I'll take 2!

[Richy_Rich]

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...e-public-video

[Scrappy Doo]

Its certainly unique.

[05stram]

Looks like Mercedes yet stole more intellectual property from the breakup with Chrysler. Such a shame a foreign company raided a corporation in this country and the federal government allowed it to happen.

http://dodgeram.org/ki4cy/ram_picts/Trex.htm

[Scalded Dog]

Hell, that thing is simply badass... I need one (or two), but they seem to be slightly out of my tax bracket (at half a million clams or so). However, I'm only a few little tiny numbers (just gotta pick the right six numbers!) away from being able to get one.

The combination of interior luxury combined with functional ruggedness is a formula for creating desire.

[2010SLVRBULIT]

gas guzzler.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 05stram

Looks like Mercedes yet stole more intellectual property from the breakup with Chrysler. Such a shame a foreign company raided a corporation in this country and the federal government allowed it to happen.

http://dodgeram.org/ki4cy/ram_picts/Trex.htm

Wasn't stolen, bought and paid for.

One of the very first things worked out in purchasing a company as Mercedes did (not a JV as some may recall) is how to handle IP.

It is why SAAB couldn't get a deal. GM would not part with the IP. It's why the Opel deal fell through with Magna. GM was ok with Magna, but they had partnered up with the Russians and GM would give them the rights to the IP.

So if a bad deal was made, the US government is supposed to intervene? Or should the government have stepped when Merecedes bought Chrysler and passed some kind of "you can buy the company but you can't have the IP" law? Wow that would change the global landscape of buying and selling companies.

Oh and by the way, a dual rear axle doesn't really count as IP. Very few of the Class 8 Tractors you see on the road have only 1 axle. Nothing new there.

[05stram]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Wasn't stolen, bought and paid for.

One of the very first things worked out in purchasing a company as Mercedes did (not a JV as some may recall) is how to handle IP.

It is why SAAB couldn't get a deal. GM would not part with the IP. It's why the Opel deal fell through with Magna. GM was ok with Magna, but they had partnered up with the Russians and GM would give them the rights to the IP.

So if a bad deal was made, the US government is supposed to intervene? Or should the government have stepped when Merecedes bought Chrysler and passed some kind of "you can buy the company but you can't have the IP" law? Wow that would change the global landscape of buying and selling companies.

Oh and by the way, a dual rear axle doesn't really count as IP. Very few of the Class 8 Tractors you see on the road have only 1 axle. Nothing new there.

Intellectual Property had nothing to do with the deal, Mercedes came begging to Chrysler not the other way around, raided the coffers and split. In 98 Mercedes was going through a quality problem and needed the capitol that Chrysler had to stay afloat and did so with the promises to the US car market that once they became the worlds largest car manufacturer they would share with Chrysler. Well that did not happen and most people believe the Chrysler 300 came from the merger, it did not the platform was already in development and was to be released in 2001 but got back burnered for the CL line in Germany.
After they raided in left it was up to the taxpayer to bail them out Cerberus thought they could but the damage had been done. How is that for knowing actually what happened, I have plenty of worthless paper with the words Chrysler LLC, Chrysler Corp, and Cerberus lying around if you need any stuffing material since this "merger".
If this design was not IP then why does the patent filed for the driveline configuration belong to Chrysler LLC? This is not a Class 8 vehicle we are talking about here btw.

Diamler 40% Chrysler 60% at Merger - Pro Forma Income Percentages

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 05stram

Intellectual Property had nothing to do with the deal, Mercedes came begging to Chrysler not the other way around, raided the coffers and split. In 98 Mercedes was going through a quality problem and needed the capitol that Chrysler had to stay afloat and did so with the promises to the US car market that once they became the worlds largest car manufacturer they would share with Chrysler. Well that did not happen and most people believe the Chrysler 300 came from the merger, it did not the platform was already in development and was to be released in 2001 but got back burnered for the CL line in Germany.
After they raided in left it was up to the taxpayer to bail them out Cerberus thought they could but the damage had been done. How is that for knowing actually what happened, I have plenty of worthless paper with the words Chrysler LLC, Chrysler Corp, and Cerberus lying around if you need any stuffing material since this "merger".
If this design was not IP then why does the patent filed for the driveline configuration belong to Chrysler LLC? This is not a Class 8 vehicle we are talking about here btw.

