Pointless automobiles, a recollection of sorts.

[Slash]

Mileage doesn't necessarily mean its been worked hard. Mileage could mean its been a highway cruiser all its life. How many of those have seen a mud pit, rock crawled or have driven through a deep river with a load of logs and dirt in the bed without breaking something or something electrical shorting out? An then get up and drive home? You simply can't beat the piss out of new trucks and still expect them to work as good as new. People buy beat up farm trucks for a reason. Mine has been beat to hell and even cracked the frame once.

I don't hate them, I just don't like them. They've yet to prove anything to me and I don't like how any new truck from any brand looks either. My dad agrees and says of he bought a new one it wouldn't stand up to half of what we have put ours through. And restored, we could double our life out of it. No thanks, Ill pass on anything new.

 

[Joey D]

People don't abuse brand new trucks because they paid $30k-$50k for them. Buying a junker from the 70's for $1,500 means you don't care if you slam it into something.

And here's a 2006 Silverado that's done over a million-miles, hauling a trailer for most of them too which isn't exactly easy on a truck.
http://autos.aol.com/article/million-miles-family-truck-7-years/

 

[Slash]

I guess you are right about the money thing.

I'm not saying they are completely worthless though, not the case at all, I just don't think they are as rugged as past ones. Before if you got the inside dirty you could spray a hose through the cab and it would be clean and now you got all this electronic crap to worry about. Dirty engine? No problem, spray it with a pressure washer.

 

[Northstar]

I've never really got the point of the Subaru Baja.

Given how small the bed is, an Outback wagon with a roof rack would probably be a way better choice.

you could spray a hose through the cab and it would be clean and now you got all this electronic crap to worry about.

That sounds like a bad idea even on an older truck as there are still electronics and the seats would be destroyed.

 

[Joey D]

I've never really got the point of the Subaru Baja.

Weirdly, I love these things and I'm really tempted to buy one just because it's so ridiculous but useful at the same time. A guy I RallyX with uses one and he can bring his tires, tools, and family to the event and at the end of the day he puts the muddy stuff in the bed and his family in the cabin. He said it works great for camping and biking too.

 

[Slash]

I've never really got the point of the Subaru Baja.

Given how small the bed is, an Outback wagon with a roof rack would probably be a way better choice.



That sounds like a bad idea even on an older truck as there are still electronics and the seats would be destroyed.

True there are still electronics but not nearly to the magnitude you see today.

Also the seats were up off the floor so it didn't matter.

 

[Tornado]

I've never really got the point of the Subaru Baja.

Given how small the bed is, an Outback wagon with a roof rack would probably be a way better choice

They look really cool. Good enough for me. Wish they put the Outback motor in them, though.

 

[JrDarknes]

I feel like these are pointless. Just keep the esclade and eliminate the rest.

 

[Tornado]

Except the Escalade doesn't move enough volume to justify its existence by itself. The GMC is superfluous (though much less so now than it was in GMT400 and GMT800 guise), but the Tahoe outsells the Escalade 6:1 year after year.

 

[-Fred-]

I don't understand the Yukon Denali. More luxurious than a regular Tahoe, but not quite as luxurious as an Escalade.

 

[AlvaroF]

I feel like these are pointless. Just keep the esclade and eliminate the rest.

View attachment 131220
View attachment 131222
View attachment 131221

Well they aren't that pointless. If these didn't exist what would the FBI in the movies drive?

 

[Tornado]

Denali came first. Cadillac changed the badges and the Escalade was born.

 

[Sage Ages]

Well they aren't that pointless. If these didn't exist what would the FBI in the movies drive?

Black Crown Victorias.

 

[AlvaroF]

Black Crown Victorias.

The higher tier officers wouldn't clearly drive those...

 

[Sage Ages]

The higher tier officers wouldn't clearly drive those...

Problem solved.

 

[AlvaroF]

Problem solved.

Yes. Most of the problem at least.

 

[Slash]

Holy lugnuts.

 

[Joel]

I don't understand the Yukon Denali. More luxurious than a regular Tahoe, but not quite as luxurious as an Escalade.

I think it's mostly an image thing. It's a nicer truck for people who don't want to be associated with the usual Escalade clientele. GMC's image is something nice for the hardworking guy while Escalades are kinda showy for those people.

I know some rich farmers who have them, that's their family hauler and they have their regular farm trucks as well. I don't know if they sell very many of them but I can't imagine there's much work or expenditure into producing them so it's probably worth it just to fill the niche.

People don't abuse brand new trucks because they paid $30k-$50k for them. Buying a junker from the 70's for $1,500 means you don't care if you slam it into something.

Get your logic out of here Joey. It's all that filthy government making trucks all safe and not as likely to kill pedestrians.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't understand the Yukon Denali. More luxurious than a regular Tahoe, but not quite as luxurious as an Escalade.

That line is pretty thin, I think. The most-recent Escalade I drove was an '09, the last Denali I was in was of similar vintage. The Cadillac had more wood and more metallic trim to make it seem "better," but I didn't really think that it was. Considering that they have the same engine, transmission, near-enough the same interior, and only slightly different suspension tunes - the savings on a Denali is worth it, in my opinion.

Cadillac does the Escalade for status, and they make a killing off of it. The Denali is a reasonably upscale, reasonably tough SUV. Now, if they managed to adapt the High Country trim to the Tahoe... Then, maybe, it might make the purpose of the Denali seem a bit off.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I kind of hope they don't. The world doesn't need another expensive, complicated luxury SUV that can't offroad even with 4WD.

