![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:42 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
...and marvel at these? I have been told they are numbers , no different from the ones that might appear in a child's schoolbook.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:44 |
|
Rally wagon
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:44 |
|
Rally wagon
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:46 |
|
is it bad that my first thought of seeing those 0-60 and hp stats I immediately think its a CTS-V wagon?
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:47 |
|
102370
Thats a lot on 'numbers'
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:47 |
|
no but that 0-60 seems a tad unrealistic for a CTS-V on street tires
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:50 |
|
well it said estimated ;-); I wouldn't hold it against cadillac to be alittle optimistic in their figures
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:54 |
|
Dat wagon!
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:57 |
|
The things that boggle my mind are:
1. These are the numbers of the superest of supercars from 20-ish years ago.
2. That includes the price, in NON-INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS.
3. It's a bloody wagon that SEATS SEVEN.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:58 |
|
You know what's the saddest number? Number of passengers it can seat: 5. Used to be 7 (woo! jump seats!), but it's gone now.
Though in regular E class wagon flavor, it's still 7!
![]() 12/23/2013 at 13:58 |
|
But lets see it do 0-60 in 3.6 with 7 full grown adults in it... THEN I will be impressed.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:00 |
|
NOOOOOoooooo.....!
Seriously? When did they make the change? I've got a 7-seater with a *slightly* smaller engine (3.2) and believed that that feature went all the way up the model range.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:01 |
|
For a second, I thought one of those numbers [3.6, 577, 590] was the projected sales number...take your pick.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:02 |
|
Tell you what: You procure the necessary bits to make that test and I'll demonstrate it for you and 5 others....
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:02 |
|
"handcrafted"
Coming soon to your Aston Martin.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:06 |
|
If I cared enough, I probably could put this together. I have a major in at the Merc dealer, an in at the speedway, and 6 friends who would be willing to help out...
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:08 |
|
I'm just as sad! They made the change when it was refreshed. Apparently the new model requires reworked rear suspension and can't fit the jump seats. I thought it was all "oh-haha! you're just pulling my leg!" until I came across this:
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehic… Note the difference in passengers. Super sad.
I mean not like I could have afforded it anyway, but still.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:08 |
|
By "you and 5 others," I intended to be behind the wheel. :-(
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:10 |
|
By behind the wheel I figured you meant riding in the back back (you know, behind the rear wheel[s])
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:13 |
|
If indeed it's from "reworked rear suspension," then I almost understand.
Certainly MB can appreciate the cachet associated with being the fastest way to get seven people from the showroom floor to a point a quarter mile from the showroom floor?
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:16 |
|
Mr Buzzkill, atomic8778, claims no more 7-seater AMG wagons.
I'mma pour out a 40 for them. Or perhaps a 35 biturbo.
![]() 12/23/2013 at 14:21 |
|
I can't really remember if it was "reworked rear suspension." It was a jalopnik article when it came out and they mentioned it (I think….).
Not to mention, those in the jump seats see where they've been while going stupid fast!
![]() 12/23/2013 at 18:16 |
|
Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about...
YES, that might just be the only number on the page that is too big for my tastes.