smk4565

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette. A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance.

I dont know about that... The only one that seems to sell well is the BMW X6. The Infinity ones were let to rot on the vine...so Ill give that as success too... But, the Acura one failed big time and well, the M-B version is still young, I guess its selling well due to the fact that many Eurotrash oriented M-B snobs want one to rub it in the noses of the BMW oriented Eurotrash neighbors of theirs...next year or so will really reveal if the M-B version will have conquered sales from lets say...the Escalade...because the Escalade is still THE top dog SUV in that price range, give or take a few thousand dollars...its still the same niche market. SUVs for Buick need to be more traditional. M-B is launching a 2nd crossover coupe this year, and the GLE coupe doesn't remotely compete with the Escalade, as it is a mid-size vehicle. The GLE coupe is within an inch in every dimension to an XT5. I think the GLE coupe doesn't make sense when it is $10k more than a GLE with less cargo room and poor rear visability, but people still buy it, and it pure margin. GMC has traditional, squarish crossovers in the showroom. I don't think it so crazy that Buick adds a crossover coupe to the 3 they have, especially if the crossover coupe is Epsilon based and a size up from Envision, but smaller than Enclave obviously. Mercedes put the CLS out 12 years ago and they didn't sell a whole lot, but then VW, Audi, BMW copied the idea, half the mid-size sedans adopted coupe-like styling. The same could happen with crossovers, because most people aren't buying them for cargo hauling they are buying them because they have more status than a sedan. Better for Buick to be on the front of the wave, rather than wait 10 years for Ford, Hyundai, Lincoln, Genesis, Infiniti, Volvo or whoever to all flood the market first.

What Buick could do is turn the Regal into a 4-door coupe. If they did it on Epsilon it would be cheap, maybe a little bit more on alpha. But if they use the 2.5 liter and 2.0T engines they could keep cost down. The Regal has weak sales anyway, and if it was a coupe like product it would be much different from the Malibu or LaCrosse, and more similar to the Passat CC and CLA. Maybe they could even rename it Riviera, or call it Regal GC or just stick with Regal. But I don't see Buick needing four, 4-door cars in an SUV market.

They should probably make a 4-door coupe SUV, as you watch that become the next hot segment. And sadly I am being serious. With crossovers outselling sedans, and having higher profit margins, I can see a lot of manufacturers having 5 or 6 crossovers and 3-4 sedans in their line up. I am all for 3-box design sedans, but it seems like people like ovals and crossovers now.

I like the Phantom, it has the old school size and huge grille and doesn't look like every other jelly bean shaped car. I wish other luxo car makers would make a 1930s inspired design, that era had great over the top designs.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Ask Matt Kennseth how easy it is to win a NASCAR race today. There were more passes on the last lap than F1 all weekend. What many miss is F1 is all about technology and strategy not the race where NASCAR is all about the driver and the race itself. Both are great series but they both have different agendas. Like soccer and NFL both have players and balls but they both are much different in how they use it to entertain. That is what most people forget Racing anymore is entertainment like any other sport. NASCAR is more about the driver because they all have the same car. They don't have the same car in F1, Mercedes has the best chassis and the most powerful engine, therefor they win every time. F1 is more about the car, and that is the downside to it, there isn't much passing because the tracks aren't wide in all areas, you can't draft like you can in NASCAR and the slower cars can't catch the faster cars.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes. A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome. . I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners. A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons. As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing. I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either. Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.

Today's millenials are not buying Cadillacs, they aren't even buying cars. And I know there are Chevy dealerships with a Cadillac franchise also to sell their 3 cars a month, but I question why you even let them keep those. The only way this virtual showroom could make sense is selling a car to a current Cadillac owner that is buying the same model. If your 3 year lease on an XTS is up, selling another in this fashion could work since the car hasn't changed.

Bad idea. First off, why are there dealers selling less 50 cars per year, the tis less than one per week. Secondly, the "virtual showroom" is basically like what you get on the Cadillac website right? A vehicle configurator tool? And third, who wants to buy a car they never drove? I don't see how Cadillac's big claim is that they have better chassis dynamics and handling than the Germans, but then don't have the customer drive it.

When will this 4-door coupe craze end. Even run of the mill family cars are trying to look like coupes. What is funny, is at the same time, most auto makers are killing their coupes and convertibles off. Although if it keeps more people buying cars and less buying SUVs, bring on the Buick 4 door coupe.

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out. Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours. Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change. On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course. The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval. But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it. The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Well the Sprinter costs more than a 3-series or X1. Mercedes does split out the vans on their sales chart. I am not sure for the purposes of the luxury sales race what number people are using. I do think BMW cars about the sales volume win more than Mercedes does though. I know Mercedes would like to outsell BMW, but at the same time, Mercedes prices all their cars higher than the rival BMW product, so they'd like to win on product, not price.

Agreed. A 2-3 hour race of relatively constant speed with only left turns (minus the couple road courses). Not the highest skill level needed compared to other forms of racing and the cars are relatively low tech. A stock Veyron could probably win the Daytona 500, and a stock Veyron couldn't win Le Mans or a Formula 1 race. I think what is being overlooked here, is Tesla made an SUV that does 0-60 and runs the 1/4 mile as fast as a Corvette Z06. We aren't talking the Model X is fast compared to other SUVs, it is fast compared to pure sports cars.

I can't believe Infiniti ripped off the Porsche Cayenne body shape so bad. Oh wait, this is a Maserati? On a side note, I sat in both a Ghibli and Quatroporte last week, and they were I think $90k and $118K sticker price respectively. Neither were very impressive. I mean they were nicer than an ATS or 3-series, but probably any sedan at $55-60k has a better interior than those 2. And at $118k in the Quatroporte you got a 400 hp V6. What a rip off. No wonder it doesn't sell.

Or, BMW was chasing Mercedes for the lead, so they had to resort to cheap tactics. BMW outsells Chrysler with ease, they don't need to cheat to beat them.

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature.

I must say, I prefer the Mustang's interior to the Camaro's and I think the Mustang looks a little bit better too. I have not driven either, but I imagine the Camaro is superior in chassis, engine and transmission. The problem with the Camaro is you can't see out of it, and I have to duck my head getting in or out of it, otherwise I hit it on the roof. If you can't get in the car or can't see out of it, what good is it? And we aren't talking Lamborghini exotic where you expect that, Camaro is an every day car. I think the new one is harder to see out of than the old one.

Looks good, I like it more than the sedan because I think the back end looks better. I bet you get nearly as much interior space as you do in an XC90 as well and it probably will cost a bit less. I think this is a cool car, not just a cool wagon.

I think it is good the price dropped $2k, the V6 probably costs more than the old V6 though.

And to conclude the trifecta:

I gave thumbs up votes for the Hudson Hornet, Tucker Torpedo and Duesenberg. Hardly anything good looking came out of the 70s though, that whole decade can be down voted, even the Lamborghini Countach got better looking in the 80s. I did see one of these today, epic car.

How many gears in the transmission?

I'd buy a Cadillac if it was better than a Merc, and had a better image.

It is American right? So we can rule out the Mercedes R-class diesel? Because that is a V6 SUV.