 

[Joel]

Then don't buy one. Problem solved.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I probably won't. I've always been more partial to street performance than off-road anyway, but that's exactly the point - if it's just going to be used as a soccer wagon, wouldn't an actual wagon work better? What's the point of a full-on SUV that's too nice to abuse, or too helpless offroad to not get stuck in the process?

 

[Joel]

A) Wagons are lame and they don't seat 7 or 8 people.

B) SUV's are higher off the ground.

C) People like nice things.

Before you fly off the handle my next car purchase will likely be a Volvo V70 or a Passat wagon. Doesn't mean I can't recognize that wagons aren't cool in North America despite what Jalopnik will tell you.

 

[White & Nerdy]

A) Wagons are lame and they don't seat 7 or 8 people.

B) SUV's are higher off the ground.

C) People like nice things.

Before you fly off the handle my next car purchase will likely be a Volvo V70 or a Passat wagon. Doesn't mean I can't recognize that wagons aren't cool in North America despite what Jalopnik will tell you.

Wagons are lame to the kind of person who carries a chihuahua in their purse. Which is almost enough to make them cool all on its own.

As to being higher off the ground, that's not completely a positive. I always thought tall SUVs felt clumsy and tippy. When you have a lower car, you feel like you're more in control of the car's movement. A general rule of thumb I've come up with is that, if you don't have to duck to get in, the car needs to be lowered.

 

[niky]

You could use the wasted potential argument on 99.9% of the cars on the road.

Even a lowly Toyota Yaris has more power, handling and carrying capacity than 99% of its owners will ever use. In the end, for most buyers, it's all about the image they want to project rather than what they actually need.

Most SUVs nowadays have little ability off-road, but they're not built for that. They're built to be comfortable cars with a tall cabin and a seat you can step into rather drop into.

Granted, I'd rather have a van for family transport duties, but to each their own.

 

[Doog]

A general rule of thumb I've come up with is that, if you don't have to duck to get in, the car needs to be lowered.

What about folks with bad backs who need something with an easy step-in height?

 

[niky]

Unless you have four arms, two legs, are not adverse to sitting on a burning metal plate, and have the muscular strength to work a fifty pound clutch pedal and non power-assisted steering, as well as the coordination to do this all with a full dog-box while working a manual choke... you shouldn't be driving.



Talking about step-in height...
[omg]

[/omg]

Strangely, my requests for a test-drive have yet to be answered...

 

[Doog]

Unless you have four arms, two legs, are not adverse to sitting on a burning metal plate, and have the muscular strength to work a fifty pound clutch pedal and non power-assisted steering, as well as the coordination to do this all with a full dog-box while working a manual choke... you shouldn't be driving.

 

[Joel]

Wagons are lame to the kind of person who carries a chihuahua in their purse. Which is almost enough to make them cool all on its own.

Or to the kind of guy who lives in suburbia and buys a Tahoe or a Silverado because minivans and wagons aren't manly. For every soccer mom in a Denali there's a city cowboy with Toby Keith blaring in his brand new lifted truck. And you still never refuted that wagons don't have seating for 7 or 8 people.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want about people who buy SUV's but the reality is most people would rather be seen in an SUV than a wagon or a minivan. It is what it is, it's no different than you buying a V6 economy car because you don't want to look like an eco-weenie. I know your next point will be that you bought the V6 because of it's performance while ignoring that people buy Tahoe's with V8's in them instead of V6 equipped minivans for the same reason.

As to being higher off the ground, that's not completely a positive. I always thought tall SUVs felt clumsy and tippy. When you have a lower car, you feel like you're more in control of the car's movement. A general rule of thumb I've come up with is that, if you don't have to duck to get in, the car needs to be lowered.

A) Older people don't want to have to duck to get into a wagon. It's easier to step into an SUV.
B) People prefer being higher up in their vehicles because it gives them better perceived visibility.
C) Most people don't care to be more in control of the car's movement and will not approach the limits that will make an SUV feel tippy.
D) You can't tow much of a boat behind a wagon or minivan.

Basically you don't seem to get that there's other considerations that render a car that is perfect for you as a teenager with no responsibilities unfit for other people in different circumstances.

 

[MatskiMonk]

BMW's range is getting harder and harder to understand, and I think they have completely missed the point with some of their models. Like the 3&5GT, which are less practical, uglier and pricier than the 3&5 Touring. And the 4&6GC, which are 4 door versions of 2 door versions of 4 door cars.

The 6 GranCoupe in particular baffles me. It's nothing more than a slightly better looking 5 series with a sloping roofline, so why not make that the 5 series instead, and get rid of the actual sedan? Audi and Mercedes, with the A7 and the CLS, at least offered something desirable, something different.

3GT and 5GT are more practical than their tourer counterparts in terms of total available luggage space, and more crucially, they offer additional space for the rear passengers, which is often overlooked when it comes to practicality, the boot aperture is also larger which is handy. Uglier is subjective, I actually really like both, although the 5GT did need it's LCI/facelift to lessen the impact of the rear! And yes, they are pricier, but then they are a nice place to be, and you do get more car for your bigger wad.

As for the Gran Coupes, well, since you think the E class with the sloping roof and the A6 with the sloping roof are acceptable, I'm not sure what problem you have with the 6GC being a 5er with a sloping roof? The 6GC isn't a 5 series saloon, the 4GC isn't a 3 series saloon, however crudely you layout their DNA, the finished products are an evolution of a different concept, they look different, they have different strengths and weaknesses, they're priced differently, and they will appeal to different buyers.

Anyhow, I knew when I walked into this thread that BMW would take a bit of a beating for some of it's new models, but I'm of the general opinion that the sales numbers speak for themselves. If people buy it then it suited their buying needs, in which case, it's not exactly pointless.