By on March 12, 2014

GPA02-09_US_SecretService_press_release_2009_Limousine_Page_3_Image

The United States Secret Service has started the process to begin to build the next generation presidential limousine with the posting of a contract proposal on the FedBizOpps.gov site for companies seeking to do business with the federal government. The contract will be awarded by the Dept. of Homeland Security by August 29th of this year and the new armored limo, no doubt equipped with the latest and highest tech communications and security gizmos, is planned to go into service in 2017, after Mr. Obama’s replacement takes office.

Reagan era presidential limousine.

Reagan era presidential limousine.

According to the proposal, the award “will be made based on best value to the government,” and will be “restricted to Major Domestic U.S Automobile Manufacturers, who have their primary headquarters located in the United States of America.”

The limousine used by President Kennedy in Dallas, rebuilt for use by LBJ

The limousine used by President Kennedy in Dallas, rebuilt for use by LBJ

There are four phases to the project and Phase 1, armor development, has already gotten underway. “Phase 2 work will include integration of the armor design developed during Phase 1 of the program. Phase 2 requirements will include selection and integration of final automotive components, chassis, interior, exterior, and test vehicle fabrication and automotive component testing. Phase 3 will be focused on automotive validation and Phase 4 production of vehicles,” said the proposal.

President Eisenhower's bubble topped Lincoln limo

President Eisenhower’s bubble topped Lincoln limo

A variety of manufacturers have supplied limousines to the U.S. president. General Motors has provided Cadillac branded vehicles for the past three decades, though Lincolns carried chief executives from John Kennedy through Ronald Reagan.

fordmuseum_presidentiallimofdr_r

FDR’s Lincoln

Whilen the medium truck based “Cadillac” nicknamed “The Beast” that President Obama uses for state occasions is better known, he also frequently travels in what is probably an equally well-armored Chevy Suburban.

For you brougham enthusiasts, a real brougham used by Pres. Teddy Roosevelt

For you brougham enthusiasts, a real brougham used by Pres. Teddy Roosevelt

Sources: U.S. General Services Administration, Detroit News. Presidential limos photographed at the Henry Ford Museum.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

174 Comments on “U.S. Secret Service Solicits Proposals to Replace “The Beast” With New Presidential Limo...”


  • avatar
    Zackman

    I wonder if Chrysler can be involved. Even though their HQ is in the U.S., they are owned by a foreign entity.

    I have a feeling that if the bids were open to every OEM, Toyota would win! A Sequoia-based presidential limo would be interesting, to say the least.

    Still, I have a feeling that GM will be the OEM. After all, the government does have a vested interest in them, don’t they?

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      No, they sold all their stock.

    • 0 avatar

      #1 No self-respecting pimp would be proud to be in anything Cadillac or Lincoln are turning out now.

      V8 ENGINES in big, long cars is what it’s all about.

      #2 Obama USED TO HAVE a Chrysler 300 before he turned into a “politician” and sold it off for some crappy hybrid in order to please the greeners.

      #3 While Euro/Asian-import buyers will never respect any of the big 3,(until one of us blows your doors off and you can’t catch up), I personally feel that the flagship of America should be BUILT BY AMERICA.

      the Chrysler 300 is built in Canada so that probably won’t work in my divine plane. Perhaps a TESLA? (with a gas generator of course) or a heavily modified Escalade car/truck?

      I’d also like to point out how dated “the Beast” looks – which is part of the reason I don’t like Cadillacs.

      • 0 avatar
        Compaq Deskpro

        The Cadillac “Beast” is based on a GM medium duty chassis (GMC Topkick, Chevy Kodiak), so I don’t think a Chrysler 300, or anything unibody for that matter, would come close to the requirements to haul around all that armor. As the TopKodiak has been discontinued, and Chrysler has never had a medium duty chassis, the only candidate for a truck similar to the Beast would be a Ford F650 styled like a Navigator. I’m very okay with this, but I’m guessing that everyone is going to start over from scratch with their proposals. Why not just update the old Caddy? The thing probably has less than 10k on it, as it seems the Suburbans are the daily drivers, and this is only used for parades.

      • 0 avatar
        VelocityRed3

        I liek the idea of Tesla.

        • 0 avatar
          Joe McKinney

          Given the weight of the vehicle and the amount of electronic gadgetry onboard, I imagine an electric powered Presidential limo would have an extremely limited range.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        You know I was wondering how bigtruck could get a dig into Obama on some trivial detail signifying his impudent rage and am happy to see that I wasn’t dissappointed.

        • 0 avatar
          old fart

          +1

        • 0 avatar
          old fart

          Found this article on trolls, that would apply to a certain people.
          “that people who enjoy causing general online mayhem tend to have personalities marked by “noxious” personality traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. The “Dark Tetrad” of personality, they called that odious quartet of behavior patterns.They defined trolls as people who behave in a “deceptive, destructive or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose,” and their research convinced them that there is very little difference between what brings a troll joy on the Internet and what makes him happy in real life.
          “It might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists,” they wrote. “Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others.””

      • 0 avatar
        romanjetfighter

        He drove a 300 in black and southern states, and an escape in white and liberal states. it’s all politics and posturing. i bet if he had his choice hed drive corvette z without all the armor.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    The day “The Beast” went into service feels like it was just yesterday.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    Thank god. That thing is ugly.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    What’s wrong with the existing limo? Is there no better use for the money? Makes me angry as I prepare to do my taxes this year.

    • 0 avatar

      If you want to really be angry, point a finger at Lockheed Martin and the F-35.

      While I shouldn’t be criticizing stocks I own – especially when the conflicts around the world stand to increase my share prices – I personally see the F-35 as a waste which we could NEVER hope to engage Russia or China with.

    • 0 avatar
      snakebit

      Whether the next Oval Office resident is Hillary, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio, we owe them and our country the most security and protection we have the technology to provide, and that’s probably changed since the last limo was built in c2008. We’re all car people, but I personally don’t care what the next Prez’s ride looks like, so long as it protects them and can haul ass when it needs to. I’m frankly surprised that leaders like David Cameron of the UK get by often with not much more than a long wheelbase Jaguar.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        That’s plenty though. America just overdoes it. A LWB XTS would be enough.

