Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





High End Luxury Cars

1706707709711712771

Comments

  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    The most current issue of C&D has the BMW M5 of all things placing in 3rd place behind the Audi S6(#2) and the MB E65(#1). This must only mean one thing, that the BMW is way inferior, time to sell that BMW!
  • Getting a car out on a track and seeing what it can do is different from a lane change test. If you can't see that, then I guess your like Mercedes who obviously can't see the need for handling.

    A two second lap time difference vs a less than a second acceleration to 60. [motor trend] Once again if Car&Driver did a track test [and I'm a subscriber by the way] then we may know more. They and Edmunds are consistantly slower than everyone else in acceleration times.

    I hate to break this to you but not everyone aspires to Mercedes sales or Lexus sales for that matter. Does Audi want more? Sure, but clearly not at the expense of dynamics which placate guys with money, and very little taste.

    The point of the figure 8 is to show handling prowess, over raw power. Raw power is where the Benz shines, and on the track is where it doesn't. Let me know when you take a corner in that Benz.

    If the test is uber luxury drag racers, then the Benz deserves respect. Engines are what they [AMG division] do best. However, I'm excited that for once, someone saw the Audi in it's best light.

    I have no problem giving any one due credit. Lexus for luxury, and reliability, and Benz for Luxury, and speed. But you know good and hell well, that "sport' isn't their strong point
  • If your going to point out acceleration as the only critirea for being "all around" performance minded, then your starting to sound like the Lexus camp that does nothing but talk about reliability.

    I repeat, it's the benz that's down on all around performance, and up on over priced.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    A) If a car is leased with a capitalization of 92% of MSRP, with a 27-mo residual of 74%, then the leaser is paying (92-74=) 18% MSRP for 27mo/27kmiles.



    IF is the key word. IF you can get such a lease on the car you want is the key question? Unfortunately that is not always the case. The lease deal you are mentioning above may not apply to the car that someone actually wants especially a hot selling car(as I found out when I bough my BMW 335i)

    I find it kind of amusing to see how many forum members here gush about leases as if leasing is the shrewdest financial decision any individual can make. Before the gushing continues on and on and on please allow me to present some of the non-shrewd aspects of leasing.


    1) Has anyone pondered what happens when a leased car is in a serious accident? The insurance company will certainly not compensate the lessee for the inflated residual value will they? Nope the poor lessee will end up coughing up the difference between the resale value and the inflated residual value. And that difference can be quite significant.

    2)Are there any heavy drivers within this forum? Driving a leased car far beyond the lease terms is not going to be cheap. And who knows what future roads we will all travel. Maybe a lessee may end up traveling far more than he or she expects.

    3) What if the lessee returns his car in a not so great condition (minor mishaps, sloppy kids--all the stuff that happens in reality) Will he walk away scot-free without paying an extra fee (and who knows what amount that will be). No way Jose.

    4) What if a person likes keeping his car for long durations. I kept my BMW323i for 8 yeare, my wife kept her Audi 4000S for 14 years and we still own a 24 year old MB300D. Keeping these cars made a lot of financial sense especially since these three cars did not involve much maintenace/repair costs.

    5) Lease deals may be wonderful for individuals who love having new cars every few years. But driving a new car every few years is in itself not a wise financial decision. It is a lifestyle decision.

    6) A financially shrewd/wealthy car lessee is usually an oxymoron? Do you think that great value guy named Warren Buffet leased his new Cadillac? Financial leverage is far more effective with appreciating investments than with depreciating assets like cars. Even with inflated residuals.

    7) Owning a car versus leasing one involves the freedom to do what you want with a car without any penalties from a lessor. Such a freedom is worth quite a lot IMO.

    B) Goes to show you how ludicrous the MSRP is,

    MSRPs are ludicrous? Apparently you never bought a hot selling car before. Ofcourse a buyer of cars with dealerlot cobwebs will find MSRPs irrelevant.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    Well I'm here to do my due diligence as an Audi fan and brag about the S6's victory over the M5, and E63AMG.

