performance metric you wanna throw at it! The ecotec turbo 4 also is quite the performer out gunning ANY German car at that price point... THAT is why the Alpha Camaro costs as much as it does..and its a STEAL! I am not saying the Alpha Camaro doesn't have far better performance and interior than the F-body, obviously it does. I think a 2016 Camry interior is nicer than the Camaro still, but that is sort of besides the point. The alpha Camaro has a high level of performance, the SS doing 0-60 in around 4 seconds is really fast, it is C6 Corvette level performance. In that regard it is good value, but the price point has moved higher and higher too. My complaint of Camaro and Corvette is they are both getting more and more expensive. Probably by 2020 you won't even be able to get a Camaro for under $30,000, the 2017 model is near $28k base. I've always thought the Camaro should be an inexpensive sports car, because Chevy has the Corvette above it. And if GM wants to challenge the Euro super cars, that is what Cadillac is for. Chevy shouldn't be going after the Audi R8 or Porsche 911, or Ferrari California, etc. Chevy should be worried about Ford and Toyota and Hyundai. Let Cadillac worry about the Euro exotics or the Acura NSX. And look at the NSX pricing, $150-200k, that is where the mid-engine Corvette is headed. And as far as the Alpha Camaro beating anything Benz makes, please. Mercedes had a car with a 209 mph top speed 10 years ago. GM never made a car that fast. The AMG GT will stomp any Camaro with ease. If Chevy wants to take on Mercedes so badly, maybe they should make an Impala with a hand made luxury interior to take on Maybach. I think people would pay $125,000 for a super luxury Impala, that makes as much sense as a $125,000 Chevy sports car.
  19. smk4565
    Again: erroneous. You are saying all Chevy models should be in a tight price range, why??? Because; Buick? Irrelevant. Not all Chevy's need to be in a tight range, but Chevy should be focused on value and building a fun sports car that regular people can afford. In year 2000, a Corvette had a price of $39,280 and not a huge options list to drive it into the stratosphere. The Cadillac Deville had a price of $39,895. Inflation at 2.15% since 2000 would mean $39k then is $55k now. So the Corvette base model has gone with inflation, but the higher trims push it way above where it was. A 2000 Cadillac SLS was $44,000, $5k more than a Corvette. Now a base Corvette is more than a Cadillac CT6. Cadillacs used to cost more than Corvettes.
  20. smk4565
    When in the last 50 years has Cadillac had more HP than Chevrolet, never mind higher performance? 1965 : Cadillac ~ 340, Chevy ~ 375 1975 : Cadillac ~ 190, Chevy ~ 235 Gotta love these arbitrary mandates from out of nowhere... 1996 Corvette 300 hp 1996 Seville STS 300 hp
  21. smk4565
    Because unlike Benz.. or BMW.. Cadillac is a part of a whole. It has sister brands that allow for its existence in teh same way that Audi exists within VW. If U don't think Cadillac brings massive profit to GM then U are a fool. They and U can paint the pic the way U want.. but in truth Cadillac has models that are platform sharing themselves into even more profits. The most blatant being the Escalade.. which I still have to convince some dullards is the same as the Tahoe/Subur/Yukon/YukonXL. The XTS and XT5/SRX are the others, and all are nice sellers. There is zero reason why their type of contribution should be cut loose as long as the core is RWD based models For sure Cadillac is making profit, but if the profits were so huge at Cadillac why aren't they making more Cadillac models? If the Cadillac division was making more profit than the Chevrolet division, wouldn't we be seeing like 2-3 new Cadillacs every year? Wouldn't there be 5 Cadillac crossovers, sports cars, hyper cars, the whole 9 yards. To use the Audi example, they are selling around 1.8 million cars a year, they easily make more dollars in profit than VW does selling 6 million cars.
  22. smk4565
    If we jump back in time to 2002, the Camaro had a base price of $18,415 and the Z28 was $22,830 which got you the V8. Compare that to the 2002 Toyota Camry (the #1 selling family sedan then and now) a base Camry LE was $18,970 Camry XLE was $22,295, SE V6 23,700. So very similar prices of the Camaro and Camry which put the Camaro priced right against the family sedan segment. Thus it was very affordable. Jump ahead to 2016. Camaro 2.0T $25,700, SS $36,300 Camry LE $23,070, XLE $26,310 You used to be able to get a V8 Camaro for the price of a 4-cylinder Camry. Prices of V8s have gone up, but you can't even get a 4-cylinder Camaro for the price of a 4-cylinder Camry now. Camaro is now like a $30-50k car, while the Camry/Malibu/Fusion type cars are still $23-33k.
  23. smk4565
    No need for a Corvette CUV, that would be a bad idea. Cadillac should be fighting the Porsche Macan and Cayenne, and BMW X5 M, and AMG crossovers. If you want to throw Tesla in the mix, Cadillac should be going after them too.
  24. smk4565
    I don't think "Corvette" could be a brand, however I could get behind the idea of the Corvette moving to Cadillac. The interior would have to get better and some styling tweaks, but a V6 could be the base car with the better interior to keep price where it is, and add V8s and still have $60-100k price point, which makes sense for a Cadillac. I doubt they will do that, but the Corvette is becoming like the Nissan GT-R, who wants to pay $100k for a Nissan, wouldn't it be better as an Infiniti? Chevy should have affordable sports cars. The Malibu isn't $55k so why is a Camaro? This is why GM has brands, for value, middle and high end.
  25. smk4565
    What is funny is the new Corvette is supposed to be a high revving DOHC V8 too. For years Corvette owners said the pushrod was better, the Ferrari style high revving V8 mid-engine cars were over priced or not as good. Now Corvette fans are getting their version of an Auri R8 or Ferrari 488 or McLaren 570.
×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search