        • 0 avatar
          Tinker

          Does John Deere qualify to bid on this? If so do they make a diesel V-8 manure-spreader? Because that would be an appropriate vehicle for either party, you could do it up in green/yellow, and suburbanites (lawn tractor owners)nation-wide would cheer, or you could do it in red/elephants or blue/donkeys and satisfy either major party. Or do it in crap brown, with a manual, and a station wagon body!

          Run it on Gasohol and confuse the issue of it being truly GREEN, right? This is all kinds of good.

      • 0 avatar
        Sceptic

        It’s a dangerous world out there but there is still something wrong when democratically elected most senior civil servant has to be ferried around in a heavily armored vehicles and presented to population in bulletproof glass box.

      • 0 avatar
        kmoney

        At least the Jag is somewhat statesmanlike. Back in the mid 90′s I remember the Canadian PM used to roll around in a dustbuster mini van — a la Get Shorty. I guess this was pragmatic, as the biggest threat to his safety came in the form of pies, but still…

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Well it was the Cadillac of minivans.

        • 0 avatar

          In 1999, I stood literally 20 feet away and watched Jean Chretein get into a Cadillac Fleetwood, no escort or motorcade, just two bodyguards.

          I am pretty sure Harper rolls around in a heavily armored suburban, with a couple Grand Marquis and 300s as backup cars.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Now, was that a 3 year old RWD Fleetwood, or a 1997/1998 FWD Deville Fleetwood LWB?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Good question Corey, I’m leaning toward the more common RWD variant. Those stretched Deville “Fleetwoods” seem to be a rare commodity.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Chrétien used the FBO that my father operated whenever he came to Windsor in the 90′s. One time I was there and he excused himself from his gang of half a dozen RCMP personnel to walk over and shake hands with the small crowd of people near the gate. “Allo, ow are you? Bery goode.”

            When they left, they all hopped into a small fleet of non descript Caprices and Tahoes that they certainly didn’t bring with them on that old Challenger jet.

            In most cases, Canada emulates what the US does but at 1/10th the scale. In this case, it was more like 1/1000th.

          • 0 avatar
            JuniperBug

            Funny this should come up: within the last three days, a friend of mine posted on Facebook a picture of himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder next to Jean Chretien at a Tim Horton’s.

          • 0 avatar
            chevron

            In 2008 I stood literally 1 foot away and supported a very drunk Jean Cretien who I ran into in the basement bar of the Strathcona Hotel in Edmonton. I woke up the next morning and thought I had dreamed it, but when I logged onto facebook, there I was, tagged in the photo.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I searched this email out in my trash so I could show you rarity!

            http://www.ebay.com/itm/261436558542?forcerRptr=true&item=261436558542&viewitem=&sspagename=ADME:B:SS:US:1120

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          I believe Paul Martin used an Impala. Of course, he was Paul Martin, you’d be hard-pressed to point him out on the street.

          But between what happened to both JFK and Olof Palme, it’s unlikely we’ll see modern statesmen and women unguarded. There’s too much opportunity to do too much harm without expending too much effort.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Are there any of these heads of state that do their OWN driving, with maybe a security car or two around? (Obviously, it’d be one WITHOUT an ever-present bullseye on their heads! I thought this was brought up in another post on here about this similar subject recently.)

            Supposedly, the Queen of England has been seen driving her own XJ-R in her younger days, accompanied by a security guard; I thought I even read someplace that she insisted on changing a flat tire herself. (Of course, Prince William and Kate have been observed driving themselves around, even to the grocery store, when they lived near William’s former rescue base, and when they took Prince George home; I’m sure there’s a little Scotland Yard presence close by, however. Though, since they’ve moved back to the grounds of Buckingham Palace, you don’t hear much about them, nor Prince Harry, for that matter.)

      • 0 avatar
        wristtwist

        Well said.

        Why not just chuck the next prez in a MRAP and call it done?

        • 0 avatar
          dolorean

          Because the appearance of our elected President, whom by Constitution is to be a Civilian, not a Generalisimo, IOT prevent the appearance of a military dictatorship. An MRAP would certainly convey that image.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Put DUBs and a gold grille on it if it makes people feel better.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The Beast fairly screams autocrat.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            But the President IS the Commander-In-Chief. That’s why a Stryker would be appropriate. Add a nice red, white, and blue paint job and some chrome, and it would be a handsome, and humble vehicle. Maybe the future occupant will live up to it, and put an end to the regal pomp and circumstance that has built up over the years. I’m only suggesting the Stryker because Checker is no longer in business to build an armored Marathon.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      What should make you more angry is the need to fly TWO 747s plus a C-17 when the President travels.

    • 0 avatar
      baggins

      I am constantly longing for a smaller, more efficient govt, but i cant argue with this.

      The President of the US deserves the best in this area. Despite our challenges, the US is still the richest and most powerful country in the world. I am pretty sure we can afford a top notch limo for our President.

    • 0 avatar
      cackalacka

      Hey, there was nothing wrong with Kennedy’s convertible Lincoln, either. Until…

  • avatar
    GoFaster58

    Smart would be a smart choice.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    It’s time.

    Time for GEELY

    http://autoworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/geely-ge-limo-img_1.jpg

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    It really would be nice if they returned to a stately, elegant-looking one. I understand that it has to be so armored that it needs to be truck-based, but The Beast looks ungainly, sort of like the AMC Concords of yore: a sedan jacked up on an SUV platform.

    I just hope the people who designed that New York taxi cab do not get involved in the bidding process. Ugh!

  • avatar
    jmo

    “is planned to go into service in 2017, after Mr. Obama’s replacement takes office”

    I’m sure Hillary will love it.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I think we can safely say that the current presidential vehicle is the worst looking one – ever. It’s too tall, it’s not otherwise proportioned properly because of the required changes, the trim looks cheap and goofy, and the chrome hubcaps just don’t work in modern times.

