By on December 28, 2010

On the list of things that should not have survived the last two years of Carpocalypse, Maybach pretty much takes the cake. Even before global credit markets froze up and luxury car sales plummeted, Maybach’s appeal was wearing thin: as one TTAC writer put it, the brand built on lavishly trimmed S-Classes was born old hat. Or, as another Maybach gravedigger put it,

To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, the Maybach experiment was a conspiracy between Daimler and the rich to make the rest of us feel smart.

Well, get ready to feel extra-smart. While Aston is prepping a new look for the brand, the old Maybach is having one last hurrah, thanks to the German custom house Xenatec, and the Saudi-based Auto Kingdom. This “Cruiserio” Coupe is the product of a €70m Auto Kingdom investment, and was built by Xenatec with cooperation from Daimler. And with 100 units planned at €715,000 each, Auto Kingdom stands to make €1.5m profit on the project… provided they all sell. And if they do, this garish, gargantuan coupe is just the beginning. According to Jameslist,

The AutoKingdom’s investment in the project is but the first in a series of projects the company is working currently on, [Auto Kingdom Chairman Waleed Abdullah Al-Hokair] noted, adding that details of 3 such projects will be revealed in the near future.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

30 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: Maybach Lives Edition...”

  • avatar

    I LOVE this thing. Much better than most any two-door anything.

  • avatar

    That makes no sense. 1.5mill on a 70mill investment? A 30 day T-bill could do that.

  • avatar
    Rod Panhard

    Eh, whatever. If you can afford a Maybach, you can’t afford to waste time reading blogs.

  • avatar
    Dr Lemming

    Gargantuan?  Sure; the wheelbase is too long for a coupe.  Garish?  Eh, not compared to so many contemporary luxury cars.

  • avatar

    As social-democrat and liberal policies create more inequality, the market for Maybach is going to expand world-wide. We have not seen the last of it yet.

    • 0 avatar

      Social-democrat and liberal policies create inequality? That’s gotta be the funniest joke I’ve ever seen. It’s fine if you think Ayn Rand is a genius and what we all need now are Hooverism and Reganomics, but at least be honest man.
      What about “tax cuts for the ultra rich” and “eliminate the estate tax” do you not understand? Who do you think is for those policies? Bernie Sanders?

    • 0 avatar

      Hoover was a Progressive, and Pete is correct. Current US policy benefits the hyper-rich elite at the expense of the aspirational rich and small-to-midsize business owners. Nothing new here, it’s how FDR operated in the 30’s.
      Daimler and Auto Kingdom are merely exploiting the desire many rich people possess: to own something perceived as exclusive. Doesn’t have to be a superior product…or even that exclusive, it just has to carry the perception of exclusivity.
      The aspirational rich do not stuff their mattress or paper their walls with the money saved from tax rate cuts. They invest it, creating jobs and opportunities in the process.

    • 0 avatar

      @ pete/budda
      Sorry, if you think republican fiscal policy gives a rat’s ass about whether one is ‘old money rich’, or ‘aspirational’ rich, or dumb-luck lottery rich or WHATEVER, please put down the crack pipe…the operative word here is rich, and catering to their greed and continued entitlement, at the expense of the deficit, the common good of society, and future generation’s opportunities (as long as THEIR children/grandchildren are set for life), etc…

      all that matters to them is that they pay as close to NO taxes as possible, and screw everyone else…now flip my burgers damnit, and be glad for your pittance of a wage…jeez, all these whiny poor people REALLY annoy me…if they have no bread, let them eat cake!

      Back to cars, this is probably the most attractive Maybach ever, but that bar has been set pretty low…if you’re going to drive a useless piece of vehicular ostentation and vulgarity, hey make it even more useless and ostentatious…need to spend that oil money and/or Bush-originated tax cut on something, and an S-Class coupe is just too common.

    • 0 avatar

      Thank you. The massive inequality between those at the very top and the bottom 98% created in the last 30 years or so has been thanks to Republican and conservative policies. NOT liberal. Incomes for CEOS and hedge fund managers have skyrocketed, while average incomes have gone nowhere. Want to know who to thank for that? It’s people like Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers who deserve most of the “credit”. If you think they are liberals or progressives, you’ve lost it.

    • 0 avatar

      The places within the United States that show the greatest income inequality among residents are New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago…all of which are not exactly strongholds of conservative Republicanism.

      And anyone who believes that Herbert Hoover was a free-market worshipping conservative needs a history lesson. Hoover believed in public works, RAISED taxes during his presidency, signed into the law the draconian Hawley Smoot tariff (which every repubtable economist believes made the Great Depression even worse, especially in agricultural areas) and jawboned companies into maintaining high wages (which backfired, as companies resorted to even more layoffs as profits fell).

      By 1933, unemployment in this country had hit 33 percent, and the automobile market had fallen a staggering 75 percent from its 1929 high. So much for the myth that Hoover sat back and did nothing in the wake of the 1929 crash, or that the Great Depression was caused by a fanantical devotion to laissez-faire economics. Quite the opposite.