    LOL,

    Editorial bias against poor BMW. ;)

    If I had a choice I would pick a manual RWD M5 over an S6 any day. AWD who needs AWD (unless you live in Greenland or in a mountainous snowy area). And what the hell is snow anyways? I haven't seen that stuff for ages and I live in Toronto. I hope Global Warming will allow my children to build a snowman at least once during their childhood. :sick:

    May I please join you in your liberal agenda regarding the environment?
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    AWD who needs AWD (unless you live in Greenland or in a mountainous snowy area). And what the hell is snow anyways? I haven't seen that stuff for ages and I live in Toronto.

    Does it ever rain in Toronto? If so, save the S6 race for a dry day, the M5 will lose in the wet.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    Well during that very very rare instance when I am at a red light beside an S6 during a rainy day I will have to swallow my pride and forgo racing like a lunatic. That is definitly a small price to pay for driving a more tempting manual BMW M5.
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    You are correct, dewey. Leasing is not a shrewd financial decision.
    I have yet to discover what the shrewd financial decision is in obtaining a vehicle since one takes a big hit just driving it out of the showroom after you buy it and then one has to add in maintenance costs as the vehicle matures. Then when you do decide to unload it, you probably wind up trading it in at a rock bottom price.

    For me, I would rather drive a new vehicle every 2 years into the future with no maintenance expenses. Next time around, twin-turbo or diesel and after that perhaps something even more exciting.

    PS: I don't know how it works in Canada, but here our leases have gap insurance which covers us for the difference, so your point #1 doesn't apply here. As long as one leases with no money down, one has no financial liability at all if the car gets stolen or totalled.

    PS': I have yet to pay any extra charges for mileage overages or for any bodywork needed on returning these vehicles. (My first leased vehicle was a 1967 Impala).
    The only additional expense is returning the vehicles with acceptable tires. So for my 3 year leases, I have been buying a new set of tires after 2 years.
  • well I guess you guys haven't been reading the latest news on the manual M5, which has DSC that is undeafeatable. What a load of crap. BMW has lost their mind. I think they hired the Lexus legal team.

    Lease VS purchase. I think from a financial perspective, acquiring a depreciating piece of equipment is no smart move. If you want to play smart Dewey, probably the smartest thing is to buy slightly used, and fairly inexpensive to begin with. You can't talk about smart financial decisions re cars, and then buy luxury brands.

    I'll take the argument even further about all wheel drive. I propose that it's not only in the wet, when all wheel drive is a boon. Breaking on to corners when the front is loaded,
    and the rear has less traction. 2 wheels driven good, 4 wheels driven, better.
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    I have no interest in the M5. Can't see getting a track car for stop and go and interstate driving.
    I guess dewey can use one on some abandoned former olympic tobogganing runs.

    Funny post about the gal complaining that she is having trouble with her "newly purchased" 1990 7 Series over in the Luxury Lounge! :lemon:

    I agree that if you see a car as "value", it is best to buy one that is slightly used and has already taken the big depreciation hit. Buying new is no smarter than leasing new.
    Best to buy a used luxury vehicle from someone living in a retirement community. I see these vehicles all the time in driveways with "for sale" signs on them.
  • Dewey, I'm very surprised, for someone who claims to be a working pro in the financial industry, you would even make these arguments, much less without studying the numbers that I presented.

    The lease deal you are mentioning above may not apply to the car that someone actually wants especially a hot selling car

    The same residual applies to every model of the car, regardless what configuration you pick; in fact, if you want loaded options to begin with, taking the lease deals would come out even better because there is no way in real life resale can keep up with the base car as well. Is it really financially smart to to pay through the nose for a hot car? In any case, even if assuming full MSRP for both purchase and lease, 74% 27-mo residual means 26% of MSRP for 27 months. So a purchase decision for the same nominal price as lease would finally break even at 104th month (27/26 * 100). That's more than 8.5 years, when you are finally coming out even on a per month cost basis with someone who is about to turn in his fourth new car in that same time span. In that time span, you'd have bought two sets of tires at least, two sets of brakes, 60k service and 90k service, not to mention brake fluid flushes every two years, coolant flush every two years, and possibly A/C job by then, if not some electrical jobs especially the expensive LCD replacement. Are you sure you are even ahead monetarily when you sell the car? That's assuming not having any major problem at all, which is unrealistic for an 8+ year old BMW. Not to mention all the new safety and comfort features that you are missing for more than half a decade.

    re (1) ever heard of gap insurance? It's like $40 a year; some leases include gap insurance. IN fact, it's a big reason to lease. When you total a fully owned car within a year after purchase, you'd be footing a much bigger bill to come up with the difference in order to get another new car.

    re (2) different residual rates are available for different mileage allowances; average mileage by definition is applicable to most drivers. In case you did not notice, BMW and MB are heavily skewed towards the prosperous urban areas on the coasts (for Canada that means lake coast and Pacific coast, within 75 miles of US border), not the great interior where people actually do drive a lot of miles

    re (3) Lease return policies are actually quite generous because they do not want to upset future customers. In any case, you have to repair the car if you own it too.

    re (4) but why? if getting a new one every 27 months is cheaper? That also cures the urge to dive into hot deals like the 335i prematurely at MSRP before M3 comes along and depress 335i prices. Your near-100% MSRP over the next 8years (96 months) can not begin to compare to someone who picks up a 328i for 27mo at 18% MSRP, then a 335i for another 27mo at 18%MSRP, then another 338i (with higher boost), then a 340i, all assuming average driving pattern.

    (5) Unless the numbers work out otherwise. As a financial guru, you should be keen on the details.

    (6) Warren Beffet does not need a car at all. He lives in a jet and get chauffered around. His keeping an old car or buying American is little more than a publicity stunt. If he cares about pinching those pennies, he should have gotten rid of his car a long time ago, just to save insurance and depreciation. If the banks underwriting on those residual terms lost a billions, I want to be on the opposite side of the trade; as simple as that. There is no financial leverage involved. If someone has to borrow in order to get a car, he probably should not get a luxury car, but that's not the point of discussion here.

    (7) Depending on what's happening in your life and what per centage of income the car payment represents. If a carpayment is no more than a few per cent of a person's monthly income, what's the big deal? If I were to take that 328i deal, it would be about 1.5% of my monthly income. Do I really care about the burden of such a commitment? If you lead a stable life, it shouldn't be hard to look ahead 27 months. If you have to relocate overseas suddenly, you'd have bigger problem, such as the house.

    MSRPs are ludicrous? Apparently you never bought a hot selling car before. Ofcourse a buyer of cars with dealerlot cobwebs will find MSRPs irrelevant.

    Well, buying hot cars at MSRP certainly does not jive with shrewed money management, especially if you are not using residual to cover yourself at the back end. The knowledge that you will just get another one in a little over two years may well cure the urge of once in a decade excitement that overcomes better judgement.
  • it is best to buy one that is slightly used and has already taken the big depreciation hit.

    True for most brands, but not necessarily true for brands with heavy residual subsidies, especially if the car's maintenance and repair bill is high when old.
  • Hpowders, what can I say. I guess we both like to be cheeky bastards. I've just got myself in a debate with Merc which I can't hope to win, but this thread needs some fire IMO. Otherwise it just gets boring.

    Yeah, ultimately if I want a track car, I'm getting a Cayman or a lotus. I really have no problem with the bimmer other than if I wanted that hard of a performance edge, I'd get the aforementioned.

    The Benz is only slightly more exciting than a Lexus in that line up. [for illustration purposes of course. M5, S6 E63AMG] The S class, and maybe the GL are the only whips in the Benz lineup that are remotely interesting to me. [IMO]
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Altho this is not thread to discuss these cars, you do bring some valid points.

    The S6 is surely not the fastest. But it's all around ability of competence leads me to believe that it is the better of the M and AMG, even the STS-v. And the fact that a Caddy has never played here before and requesting a $70k check in the process is questionable.

    No car in this hottly contested arena offers what it does. Sure the E63 will light fire to anything in this class in a str8 line, but within a few twisties, the power is useless due to a suspension not up to the power of this car.

    The M5 is a pure specialty car. And this is the way BMW bills it. It surely isn't a daily driver, and hopefully you have your Microsoft-certified licensure to operate it.

    The STS-v is hopelessly lost when it comes to this class. Sure it has the adequate performance to compete here. But adequacy gets you nowhere here, and judging from the lackluster sales of this unit, many agree on this.

    That leaves the S6. It's V10 is shamelessly underpowered when compared with the best from Germany. But with that slight drawback, little else is to be at fault.

    This is the same problem I faced with the S8. I went back and foward from the S8 to the S65. The 65AMG just didn't warrant it's lofty price tag, and the S8 won it's business especially since it fulfill it's destiny as Audi intended it to. Not the fastest, not the best handler, but surely the best all-arounder in terms of performance and luxury..
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    Several months ago I admit to having had Cayman fever.
    But I do a lot of airport trips and the Cayman just wouldn't be practical. Would make a fine second car. Only I don't need or want a second car. My garage is already filled to the max with the 545i and 2 golf carts.

    The best compromise for me is a BMW. Good performance with a useable trunk.
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    Sounds like Canada doesn't offer gap insurance otherwise he surely would have known about it.
    No gap insurance in the USA would take me out of the game.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Actually, Lexus USA lobbied the bosses in Japan for a VDIM off switch. The IS and GS certainly have their problems, but undefeatable (without jumping through a bunch of service command hoops) stability control is no longer one of them.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Getting a car out on a track and seeing what it can do is different from a lane change test. If you can't see that, then I guess your like Mercedes who obviously can't see the need for handling.

    Likewise if you can't see the importance of a car being able to perform and evasive manuver fast and cleanly you don't know what handling is either. If you think that a Mercedes E63 can't handle you've lost the plot. Fact is that, both tests are way to measure handling. If they weren't then neither mag would do them. Heck even the Mary Poppins of the industry (MotorWeek) does a emergency lane change test.

    A two second lap time difference vs a less than a second acceleration to 60. [motor trend] Once again if Car&Driver did a track test [and I'm a subscriber by the way] then we may know more. They and Edmunds are consistantly slower than everyone else in acceleration times.

    Doesn't matter the S6 will never match the acceleration of the E63 or M5, no matter who tests it.

    I hate to break this to you but not everyone aspires to Mercedes sales or Lexus sales for that matter. Does Audi want more? Sure, but clearly not at the expense of dynamics which placate guys with money, and very little taste.

    I hate to break it to you that Audi wants more sales and they've been wanting them for years. Now tell me exactly what does more sales have to do with taste? Most ridiculous association I've yet heard. Just because Mercedes sells more cars than Audi their buyers lack taste? Stunning. I had no idea Audi desperation went that deep. I guess in Europe Audi buyers are equally classless since they lead BMW and Mercedes in certain markets/classes.

    The point of the figure 8 is to show handling prowess, over raw power. Raw power is where the Benz shines, and on the track is where it doesn't. Let me know when you take a corner in that Benz.

    Wow, I hadn't realized this. Again, you're on some nonesense if you think the E63 can't take a corner. One magazine said that it handles excellently and what did MT say exactly I don't know yet. Either way you know full well that no car in this class is a poor handler and to even imply that one is shows how surreal this Audi thing has become to you.

    If the test is uber luxury drag racers, then the Benz deserves respect. Engines are what they [AMG division] do best. However, I'm excited that for once, someone saw the Audi in it's best light.

    I agree, but this utter nonsense about a Benz not being able to take a corner taints anything sensible you've posted here. You make the Audi sound like a open-wheel racer the Benz a Caddy from the 80's.

    I have no problem giving any one due credit. Lexus for luxury, and reliability, and Benz for Luxury, and speed.

    Is there someone else using your user ID? I am not and will never be a defender of Lexus so I'm not sure what the point of this was.

    But you know good and hell well, that "sport' isn't their strong point.

    If you're talking about this latest round of AMG Benzes I think you need to do a little more research. AMG has been tunning their vehicles for sportier dynamics starting with the current SLK55 and there is no way in the world a magazine like C&D would rave about the handling of a car like the E63 if it weren't greatly improved from the E55, which they knocked for lackluster handling. So your statement is only half-way correct. Things change. Being an Audi fan you should know this.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    If your going to point out acceleration as the only critirea for being "all around" performance minded, then your starting to sound like the Lexus camp that does nothing but talk about reliability.

    Did I say acceleration was the only criteria for all around performance? NO. I said that the Audi doesn't outperform the Benz in every area like your posts imply. The Audi is a bit more capable at the track, but it lacks the speed of its other two rivals.

    I repeat, it's the benz that's down on all around performance, and up on over priced.

    Repeating it doesn't make it so either. The Audi is priced where it is because it lacks the engine of the other two and Audi knows this. Now when they do a RS6 they'll leapfrom the other two in power and price. You get what you pay for.

    Again, I'd like to know when you're going to do some figure 8's. I'd love to watch.

    M
  • dhamiltondhamilton Posts: 873
    your really starting to sound like the Lexus crowd talking about sales all the time.

    What you said was the Audi is down on performance to the other two. Once again, sounding like a Lexite that doesn't consider handling. The track proves this out, not some metro sexual lane change. The Benz is out braked, and out handled.

    If you can't get the point of the figure eight, then wow, kind of like the Lexi can't grasp a turn.

    I guess we'll agree to disagree. I just hope your next argument isn't that the Cayman is down on power to the CLK, thereby outperformed by it.

    Let me know when they drag race the Benz, I'll be napping. [along with the drive]
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    your really starting to sound like the Lexus crowd talking about sales all the time.

    Thats hilarious because I'm not the one that brought up sales in the first place. You tried to imply that because MB sells more cars that they are somehow of lesser taste than Audi. Secondly, you tried to imply that Audi has some type of exclusivity. Neither statement has any basis in reality. The latter is really funny because Audi's so called exclusivity isn't something they want or stumbled upon by accident. That is a typical GM rant. Slow sales, not limited production or specialty status, equals exclusivity. That is the grandest excuse (label) for lesser sales in the book. So if you want to turn it around like I'm in the one hollering sales in reply to everything then go right ahead. Anyone reading the thread can see and knows better. Now if Audi sold more cars we'd hear a different tune wouldn't we?

    You failed to address the fact that Audi is right up there with (and ahead of in some markets and segments) BMW and Mercedes in some European markets. Does that make them somhow less tastesful purchases in Europe? Or does this not matter because we live if the good ole U.S. of A.?

    What you said was the Audi is down on performance to the other two. Once again, sounding like a Lexite that doesn't consider handling. The track proves this out, not some metro sexual lane change. The Benz is out braked, and out handled.

    And what you said is that the Benz can't handle or take a corner which we know is bunk. If anyone is sounding like someone from that camp it is you, chosing which comparo to hang your hat on and calling the others (that don't put your S6 first) suspect. That is pure Lexus. Period.

    If you can't get the point of the figure eight, then wow, kind of like the Lexi can't grasp a turn.

    Likewise if you can't see the point of an emergency manuver then you're on the same boat, different deck. Like I said before both tests are measures of how a car handles/behaves? Are you telling me they aren't? Classic case of picking and choosing the criteria that puts the fave in the best light possible while dismissing any other measurements that doesn't. Again who does this? Hmmmmm..

    I guess we'll agree to disagree. I just hope your next argument isn't that the Cayman is down on power to the CLK, thereby outperformed by it.

    Likewise I hope yours isn't that Audi buyers somehow have more taste than MB buyers. Oh wait you already implied that.

    Let me know when they drag race the Benz, I'll be napping. [along with the drive]

    Nah, your Audi wouldn't be able to keep the Benz in sight.

    Most of your arguments about the Audi and its better handling are valid, but this about the Benz not being able to handle when the differences are not that great is the specious part. Where all of it is coming from is beyond me.

    M
  • dhamiltondhamilton Posts: 873
    Your statement was that the Audi was "outperformed" by the Benz. All you have in that argument is acceleration, and a, wait for it, lane change test. So you, by your own admission, are touting acceleration as outperforming the Audi.

    Specious? The lane change test, that's specious of you to tout that as outperformed.

    You brought up the sales with that tired, Audi wishes it had the sales of Mercedes, BS.

    A lane change test? Are we allowing soccer Moms to chose the testing criteria?

    Now look who's picking criteria from what helps the argument.

    Are you going to the Detroit show? I'm jealous :blush: .
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Your statement was that the Audi was "outperformed" by the Benz. All you have in that argument is acceleration, and a, wait for it, lane change test. So you, by your own admission, are touting acceleration as outperforming the Audi.

    So acceleration isn't part of peformance now? It is most certainly part of the overall picture.

    Specious? The lane change test, that's specious of you to tout that as outperformed.

    Likewise you're touting a figure 8? Something that no driver is ever going to do on the open road, but I'm guessing now you're going to tell me that you have. But, but, you've never had to swerve to avoid something right?

    You brought up the sales with that tired, Audi wishes it had the sales of Mercedes, BS.

    Actually I said more sales, not the sales of Mercedes per say. I only mentioned sales after you tried to affix that tired and untrue "exclusivity" label/excuse to lackluster sales. I most certainly did because when a car company openly states that they want more sales are rapidly expanding their model range to fill niches left and right and someone mentions "exclusivity" it sends the BS meter in the red. The bottom line is that Audi wants more sales otherwise they wouldn't be expanding their lineup from xxx many models now to xxxxxx many by 2012 or whatever year they plan to sell a million cars a year, uh....like MB and BMW do. Poof, there goes your "exclusivity" and to think it was of Audi's doing, on purpose.

    A lane change test? Are we allowing soccer Moms to chose the testing criteria?

    If only they'd dare attempt an emergency manuver at 60 milers per hour.

    Now look who's picking criteria from what helps the argument.

    Yep, like I said before we're on the same boat, different decks. I unlike you though don't nearly look at the Audi in such a bad light as you do the Mercedes. I like them both.

    Are you going to the Detroit show? I'm jealous

    Yep, I'll be there opening day!

    M
  • dhamiltondhamilton Posts: 873
    You got me, the Benz outperforms the Audi. The lane change test, and the blistering acceleration is enough proof for me.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    Without gap insurance, leasing would just be the same as buying in the event of an accident. Sure you'd be on the hook as the lease holder in an accident without gap insurance, but you'd equally be on the hook if you already owned the car (or borrowed and therefore now upside down even after regular insurance payment); in other words, you'd be fully on the hook for the whole car the moment the check for the full car was cut. If an accident takes place within a year or two, and the insurance company pays less than what you paid for the car (or borrowed for the car); you are already paying for the bad luck and lack of gap insurance at full face value. In any case, gap insurance policy underwriter makes a profit, too; so the expectation value of early accident is apparently quite low. If one really hates the co-variance, leasing with gap insurance is a huge advantage; buying is like the accident already happened, and no gap insurance is there.
  • designmandesignman Posts: 2,129
    First off, BMW has to get its act together with their performance formula with the M5. A high-revving V10 is not what the car needed in addition to the sack of electronic tricks. I could see how anyone would be turned off by it especially since the E39 M5 is still on my must-have list. It’s despicable that this car, a BMW mind you, which weighs substantially less than the other two, and which has a 6-speed MT can’t cruise to a first place finish. How the heck they had the temerity to put the same transmission as the old M5 in addition to not being able to disable DSC is beyond me. I’m thinking this had to do with to things. Number one, they have an agenda with SMG and they probably didn’t want to upstage it. The second thing is that the car wasn’t designed for a manual transmission to begin with and it might have taken more time to design and produce it accordingly. I was down on this car to begin with and the manual version does nothing to improve it in my mind.

    With regard to the S6. Sure it’s a pretty good looker in and out, but did it need a V10 to pull a 5.4 second 0-60 in addition to those other split times? It’s a sad day when a heavy car like this with an extreme front weight bias beats the flagship BMW performance sedan. Maybe a lot of this has to do with that C&D crew also, who as dhamilton mentioned often winds up yielding poor performance results in comparison to other rags. It scores nicely on price and the merits of its steering but I’m not so sure its handling deserves raves.

    Enter the E63 AMG. It’s easy to see how it could win by default. I’ll borrow a cliché from the sports world—it seems they made the fewest mistakes. They always had a good engine formula for luxury car power and they tweaked the engine toward the sport side. Throw in the improved suspension and there ya go. The MB’s airmatic suspension and monolithic power obviously were enough of a one-two punch to get the job done.

    Another MB winner. I really don’t see where there is much room for complaining about it, at least on paper. Maybe if I drove all three of them I would have a different opinion. But we are car yentas here thus we don’t always get the opportunity, especially with this trio. Has anyone else done so? Heh, heh, commence yapping.

    Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little
    Cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more!


    ;-)
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    With regard to the S6. Sure it’s a pretty good looker in and out, but did it need a V10 to pull a 5.4 second 0-60 in addition to those other split times? It’s a sad day when a heavy car like this with an extreme front weight bias beats the flagship BMW performance sedan. Maybe a lot of this has to do with that C&D crew also, who as dhamilton mentioned often winds up yielding poor performance results in comparison to other rags. It scores nicely on price and the merits of its steering but I’m not so sure its handling deserves raves.

    Each of the cars I think has a different buyer in mind. The M5 is a track day car. Thats where the SMG actually works. Its not really a daily driver. The old M5 could do both, so I guess that's where BMW screwed up.

    The S6, while down on power compared to the others, is a great all rounder, as are most Audis. Track performance may not be up to the M5, at least in the dry, but it will hold its own and beat the Mercedes.

    The Benz is a road rocket, for flying down the autobhan at 180mph. The E will certainly do better than an enormous car like the CL65 on a track, but the regular Es are the least sporting of the German trio, and I don't think AMG treatment changes that.
  • Just came back from a Boston to Montreal weekend trip driving a '89 Bentley Eight. The car was in impeccable condition with 200K on the clock. The big Bentley's handling was superb with a great interior even after almost 20 years and classic good looks. I had a look at the suspension components and they look like they belong on a 3/4 ton pickup: beefy and pre-cad cam rugged. Sure the car has had good maintenance over the years but it drove like it was almost new and purpose built for this kind of trip. We cruised at 85 MPH down the Vermont-a-bahn with tight rack & pinion steering and impressive pre-zenon driving lights that cut through the drizzle like C130 landing lights. The Goodyear Eagle LS's ran well and quietly. They are a police pursuit tire with the required load and speed ratings. The original Avons are now too hard to find and expensive in this unusual 255x65x15 size. The only hint that the car was this old was the abysmal sterio. Its unfortunate that a guy couldn't buy an S550, maintain it with Mobil1 and some TLC, and then expect to get the same 20 years of trouble free life out of it.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Its unfortunate that a guy couldn't buy an S550, maintain it with Mobil1 and some TLC, and then expect to get the same 20 years of trouble free life out of it.

    Who wants the same car for 20 years? The idea of keeping anything other than a house for that long is so 20th century.
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    I just returned from those ten days with the wife's relatives, and I'll admit it's GOOD to be home again.

    My father in-law drives a pickup truck, and at some point during a conversation, he mentioned that he never uses cruise control because it wrecks his gas mileage. I just nodded and smiled, but quite frankly, there is no way that makes sense to me. I've always thought that cruise control is primarily for convenience and not mpg's, but that it likely offers a steadier throttle and therefore improved mpg's anyway.

    If anyone here knows how cruise control can wreck gas mileage, I'd sure like to know.

    BTW, I saw the pics of the Mercedes "ocean" drive 4-door and then I saw those pics of a Chrysler 300C cabrio. But then I saw some kind of MB called a CLR600? Is DC suffering from an identity crisis or something?

    Also... What's going on at Toyota with a new good-looking FAST hybrid sports car for only $30K? Is this thing for real?

    I also read that Porsche will bring direct injection to its 911 next year. Of course they deliberately waited until I bought the '07 to offer it on the '08.

    Good luck to merc at the Detroit show... lucky guy.

    TagMan
Sign In or Register to comment.