    It’s very sloppy.

    That being said, there’s no real elegant choice left from American makers at this time. An SUV doesn’t please green types. All that’s left is a stretch XTS, which is what I feel it will end up being.

    • 0 avatar
      SlowMyke

      There’s no elegant choice from America right now? Try from anyone. There’s not really any make that has something “elegant” to please everyone.

      As the leader of a country with a full running economy, I feel they should have a home grown product. Most of the public will identify with the big three. If Tesla were a bit more established is say picking a modified model x would be a gray choice, but you can’t have a president in something so little proven and range limited.

      Personally I’d say just get an escalade, Durango or expedition. It’ll have the best capabilities and we’re looking to protect the president not save a few gallons of gas.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I don’t agree. A LWB Jag or an S-Class limo are at least somewhat elegant. A Rolls-Royce carries itself in a different, more dignified way than American vehicles. The Toyota Century is elegant.

        It’s all about image, thus why it needs to be American, and not an SUV for state events.

        • 0 avatar
          SlowMyke

          If we’re going for elegant, I’d say Toyota styled themselves out of any conversation in the last 5-10 years. I think there’s not a more disjointed design language out there. Not to mention picking a Toyota might be the quickest route to controversy. Not to mention the acceleration debacle (despite the investigation findings even)…

          And while I’m not too concerned about the overall image, a rolls kinda screams government excess, don’t you think?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I know it cannot be a foreign marque, I’ve already stated this.

            Also, you’re wrong about Toyota styling:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Imperial_Processional_Car.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            SlowMyke

            Corey – while that’s certainly more conservative than I thought it would be, It’s not really that different than the current caddy offering. And I’d bet it would look just as bulky if you added the extra armor the caddy has.

            In any event, I agree to disagree. My taste in styling seems not to line up with most so I’m not sure this is an argument that can be won one way or the other.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Fair enough! Though I wonder how much armoring that Japanese one has.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It’s function over form. The Beast is more medium duty truck than it is anything Cadillac actually manufactures for mass consumption.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      It’s not pretty, but it’s at least proportioned better than the previous DTS-”based” one.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      @CoreyDL: “An SUV doesn’t please green types.

      So you crap on green types for not being impressed by SUV’s, and @bigtruckseries craps on Obama for choosing an Escape (SUV) hybrid:
      “Obama USED TO HAVE a Chrysler 300 before he turned into a “politician” and sold it off for some crappy hybrid in order to please the greeners.”

      Typical of a certain type of person who can’t get their venom consistent.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        We are two different people, with two differing opinions. Why would there be consistent venom?

        A president in an official SUV state car for appearances does not please green types. Fact.

        What were you trying to prove? I’m not “crapping” on green types either. They don’t like SUVs, because SUVs aren’t green. Yet another fact.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Hey, I’m a “green type” and I have two suv’s. One happens to be an Escape Hybrid. “Greeness” depends on appropriate use of a vehicle. Obviously a motorhome could be used more or less appropriately than a Fit. So the whole suv/green thing is both an oversimplification and a bunch of nonsense on both sides of the cultural green/redneck divide.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Speaking of Presidential rides, I want the Clinton era Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. 454/4L80E swapped B-body? Yes, please.

    • 0 avatar

      The Reagan limo is likely to be the last presidential state car to end up in private hands. Lots of classified stuff in the newer cars so they will never leave government hands, at least for a generation or two and even then they’ll likely go to the Smithsonian’s transportation collection.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        One can still dream.

      • 0 avatar
        snakebit

        Because I don’t know how many Presidential limos each President Reagan and Clinton used, I can’t account for them all, but one of the Reagan Cadillacs is at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA and a circa 1996 Fleetwood Brougham limousine used by Clinton is at his presidential library in Little Rock, AR. Both are visible but locked, stanchioned off, and the keys are with the Secret Service. Because I’ve visited the Reagan library a couple of times(politics aside, the library is sited on a wonderful piece of land on a hill) I’ve seen that car. As for the Clinton limo, I read an article somewhere with that information.

  • avatar
    omer333

    Democrat- Tesla

    Republican- next-gen Escalade

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Unfortunately, both run out of fuel pretty quickly!

    • 0 avatar
      Mandalorian

      Tesla will never happen. What happens if an EMP goes off?

      • 0 avatar
        morbo

        I’m not worried about what happens to the president if an EMP goes off. I’m busy ‘requisitioning’ critical supplies from my neighbors for the coming apocalypse / hoards.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        One, you can harden against EMP, at least the levels of EMP that don’t result from situations where the EMP is the least of your concerns.

        Two, if an EMP goes off, every modern car, Tesla or no, is going to stop. You’d want something like a vintage Benz diesel in such a situation, though honestly you’d probably want a couple of secret service people and a supporting cast of personnel not far away.

  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    I can understand how some may find The Beast inelegant, ungainly. But understand, underneath, it’s an up-armored and reinforced GM Medium Duty Truck chassis. While many of the current presidential limo’s features are classified, it must be able to survive:

    IEDs, land mines, rocket propelled grenades (from all sides and from above), small arms fire up to and possibly including .50 BMG, and gas attacks. It also must be able to defend itself as well. With what, nobody knows for sure.

    The glass on the bullet-proof, rocket-proof windows on the Beast are 3″ thick. The vehicle can continue to be driven on flat tires, or no tires at all. The engine continues to run, even completely submerged. This thing is basically a tank, or at least an armored personnel carrier, designed as a limousine.

    I’m amazed that GM designers were able to at least replicate as much of the Cadillac design language as they did. The next Beast will no doubt have even more capabilities and modifications, but I’m going to guess they’re going to build and design it to look as close to the current Beast as possible, so as not to tip their hand as to any new technology or “toys.”

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      Unfortunately, it doesn’t protect the President from the greatest danger of all.

      *wait for it*

      Low approval ratings.

      *barump-TAH!*

      Thank you, I’m here all night. :)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I was going to say himself.