      Also – wanting to keep more of your own money is not a sign of greed. Given that everyone wants to keep as much of his or her own money as possible, under that definition, we are all apparently greedy. The idea that the rich got that way solely by greed, or are uniquely greedy, is only held by those who have spent too much time inhaling the nonsense that emanates from too many of our so-called progressive centers. Turn off the Dallas and Dynasty reruns and read The Millionaire Next Door to gain an accurate picture of who is rich and how they got that way.

    • 0 avatar

      Davekaybsc: Thank you. The massive inequality between those at the very top and the bottom 98% created in the last 30 years or so has been thanks to Republican and conservative policies.

      Irrelevant. What’s important is that the rich pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than they have at any time since World War II. This is true even though the top federal income tax rates in the 1950s were 90+ percent. Why? Because hardly anyone paid those rates, as the Tax Code was riddled with loopholes, which we’ve closed over the years.  

      Incidentally, our tax system is more progressive than that of France and Sweden. The U.S. relies far more on higher income taxpayers than those countries do. The top 1 percent earn about 19.4 percent of all income, but pay 41 percent of all federal income taxes. No other country relies as much on high earners as the U.S. does. The idea that the rich are not paying their way, or are sponging off of everyone else is false.

      And please note note that the poor benefit far more from government programs and the stable environment that comes from effective government than the rich do, as the rich can use their resources to largely insulate themselves from a dysfunctional society. The poor cannot do this.

      Davekaybsc: NOT liberal. Incomes for CEOS and hedge fund managers have skyrocketed, while average incomes have gone nowhere. Want to know who to thank for that? It’s people like Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers who deserve most of the “credit”.

      First, if the rich consisted only of CEOs and hedge fund managers, you might have a point. But those two groups do not constitue the rich. I would suggest that you read The Millionaire Next Door to gain a more sophisticated understanding of who is rich, and how they got that way. 

      Hint – they didn’t inherit it, and they don’t necessarily LOOK rich. Just because someone drives a luxury car, lives in a McMansion and wears expensive suits does not mean that he or she has a lot of assets or real wealth.  

      Second, the proposed tax increases would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. That is not that much money in New York City or Los Angeles (unless you bought your house 20 years ago). That is why Democratic Senator Charles Schumer (from New York) proposed only applying the tax increases to those making more than $1 million a year. 

      One can assume he proposed this in response to his constituent feedback, most of whom are Democrats, unless he is now channeling Rush Limbaugh. Our local paper ran a story about some New York City residents living on $250-310,000 annually. Let’s just say that they weren’t exactly living a Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous. Not with two kids in a two-bedroom condo in Manhattan.  

      (It also shows why the tax increase fell apart – members of Obama’s own party were bolting over this issue.)

      Davekaybsc: If you think they are liberals or progressives, you’ve lost it.

      No, the people who lost it are those who believe that Hoover was a laissez-faire conservative. That could charitably be described as glaringly inaccurate.

    • 0 avatar

      Since this topic is being allowed on this site, I feel like contributing a this bit.
      It’s strange how (American) conservatives blame liberalism for socialist economic policies and non-conservative/religious social culture and how socialists blame liberalism for free trade and economic injustice. All this rather distorts what libertarianism stands for.
      Anyways, there are opposing views on the whole matter, as you can see by visiting the links
      “THE rich are paying more tax; the rich aren’t paying enough. Depending on which statistics you use, you can make a convincing case either way.
      America’s Internal Revenue Service publishes figures showing the proportion of income-tax receipts paid by different segments of the population. Back in 1986 the top 1% of taxpayers were responsible for 25.4% of all income tax paid; by 2005 their share had risen to 38.4%. The IRS also has figures for the top 400 American taxpayers. In 2006 their incomes averaged more than $263m, compared with $214m the year before. On those incomes they paid tax at an average rate of just 17.2%, well down from a peak of 29.9% in 1995; 31 of those 400 paid less than 10% in tax.

      These figures are two sides of the same coin. The rich are paying a lot more tax in nominal terms because, as this special report has demonstrated, they have got a lot richer. But the rates of tax they pay have come down. Those on the political right can cite this as evidence that lower tax rates eventually increase tax receipts; those on the left, that the rich have been getting away with lower taxes at a time when median incomes have stagnated.”
      “This special report will explain how disparities in wealth and income became so wide in the first place and ask whether that process will now go into reverse. And it will examine how well the rich are coping with the crisis—because that will matter for everyone else too.”
      As for New York, if the living standard is that low for a couple-of-hundred-thousand per year, shouldn’t the tax rate of families making far closer to the national norm for income be taxed at close to zero, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford living there at all?
      That is an interesting, and I don’t think well covered, point that for the amount of wealth they make, people living in places like New York (or Japan, for that matter) should be living a lot more lavishly, but aren’t, because of exorbitant real estate prices. It rather defeats the fabulous gains in productivity and wealth-generation we’ve achieved. At least most of the country is not like that (or maybe that should be not as extreme).