Diamler 40% Chrysler 60% at Merger - Pro Forma Income Percentages

Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. You posted, "intellectual property" so I thought the point you were making was abou IP.

Don't disagree on the Germans making out.

And as I recall, the 300 was essntially the old Intrepid platform which was engineered from the begining to handle transverse FWD or Longitudinal RWD.

Sorry about the worthless paper, but everyone should know the risks when they buy any stock.

And DUH of course it isn't a Class 8 but thanks for the obvious there. Point was simply that putting 2 rear axles on a truck isn't something special or particularly creative.

[05stram]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. You posted, "intellectual property" so I thought the point you were making was abou IP.

Don't disagree on the Germans making out.

And as I recall, the 300 was essntially the old Intrepid platform which was engineered from the begining to handle transverse FWD or Longitudinal RWD.

Sorry about the worthless paper, but everyone should know the risks when they buy any stock.

And DUH of course it isn't a Class 8 but thanks for the obvious there. Point was simply that putting 2 rear axles on a truck isn't something special or particularly creative.

Sorry if I came across as an ass did not mean too. Such a shame the TRex will be built as a Mercedes - not knocking the G Class but it puts it out of reach of those who could utilize that type of vehicle such as the logging industry etc etc.

[wocampb]

From my understanding, the 6wd version of the Mercedes G-wagen has been in use for quite some time as it was commissioned by the Australian military. All they did was make a civilian version of this now.

[05stram]

Originally Posted by wocampb

From my understanding, the 6wd version of the Mercedes G-wagen has been in use for quite some time as it was commissioned by the Australian military. All they did was make a civilian version of this now.

It was commissioned in 2011 by the Aussies. The military version is the G 320 CDI.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs...5-99daafd5682b

[TJ91]

I wish!

[King T]

Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG 6x6 Concept
Sometimes a G550 is just too damned modest.

The Mercedes-Benz brand, defined for decades by two or three model lines, has become a benchmark for creating new segments and niches. Think first-generation A-class, or the "sports tourers" B-class and R-class. Throughout the past 15 years, Benz has perfected the art of surprising us with, ahem, out-there reveals. None of them, however, were quite as outlandish as this derivative of the G-wagen that Daimler has shown to a select few in Dubai this week.

The G63 AMG 6x6 essentially is a G63 AMG, stretched to accommodate a pickup bed and six wheels, all of which are driven by the awesome direct-injected, 5.5-liter twin-turbo V-8 that resides under the hood. Just as in the same-old, boring, four-wheeled G63 AMG, which retails for $135,205, the 6x6 makes 544 horsepower and generates 560 lb-ft of torque. Its mill is mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission, and it manages to move the four-ton-plus behemoth with considerable authority. AMG claims that the sprint from standstill to 60 mph takes around seven seconds, and the truck can top 100 mph. Forty percent of the torque is sent to the middle axle, while the front- and the rear axle each receive 30 percent. The tire pressure can even be adjusted with a built-in air compressor, which is useful when driving on different terrains.

The G63 AMG 6x6 is derived from a special edition of the G-wagen developed for the Australian armed forces, but unlike that purposeful vehicle, the concept is fully equipped with every conceivable luxury option. The center console is fitted with carbon fiber in a feeble effort to counter the 6x6's excessive weight, and the seats and door trim are finished in diamond-quilted leather.

The concept is longer, wider, and taller than a Chevrolet Suburban; and with off-road tires, five locking differentials, 18 inches of ground clearance, and more than three feet of fording depth, the G63 6x6 is predestined to tackle any kind of terrain—so long as said terrain is large enough to hold the six-wheeler.

Daimler has built two examples of this incredible machine—one of them in white, another in matte gray. They are still concepts, but we fully expect Daimler to build a small series of them. We figure on a price well north of $300,000. Although, if the skunkworks crew in Affalterbach really wanted to treat us to something special, they would’ve shoved the 6.0-liter twin-turbo V-12 of the G65 AMG into the engine bay. For the moment, however, we applaud the brand's successful search for yet another niche. Keep surprising us, Mercedes.

[Richy_Rich]

I actually like the UNIMOG better.