      • 0 avatar
        Joe McKinney

        Those low approval ratings are often self-inflicted.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        If you’re not running for re-election, low approval ratings don’t matter.

        For US Presidents, I favor changing to one 6-year term. That way, they don’t waste the second half of the first term running for re-election, and they also have time to get something done.

        As for The Beast and its successors – I just hope its abilities are never tested. But it might break down:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9943357/Barack-Obama-in-Israel-the-Beast-limo-breaks-down.html

        • 0 avatar
          Joe McKinney

          It doesn’t matter whether or not a President is up for re-election. If his approval numbers are down, this can be a drag on his party. We saw this in 1994, 2006, 2008 and 2010. The 2014 mid-term election may well be another example.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Lame duck politicians care about their party?

          • 0 avatar
            Joe McKinney

            Incumbents care about getting re-elected.
            Lame ducks care about their legacy.

            Whether or not the lame duck cares about his party, he/she can be an asset or a liability in the next election cycle.

  • avatar

    I wonder who really built The Beast. Big car companies are not set up to make one-off vehicles. They job out prototypes and concepts and my guess is that the fabrication of presidential limos gets contracted out as well. I’ll have to check but I seem to recall that when FoMoCo refitted the Kennedy car, the work was primarily done at Hess & Eisenhardt.

    • 0 avatar
      Domestic Hearse

      I believe the OEM provide the chassis, then decorate the cake. You’re probably right, the heavy lifting is done by specialized defense contractors. In the case of The Beast, I’m sure it has things like reactive armor and other upfits that are outside the capabilities of traditional automotive design and construction.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      Not sure about the Beast, but the previous one (from 2005) was apparently done by Centigon…which grew out of Hess & Eisenhardt.

      Hess & Eisenhardt also did the factory Lincoln limos based on the suicide door models.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      There are 2 guys (I think they are brothers) that eat lunch at Cardoni’s on Greenfield every single day of the workweek. These two guys run a small fab shop that made some of the body parts on the “beast”. They also do a lot of custom fab work for show cars and prototypes.

      I was eating lunch there one day and was chatting with them about industry stuff. They said the whole process was very secretive and they weren’t allowed to see the vehicle at any point in time during the build – they basically had to trust the dimensions GM gave them and the parts they made were probably hand-massaged to fit. They also said that only a small portion of the car was given to an individual supplier so no one company would know too much information or details about the car.

  • avatar
    redliner

    “restricted to Major Domestic U.S Automobile Manufacturers, who have their primary headquarters located in the United States of America.”

    Can’t be a Tesla, that would be too complex to turn into an armored limo. (Also, it is logistically easier to get diesel when abroad than it is to get a charge)
    Can’t be a Chrysler, those are imported from Italy… uh, I mean Detroit.

    So it will be either a “Cadillac” or a “Lincoln,” most likely based off of whatever the current medium duty Ford or GM truck chassis is available.

    Cadillac has more cachet around the world than Lincoln, and i would think it is easier to disguise armor with Cadillac’s upright, block-y, angular shapes.

  • avatar
    bills79jeep

    I know it’s one car, I know it’s the President and I’m just some nameless joker, and I know the spend is totally insignificant in the scheme of the US Gov’t budget – but this just rubs me the wrong way.

    If standard luxury vehicles are enough for other PMs, leaders, etc, isn’t the current Beast good enough to last another Prez? At a minimum, can’t you just give the current model a refresh and call it good?

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    If Ron Paul were president, he’d be driving himself around in a 1993 Buick.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    “restricted to Major Domestic U.S Automobile Manufacturers, who have their primary headquarters located in the United States of America.”

    So that means it’s going to be a GM, Ford, or Tesla. Unless someone thinks Kenworth will make it? That’s actually not so far-fetched given the load and armor requirements. Though maybe an F-450 would work too. GM is out of the medium duty truck business, but they could always do a specially outfitted Escalade. But Chrysler is out.

    Personally, I think they should make him drive around in the back of a Fiesta or Sonic. :)

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Actually if it were going to be a truck manufacturer then Navistar would be the likely through their Navistar Defense division that already supplies armored vehicles to the govt.

    • 0 avatar
      teasers

      As a former KW mechanic, I would love that, but truthfully, Idk how that would look internationally to have our president climb into a semi everytime. Better a hyper armored suburban.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      I’m not thinking Tesla qualifies as “Major”. So, the fact that they don’t make anything that can pull that much armor around doesn’t even matter.

  • avatar
    Featherston

    Much respect to Chile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_state_car#Chile

  • avatar
    67dodgeman

    For all those who state that the president deserves the best protection available, just remember that he’s only a president. He’s not a king, or a god, or a god-king. As such, our country can survive without him. I’m not being specific to any one president, this is more general. We switch guys every so often and the country does just fine.

    I’d actually prefer the president to be a little less protected. I’ve never agreed with treated elected representatives as royalty. Maybe a little less protection will remove the “let them eat cake” mentality we see in both parties.

    The Beast should be good for many more years to come. The electronics package can be updated without buying a new car. And besides, how many of us are driving 10 year old clunkers thanks to this stellar economy. What good for the masses should be good for the elected.

    And thus ends my political rant for the day.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Is it odd that O***a is so obsessed with diminishing the stature of the United States while he’s hell-bent on increasing the status of the presidency?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Turning the US president into a convenient, high-value target is not a particularly wise idea.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        There are more ways to avoid that than fortifying the beejeezus out of him/her. For example, have 4 lookalikes on duty at all times. The president and the 4 lookalikes each get into a taxicab . . . and off they go!

        I’m not a big fan of Jimmy Carter, but at his inauguration in 1976, he and Rosalyn got out of the car and walked. It was intended to send a message . . . and it did.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Have we already forgotten Dallas, 1963?

          The last thing that we need is to have some terror cell, North Korean operative, white supremacist group or whatever taking out a US president. The position is entirely too high profile on an international level to become lackadaisical about this.

          The president is one of the most important people on the planet, and an assassination could provoke an international crisis. It just isn’t worth it.

          If I recall, the current limo was acquired by the Bush administration for the second term, which means that the current limo will have seen twelve years of service. This trend of aging vehicles is even rising to the top.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            “The president is one of the most important people on the planet, and an assassination could provoke an international crisis.”

            This is also NOT a good thing. No one man should be that important or have that much power.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Well, denial is great and everything, but he is the most important person on the planet, whether you like it or not.

            The US has the world’s largest GDP and the global reserve currency, and is the only remaining superpower (for now.) WWII made it clear that isolationism won’t work in a world with ICBMs and nuclear weapons; distance can’t save us from future conflict.

            When the US isn’t the most powerful country on the planet, then you’re probably not going to be very happy with the result. Reality isn’t always fun, but denying it is worse.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            It won’t be long now with the EU, China, and Russia.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Putting said President in a bullet proof bubble and insulating him from the consequences of his actions is not the solution. That just encourages more royal behavior, rather than getting us back to the checks and balances that made this country what it is. We have three branches of government, all with a job to do, all with a role to play, and all with importance. Pretending the Chief Executive is a king of some sort will land you in that exact situation. And THAT is a PROBLEM, not denial.

            If he’s that important, we’re treating the office wrong. Denying THAT is worse.

          • 0 avatar
            LALoser

            He/She is important for what they represent, not who they are. It is the same in the military, respect is shown for the uniform and rank.
            The president is loved, respected and hated all over the world. We need to protect that symbol. The World Trade Center was attacked not for what is was…but what it represented.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            “The World Trade Center was attacked not for what is was…but what it represented.”

            Yeah…tell me, just how much did we spend protecting the 3000 people in the WTC again?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            We spent less on that than we spent on the breakfast Dick Cheney had with Bin Laden’s brother that morning. ;)

          • 0 avatar
            dolorean

            I fail to see how we are treating the President as ‘royality’ although some would say Reagan really started the trend towards uber-protective status. Maybe because he was shot, perhaps?

            But let’s go on with the tin-foil hat argument that Obama is among other fantasies, a secret Royalist. And to curb such behavior, and to save a modicum of money, we should return to the days of allowing anyone to wander up the White House lawn and knock on the door. The President should answer the door because we’re suddenly concerned with gummint cost; no President deserves a butler or a staff member when its damn cheaper to do it himself.

            Let’s get rid of the other trappings of waste and power. That Capitol building? Are you kidding me? How much does it cost to heat that monster!? Too much, if you ask the pointy-headed crowd. Time for Congress to rent out a church hall. The Supreme Court too.

            Ask yourself a question. How much did it cost the country and the world when Kennedy was shot? How much did it cost the country when Reagen was shot? Certain contengents seem to have a problem adding long term gains versus short term costs. It’s really easy to throw darts at what seems to be gummint waste but I don’t seem to remember anyone waging war on gummint spending when Dubya was running us into the ground.

          • 0 avatar
            Joe McKinney

            PCH, the current presidential limo was ordered during Bush’s second term, but was never used by Bush. Its first use was on January 20, 2009 – the day of Obama’s first innauguration.

            Bush had two presidential limos – a 2001 Cadillac DeVille and a 2005 Cadillac DTS.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Wikipedia claims the current Presidential limousine came into service January 20, 2009. If you scroll to the bottom of the article you can see the limo Bush acquired for his second term. The grill of the 2005 limo is much different than the Escalade like appearance of the current limousine, so it seems the Bush era example was not given to the President. Since Reagan it seems every administration gets a new one. The ’69 Conti is my personal favorite of the ones shown.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_state_car_%28United_States%29

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “insulating him from the consequences of his actions is not the solution.”

            You say that as if assassination is a good thing. That’s a wingnut position if there ever was one.

            “Its first use was on January 20, 2009 – the day of Obama’s first innauguration.”

            Thanks for the info. But no trade-in at the mid-terms, I see. (Ruggles would be upset about that.)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You’re quite welcome.

            Ruggles would have sold him two if he had just had a shot at meeting with the President.

            Additional: Only a fool or an perhaps an anarchist would desire or advocate a Presidential assassination no matter who is in office.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Mr. President, certainly a man of your stature deserves the very best undercoating technology that the industry has to offer.”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Mr. President I’m sorry I can’t give you more on trade this is the best I can do”

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Nobody’s paying the kind of prices for these used Cadillacs that they are for those foreign jobs. Let me grab that four-square, and I’ll show you what kind of deal that we can do.”

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Let’s talk extended warranty Mr. President, the factory warranty will only cover three years/thirty six thousand miles. I can put you into a bumper to bumper for two terms or sixty thousand miles for a little bit extra”

          • 0 avatar

            > Putting said President in a bullet proof bubble and insulating him from the consequences of his actions is not the solution.

            Yeah don’t want em getting too uppity.

    • 0 avatar
      snakebit

      I can only say that if you were in a line of work where you constantly got credible threats to your life, your wheels of choice would be something other than a stock Prius or Chevy Tahoe.

      If you were bothered by the cost of the President’s Beast, being regularly updated, you’re bound to blow a gasket when you learn what’s in the White House fleet. He doesn’t travel with a separate cargo plane because he like the ride of one very heavy Cadillac. There is presumably another decoy Beast and assorted armoured Suburbans that land everywhere he goes ahead of him. There are more armoured cars in strategic cities under Secret Service watchful eyes. You already know about a second Air Force One 747. You already know about when he lands someplace, no other landings coincide with Air Force One until his plane is safely and guardedly stowed away at a dedicated hanger away from regular terminals. I found this out repeatedly when Mr Clinton was visiting Chelsea at Stanford University while in office, and I had scheduled a departing flight when he was about to leave SFO to go home.

      You don’t need to think of these guys as royalty, just popular would-be targets for terrorists.

      • 0 avatar
        npaladin2000

        I know all about his frigging 747, it mucked up my flight schedule to a fare-thee-well thank you very frigging much. THe problem is THEY think of themselves as royalty, them and the institutional organizations around them think it’s their absolute right to mess with the lives of the “little people” in this way.

        We’ve got cops, firefighters, FBI agents, CIA agents, and soldiers who are living with daily terrorist threats to their lives. As soon as you tell me every last one of them is being issued a Beast as their daily driver (along with a daily driver and security detail), I’ll think you have a point, instead of trying to justify pseudo-royal excess.

        I don’t want the President to feel protected. I want the President to feel that he has to live with the consequences of any action he takes, and think about said actions accordingly. Because clearly they’re not afraid of our votes anymore. You realize “The Beast” and all his Secret Service security is primarily there to protect him not from foreign threats, but from DOMESTIC ones? As in His Fellow Americans?

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Some animals are more equal than others I guess.

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          “I don’t want the President to feel protected. I want the President to feel that he has to live with the consequences of any action he takes, and think about said actions accordingly. Because clearly they’re not afraid of our votes anymore. You realize “The Beast” and all his Secret Service security is primarily there to protect him not from foreign threats, but from DOMESTIC ones? As in His Fellow Americans?”

          Don’t you think he already knows about domestic threats against his own life? I mean he riding in a car that can shrug off rifle rounds like they’re pebbles. It’s pretty much a constant reminder.

          And here’s the huge hole in your logic:

          Anything that the President may do will cause someone or some group to want to threaten their life. And there are some things they can’t control; for instance I’m pretty sure there have been credible threats made to Obamas life because of his skin color. But yes, lets he/she who’s in office sweat bullets every time they jump in the motorcade because they’re African American, Gay, a Woman…ect.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            “Anything that the President may do will cause someone or some group to want to threaten their life. And there are some things they can’t control; for instance I’m pretty sure there have been credible threats made to Obamas life because of his skin color. But yes, lets he/she who’s in office sweat bullets every time they jump in the motorcade because they’re African American, Gay, a Woman…ect.”

            Wow. What color is the sky?

        • 0 avatar

          > I want the President to feel that he has to live with the consequences of any action he takes, and think about said actions accordingly.

          Time for a good ol’ fashion lynchin’, amiright?

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            You go drone a few American citizens, let me know what happens to you. Nothing happened to him or his pal Dubya in their insulated Presidential bubbles.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        There are actually four E4Bs which could substitute for Air Force One.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4

    • 0 avatar
      SayMyName

      “I’d actually prefer the president to be a little less protected. I’ve never agreed with treated elected representatives as royalty. Maybe a little less protection will remove the “let them eat cake” mentality we see in both parties.”

      I’ve often thought the same thing. No doubt that Dubya and Barry O. would have each been a bit more cautious in pushing their respective agendas had they any genuine concern for their own well being.

      And now I shall set out coffee and cake for my inevitable CIA visit…

  • avatar
    Skink

    Never smoked in? Just fumigate the Beast and remove the self-esteem crown from the back shelf. Done.

  • avatar
    aristurtle

    I’m gonna say what I said last time:

    Take a surplus MRAP.
    Remove the turret. Paint it gloss black. Add leather seats.

    There, just saved you a $100M EMD contract. You’re welcome.

  • avatar
    brettc

    Whichever company(s) end up building it, I hope they engineer it for the terror of a bump. (youtube.com/watch?v=3BvABn7L_So)

  • avatar
    SayMyName

    “U.S. Secret Service Solicits Proposals to Replace “The Beast” With New Presidential Limo”

    …Why would Barack trade in Moochelle on a car, and why would the Secret Service be involved in that process?

  • avatar
    jetcal1

    I suspect the beast will endure. The clowns of procurement will demand too much capacity with little regard for real world limitations. Think VH-71. I got a real kick out of that program. The icing on the cake was the solicitation for the full lav after everyone knew it was overbudget and overweight. I guess the PotUS potty helped kill it. The beast will stick around through a second procurement attempt. If you doubt me, read the pre-solicitation. Phase 2 and 3 sound like cost-overrun city. To be fair, this is only the pre-solicitation and I doubt the SOW or CLINs will be made public,

  • avatar
    davew833

    If you think The Beast will be expensive to replace, the USAF Air Mobility Command is looking to replace the current “Air Force One” 747′s with three new planes, the first one to enter service in 2017.

    I’ve heard the only “off the shelf” Cadillac part used on “The Beast” was the grille emblem.

  • avatar

    They should make it a Lincoln just like Kennedy’s car.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    The cheapest solution is so obvious: The President never leaves the White House. No trips, no vacations, no golf, no meetings. Send the Vice President or Secretary of State for the meet-and-greets. these inaugural bashes are getting too big anyway, so have the oath in the East Room and televise it. There’s no constitutional requirement that the State Of The Union message be a speech before Congress either. Simply incarcerate the guy/gal, like house arrest. That would REALLY cut down on the pomp and circumstance.

  • avatar
    skor

    I detested the current prez limo from the first time I saw it. It embodies EVERYTHING that’s currently wrong with the US. Inelegant is putting it mildly, this thing is downright hideous. It’s the product of a country that is arrogant, violent and scared to death, all at the same time. This is the kind of thing I’d expect that repulsive little North Korean gnome to ride around in. Since the US seems to be on the highway to hell, I’m gonna guess that the replacement “limo” will be an even greater repulsive monstrosity.

  • avatar
    BobinPgh

    By now, there must be lighter materials that can protect as well as the thick armor they had then, that could make for a better looking car. It is also possible that the next President or even Obama could be wearing body armor himself (although to not be shot like Kennedy, he would have to be a wearing helmet that goes down his neck). As for not leaving, how do we even know President Obama is even in the White House? Most of the time he is probably in a place like Mount Weather.

    Oh, and if Hillary is the next President, will the limosine be for women, like Dodge La Femme?

  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    This was intended to be a post about the presidential limousine, but of course, the B&B discussion turned into what sounded like new plot-lines for Jack Bauer and the resurrection of the thriller series “24″.

    No, we can’t make a 12 year-old platform last another 12 years. Have you any idea the escalation and evolution of electronic surveillance/warfare and weapons systems in the last 12 years?

    No, we cannot make the president travel like the rest of us, and go without an armored limousine. Coup d’etat, foreign assassination, first-strike war planning, world destabilization – these are not good things, people. Whether you agree with the positions of the incumbent or not, having your president killed on national TV would plunge the world into very dark times (the JFK assassination put both the Soviet and US forces on DefCon 1 — a phone call away from WWIII).

    No, having an armored limousine does not mean America is scared, weak, or paranoid. It means we have a pretty good idea of the threats that are real and amongst us, and what our enemies are capable of. Those posting above suggesting the president ride around in a normal car would be the first to fly to their keyboards in horror when that plan went horribly wrong.

    No, having the president secured as much as possible when s/he travels does not elevate him/her to King/Queen status. We are protecting the highest elected official in our country from harm – and there are enemies out there who would want nothing more to attack and kill our president for symbolic and strategic purposes.

    And finally, no, the president him/herself doesn’t get to call the shots whether he gets a new plane, limo, helicopter, etc. The service life of these assets are determined independently by other agencies in Defense and the Secret Service. While these assets are updated and upfitted for as long as possible, it becomes necessary to replace these assets with newer, better, more sophisticated technology.

    Please, B&B, don’t let your personal politics take your intelligent minds and otherwise interesting discourse down the road of cra-cray.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      “No, we can’t make a 12 year-old platform last another 12 years. Have you any idea the escalation and evolution of electronic surveillance/warfare and weapons systems in the last 12 years?”

      That just destroys your credibility right there. Do you know how old the F-18 design is? The F-16? F-15? M1-Abrams tank? B-52 bomber? These are the things our defense forces rely on EVERY day to protect them in ACTUAL COMBAT. And yet the President needs newer platforms and technology to defend him from…Americans.

      • 0 avatar
        LALoser

        Comparing a limo for the president and advanced weapon systems that are constantly upgraded, and engineered to be upgraded is apples and oranges.

        • 0 avatar
          npaladin2000

          Only because said Presidential Limo is even MORE advanced than those platforms I mentioned. And yet those are good enough for our troops, but the President needs something newer.

          • 0 avatar
            LALoser

            The weapon systems come under DOD specifications which require longer in-service life. Systems under DOD are engineered from the start to be upgraded, and modified as needed. The term “combat” makes all the difference. The limo is probably under GSA, like embassies and so on. It is not a combat system but one built for protection, evasion, escape. But the limo is “hot” or a pinpoint target, so a few years of weapon upgrades by those who would kill the POTUS need to be countered.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            So upgrade it. It cost millions and is only 8 years old. It’s dumb to just toss the thing aside and start fresh, not with such a big investment.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The ten or so million spent developing and building a few armored limousines has a cheaper and further reaching impact than the billions it requires to engineer and build entire new weapons systems.

        • 0 avatar
          LALoser

          You should see the amounts wasted on the new embassy in Kabul. KBR did all right for themselves.
          Then we have the “make friends” cash that has disappeared into the mountains of Afghanistan….makes the new limo look like nothing.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’ve read stories about the crates of cash “lost” shortly after the Iraqi invasion so I believe it.

            Regardless of waste, they will continue to dump money into Afghanistan because the opium trade is in the billions if not trillions.

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        See my explanation below. Completely different missions and platforms.

        A weapons platform projects power, and the presidential limo is passive defense. Not. The. Same. Thing.

        There’s no way you can compare the B-52 or F-16 to a truck-based limousine. Apples to oranges, or as I said below, apples to cumquats.*

        *I think we need to rethink someone’s credibility.

    • 0 avatar
      LALoser

      Agree. With DH.

    • 0 avatar
      jetcal1

      DH,
      If read my post referencing the VH-71, you will note I expect the current limo to be around a while longer due to a failure to get a new limo. Read the pre-solicitation and read it in the context of the current procurement environment. Call me a cynic, but as the pre-solicitation stands today, this procurement will go over budget and past schedule. This is not a political stand, it’s an assessment by someone who deals with government procurement.

      • 0 avatar
        LALoser

        FedBizOps is one of my hangouts. You would not believe some RFPs on there. I had the ACE call me when I did not bid some projects…I would have been the only one…if only I knew that beforehand….

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        Your post is in the realm of realpolitik; behind-the-scenes funding and procurement policies and procedures. You may, in fact, be absolutely correct in predicting the next Beast may be delayed. I defer to your experience in government procurement.

        However, your post is based in reality and experience, and does not dive down the rabbit hole of wondering why we need to protect the president in an armored limousine in the first place. The reasons for The Beast are patently obvious. Whether the new one comes online on schedule is another argument entirely, and one based in reality.

  • avatar
    50merc

    The statists will always defend any perquisite of power, but the truth is the presidency has evolved far from the egalitarian principles of early America. When Jefferson was sworn in, there was a reception to honor the new chief executive. Then he walked to his boarding house for supper, only to find he was too late for the first serving. He had to wait for “second table” to eat his dinner.

    Lincoln would take long carriage rides in the countryside, accompanied by one bodyguard

    Up to Wilson’s day it was expected that the president would stand at the White House door on January 1st, and any citizen who wanted to meet the president could walk up and shake his hand.

    Into the 1930′s the White House lawn was considered a public park. A newly married couple visiting Washington decided to have a picnic on the lawn. They drove up the circular drive and parked under a big “carport”. As they were enjoying their lunch a man came out the front door and saw the couple’s car. He came over to them and politely explained he needed them to move their car. President Roosevelt was going somewhere and the Secret Service needed to move his vehicle to the front door.

    Old George III would be highly amused to see what the presidency has become. Even the First Family (essentially a title of nobility) is treated like royalty.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      Yeah, you can see how the statists are up in arms at the mere implication that their holy Presidents should be treated as anything less than Hollywood Royalty that need to be protected from us mere commoners.

      Of course they usually reserve that for the ones for their own party, but will concede it to the other party in the expectation that theirs will get it too. ;)

  • avatar
    50merc

    The argument that the presidential limousine is too old and obsolete will be regarded with amusement by Air Force crews who are flying B-52′s built before they were born.

    • 0 avatar
      Domestic Hearse

      Completely different missions and platforms. The BUFF is no longer considered first-strike, and is designed to follow supersonic B-1 Lancers and stealthy B-2 Stealths into hot war zones after the newer weapon platforms have softened defenses. Even still, the B-52 has proven a very affordable subsonic heavy bomber, capable of both conventional and nuclear payloads, and has been steadily upgraded since its inception, especially in terms of electronics, and is slated to stay in service until at least 2040. Your apple to oranges obsolescence argument isn’t even apple to oranges. It’s apple to cumquat.*

      Heck, the Russians still employ the Tupolev Tu-95 (the Bear), a turbo-prop heavy bomber which came on board in the mid-50s. Like the B-52, this platform is expected to serve into 2040 and beyond.

      *Full disclosure, step-father a retired AF colonel, earned his wings over Vietnam in the B-52, and later became a SAC nuclear missile control officer. If you’d like a deep dive into B-52 mission and capabilities, we can have a discussion offline.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The Soviets still use Tu-95 as an airborne cruise missile platform.

        “Today, Tu-95s can fly holding pattern patrols 1,500 miles to 2,000 miles away from any prospective targets along the U.S. East and West Coasts and far beyond the range of any homeland-based U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons.”

        “Each Tu-95 can carry and launch as many as six KH-55 ALCMs. They are far cheaper and easier to maintain and operate than the huge, supersonic Tu-160 Blackjacks and the Kremlin has far more of them.”

        Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2008/10/23/Why-the-old-Tu-95-is-still-a-key-Russian-strategic-weapon/UPI-45131224810985/#ixzz2vrFVflJO

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Pretty sure the Soviets aren’t flying anything. You mean the Russians? Ah hell, given all that is going on perhaps you are correct.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Agreed and it seems its been this way more or less all along. Two things:

            In 2005, Condoleezza Rice was appointed Secretary of State. Dr. Rice’s political science degree specialized in Sovietology and personally I think its no coincidence she was appointed Secy of State right as a Soviet era strongman “President” Putin started to flex his muscles in the world stage. Dr. Rice was also quoted later in 2008 as saying:

            ““The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it.””

            http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/04/missile_defense/

            Also in 2005, New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft claims to have had a conversation with President Bush over his super bowl ring allegedly stolen by Vladimir Putin on a recent trip.

            “”It would really be in the best interest of U.S.-Soviet relations if you meant to give the ring as a present,” Bush said, according to Kraft.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-stole-robert-krafts-super-bowl-ring-2013-6#ixzz2vugCVQ5T

            Now its possible Kraft misspoke when he quoted the then President, and its possible both Bush and Rice are stuck in a mental time warp. However both of these people are privileged to information we are not, and I find it curious both ostensibly are thinking in the same frame of mind. Quite simply if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, what is it?

            http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-stole-robert-krafts-super-bowl-ring-2013-6

            My favorite quote on the subject is one by Andrei Lugovoy, ex-KGB, the prime suspect in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London, 2006:

            “I don’t agree that the Cold War is back. It has never ended,” he said. “Any normal Russian person in the 1990s didn’t see anything from the West except insults and humiliation.”

            So is this payback time? Lugovoy laughed a little, then spoke deliberately.

            “I don’t agree with this biblical saying that if they hit you on one cheek you should turn the other cheek,” he said. “If they hit you on one cheek, you hit them back with a fist.”

            http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/27/world/fg-poison27

  • avatar

    Exhibit A> The statists will always defend any perquisite of power, but the truth is the presidency has evolved far from the egalitarian principles of early America. When Jefferson was sworn in, there was a reception to honor the new chief executive.

    Exhibit B> Yeah, you can see how the statists are up in arms at the mere implication that their holy Presidents should be treated as anything less than Hollywood Royalty that need to be protected from us mere commoners.

    As much as I find street justice entertaining, as much as the next guy anyway, the reality is that the executive as one of the co-equal branches of gubmint is designed from the start to have a figurehead. Therefore it’s perilous to leave understanding of this responsibility to a mob with evidently limited literacy nevermind reasoning ability. When the masses learn how to read this Constitution they seem to hold so dear, then maybe we can talk about downgrading security against the particularly delusional pitchforker.

    The rocks star image is just something the american public projects with its celebrity culture. Frankly I’m more surprise the first family doesn’t have its own reality show yet.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Vote for me and I’ll have that crusher bound Continental Murilee featured in his column last week restored as my limo.

    If it was going to be for the current administration I would say it should be an ELR since they were so fond of the Volt and the order of 3 would double ELR sales so it is a win win.

    Given the shape of our country, I think it should be something from the Malaise era. I am thinking a stretched Lincoln Versailles sums up where we are at pretty ell.

    But hey, can AM General enter that taxi thing?

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    There’s no point in saying ‘what’s wrong with the old one (the beast)’ because the problem isn’t the limo per se, but the fact that the threats change regularly. Not only that, but its ease of transport and practicality in other locations besides Washington D.C. are very important. The unfortunate part for car people is that the Presidential Limos will be destroyed once de-commissioned for security reasons.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    There have been questions about what happens to presidential limousines no longer used by the president. I don’t think they’re scrapped. I believe they are passed down to assignments with lower security concerns until they are totally obsolete.

    There was a comment about the Beast being used only around Washington. In fact a Beast is flown ahead of the President when he travels. That’s partly why there are more than one of them. I’ve seen estimates up to 12 of them.

    Someone said the only stock Cadillac component was the crest on the grille. From Wikipedia: “Many body components are sourced from a variety of Cadillac vehicles; for example, the car uses Cadillac Escalade headlights, side mirrors and door handles. The tail of the car seems to use the taillights and back up lights from the Cadillac STS sedan.” Given the scale of the thing, the crest itself must be larger than the ones Cadillac uses.

    As for active defensive systems, I’d guess it has sensors to detect incoming missiles etc., and probably has those chaff/flare things to divert heat-seeking weapons.

    And I’m not an American and don’t live in the US.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India