    • 0 avatar


    • 0 avatar

      The numerical illiteracy of people who think tax cuts are something that is “given” to the rich is illustrated in every political cartoon showing an Uncle Sam character handing a big bag of (tax cut) money with a $ symbol on it to a rich man in a top hat.
      An accurate cartoon would show two panels: in the first the rich guy is handing a big money bag of tax payments to Uncle Same, then in 2nd panel the rich guy giving a slightly less large bag of cash to Uncle Sam as a a result of the tax cut.
      A tax cut is a reduction in the flow of money from tax payer to govt, but there is still a net flow of money into the govt from the taxpayer.
      Hard to believe that sfdennis1 and similar really don’t understand this simple flow of money.

    • 0 avatar

      Blah, blah, blah…whatever lets you sleep at night, pal….Flow of money, cartoons, big money bags, small money bags, top hats, whatever.

      If Bush’s tax policy was so fair and effective, and millionaires are the only ones we can count on to ‘spur the economy and create jobs’ via low taxes, why has middle class income and financial security been stagnant at best, while upper class wealth has skyrocketed?

      Long story short, wealthy persons will pay less tax due to the rethuglicans threats to hold our Government hostage…adding hundreds of billions to the national debt… amongst other atrocities, getting credits to ship jobs overseas, screwing our middle class to protect their own pockets…millionaires skim the cream off the top and leave the spoiled sediment for everyone else to eat.

      ‘Hard to beleive’ you think whatever justifications you attempt to offer can counter the reality faced by millions of American families…the rich are getting richer while most everyone else is suffering…we’re not ALL brainwashed by Fox News and republican propoganda.

    • 0 avatar

      The rich pay more taxes than they ever have before; the Bush tax cuts made the Tax Code more progressive, by the only measure that really matters – who actually pays taxes. This has been proven repeatedly, and is not up for debate. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not well-informed on this subject.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr Lemming

      Geeber, I suspect that this comes down to a question of how you slice the data.  The US has one of the lowest rates of taxation of the wealthy in the world.  In addition, top-end rates are below those in the Reagan era.  So to suggest that the rich in the US are getting soaked lacks context.  Their proportional dollar amount of taxes paid could be a result of the unequal distribution of wealth in the US, which is now as high as it was during the Gilded Age a century ago.  We are a very different country when it comes to wealth distribution than we were in the 1950s.
      There’s an old saying that you can have great inequalities in wealth or you can have democracy — but you can’t have both.

  • avatar

    I feel wrong for liking this.

  • avatar

    Looks like what a Hyundai Equus coupe would look like.  Except the headlights on the Hyundai look more expensive/upscale.

  • avatar

    Somehow, it is an improvement over the boring old super-s-class theme of the 1st generation…

    … but what i find a little bizarre, is all that rear seat-lixury, of sunroof, adj seats, roof-ount gauges, etc, but then the person back there having to climb in behind the seat … that seems the opposite of super-luxury…

  • avatar

    Disappointing that it isn’t a pillar-less coupe…and the 1980s w126 is more attractive IMHO

  • avatar

    Here you will find pics of Maybach predecessors (Imperial style), even more bombastic, more expensive (Democrats/Republicans certainly not involved), together with an Imperial McMansion:

  • avatar

    tacky, ugly lincoln-esque grill.

  • avatar

    These will be a huge hit in the Emirates.

  • avatar

    Someplace a Lincoln misses its grill.
    BTW, the one and only Maybach I’ve seen around these parts is parked in front of a house without a paved driveway.  99% of the houses around here have paved driveways.  Go figure.

  • avatar

    I took a quick glance at the regular Maybach (short wheel base) at my Mercedes dealer, when shopping for a vehicle.  I did not ask them to unlock the doors, when obviously I cannot afford one. What struck me was just how uninspiring the vehicle is. It left my wondering “so what?”
    That coupe above looks like an improvement, but again, so what?  Massively overpriced – just because it is expensive does not make it better or more desireable.. The Maybach is the 21st Century Edsel.

  • avatar

    Another ugly-ass Maybach. Will someone please put a bullet in the head of this brand. If you do have money to burn, there are far better and nicer looking cars than Maycrap out there.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • gstewartbxl: I remember the Rambler Hornet, growing up in South Africa. American branded cars were very popular up...
  • 28-Cars-Later: @Arthur I’m still skeptical long term but I don’t think the CVT is the death sentence it...
  • 28-Cars-Later: I don’t particularly believe J.D. Power without knowing whose been writing them checks of late....
  • Arthur Dailey: @Freedmike; Up here an Escape and a Compass start at just under $30k. So Ford and Chrsyler are out of...
  • 28-Cars-Later: Cylinder deactivation in a 2.5 I4 seems a tad off, but if it works I suppose we’ll start seeing...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber