Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The tone? Not sure what you mean.
As far as steering away or welcoming a loyal Audi owner of 30 years, I think just such an Audi owner has repeatedly expressed his dissappointment and aggravation with Audi in these forums, no?
I don't think things like the lack of a salesperson's or carshoppers' enthusiasm should dissuade anyone from getting this, or any, car they like. To that observation, I would say: give it some time...Infiniti salespeople and owners haven't had very much to be passionate about in the past. It looks like that may be changing for the better.
The M is a great car, and for the moment, it would appear that for the money it's the best car out there.
I too was torn between the M35x and The Audi A6. Both are great cars and drive real nice, but I've heard about the problems that the Audi owners were having and that helped me make my decision to go for the M. I'm going to drive it again this week, but probably still wait a month or two before getting it.
I have a 2002 Lexus GS300- love it, but the 2006 just doesn't drive as nice as the M (IMO)- same with the RL.
I really am. I wish that Detroit would make better quality products, but I'm sincerely afraid that the auto industry will eventually go the way of the consumer electronics industry.
Who makes all the high-end TVs? Japanese and Koreans. Not a single American company.
The product related problems that detroit is having is entirely their own fault. When Impala and Taurus is the best they can do, people who remotely care about cars will turn elsewhere. Chrysler is starting to turn things around thanks mostly to the 5.7 and 6.1 versions of the hemi V8, and GM is clearly eyeing their success very closely, as the Vette engine seems to be showing up in a lot of cars as well. The worst off seems to be Ford. They dont have a super V8 to throw around, nor do they really have a car other than the Mustang that could actually benefit from one.
Over the last twenty years I have owned V-8 BMWs, Mercedes's, Saabs, Infinitis,and one lexus 470 suv.
I will tell you this, the Infiniti M35/45 is the only car I have been excited about in years. The new offerings from Daimler, BMW, Lexus and others leave me cold. (except perhaps the Scion Xb and the new mini)
How about updating your profile to show where you live.
You can list city and state
or
just the state,
but it would be nice to know where some of the "usuals" are located.
FOr example, Pontiac gives us a nicely styled inside and out G6 but then they stick in a archaic V6 which for it's size provides little power and has crappy NVH levels. Where's the modern engine to go along with the modern car?
Then you have other big misses like the Pontiac Aztek. Do I need to say more?
Then they design new mid-size pickups with 5-cylinder engines in them when the competitors have big V6s. Get the picture?
How about Lincoln? Ford is just letting it die off.
The question you should be asking is to the Big 2(I don't know how you can really say Big 3, when Chrysler is owned by Mercedes). And that question is why do you consistently build cars that are overall inferior to the Japanese and Europeans?
And as another poster pointed before, where do you draw the line between who is american and who isn't? Would you like me to buy a a Chevy Equinox? Well, let's see the engine is made in China. Aren't a whole bunch of cars made by GM and Ford either manufactured in Mexico or Canada? That definately isn't American in my book. Yet on the other hand, Honda and Toyota build alot of cars in the US with 85% + north american content. Are they not american? They are made by American workers but they are plainly made better than the cars from GM & Ford.
Personally, the biggest problems with the American(big 2) is that they blame the rest of the world for their problems(cheap yen, cheap euro, etc.) and they blame high legacy costs like for pensions on all their problems. The dollar is weak right now and they should be gaining sales in the US. Are they? No. The other big problem is unions. They will kill the automakers because they spend more time fretting about pay & benefits than they do building quality products.
They showed a new Buick La Crosse (SP?) and commented (actually the "person on the street" commented) that buying a 2005 Buick carried with it the "advantage" of acquiring a car with an engine that was basically a 20+ year old design. Conversely buying a new non-American car (and I think the example used was Japanese) generally would get you the most (or at least more) efficient and new technology and quality often for less money. The video article had sound bites from several people who were more than happy to give their opinions on why they would never seriously consider buying an American car.
The piece concluded with the notion that perhaps to "live long and prosper" that GM might be forced to shut down either Pontiac or Buick or MAYBE even both (a la Oldsmobile).
Further sticking it to the American automakers, the voice-over noted that Camrys and Hondas are made in the US and that they use current technology and have reputations for reliability equal to their Japanese built counterparts -- so it is clearly NOT just American workers that build "poor cars" -- because it is American workers who are building Toyotas and Hondas.
Danger Will Robinson, Danger.
I agree with you about GM. They've said "this time we're serious" countless times, and everytime they do, another yawner with '80s tech comes out of the factory with $5K worth of incentives already stuffed in the glove box.
Ford is still suffering from Jaques Nasser's command of ignoring Ford cars and ignoring Lincoln and Mercury entirely. The 3.0L Duratec should've been replaced about 10 years ago. The next Lincoln Aviator will be the first car to showcase their long overdue 3.5L, and it will also be the truck that will make or break Lincoln. Even if it doesnt royally bomb like the first Aviator, they've got to do better than Lincoln badged versions of the Fusion and 500.
And also I know alot of people who refuse to buy Big 3 because of UAW influence.
Due to the absence of unions, I think the workers make better cars at the Toyota, Honda, nissan plants because they spend more time doing what they should be doing-building cars.
What Lincoln needs to do is pay attention to their cars. They are doing fine with their trucks. But their LS replacement is long overdue, the Town Car is in serious need of a image redo, and the Zephyr is personally going to be a disaster. At a time when other car makers are going to RWD and AWD, Lincoln is going FWD. What's up with that?
Not to mention, if they really want to take customers away from the other Luxury players they need to seperate Lincoln dealers from Mercury dealers. That is something that it seems like Ford doesn't want to do. Why I don't know.
I have the same concerns if the tires are only lasting for 15k - 20k miles.
My last two cars...I have been getting over 60,000 miles per set.
Toyota Supra (Dunlops)
Mitsu Diamante (Michelin)
I guess at this point in time, people are willing to pay a lot more for tires to have the big wheel look!
Personally, I think 17" is big enough.
Any chance a dealer can equip a brand new M with different tires?
How about if you bring 'em to the lot for them to slap on and align? Make it real easy for them.
At the very least, you should be negotiating the price of the new tires you'll need after 12 months out of the sales price.
But you know what Cadillac's problem is?
They thought they could just wake up one morning and charge the same prices that Lexus, Mercedes and BMW do. A new STS comes out and all of a sudden it can cost in the mid $60K range. The previous STS probably had a average transaction price in the mid to high $40K range. Before that they thought people will fork out over $70K for a Cadillac convertible when their last convertible was a flop. And then the SRX they try to sell fully loaded with a V8.
You remember what Toyota did with Lexus?
They started prices low, got customers hooked on the product and raised prices, accordingly. Notice how the LS400 started out at $35K in 1990 at about the price of a 300E, then moved up to 400E territory, then with the 2000 redesign, moved to S-class territory at about $70K loaded. And the next one may well approach $80K+.
This is what would have been the smart move for Cadillac. THey should have priced the new STS a little over the old one. With the SRX they should have priced it under the RX330's base MSRP with the V6, and the XLR needed to be in the SC430's price range.
I don't think Cadillac's resurrection is fading, I think it's doing just fine. The CTS is selling in healthy numbers and I believe with minimal rebates, the SRX is doing pretty well, but I believe the XLR has a huge supply on dealer lots, which a $70K convertible should not have.
So in the end, GM just got a bit cocky with Cadillac.
Consumer wants big wheels and tires and are willing to pay for them. Therefore manufacturer abides and builds cars with big tires/wheels.
Tire maker sells big tires to manufacturer's for cheap because they know in a year they will be back for big expensive tires which they will make a killing on!
I should be able to cop a pair of longer lasting 245/45 18s, with a greater treadwear, and that the dealer should deduct the price of the tires that are coming off the car.
Hell, even if he deducts the wholesale rather than the retail value, that's still at least a few hundos off the price.
couldn't help but wonder what Tiger Woods drives in real life...when reading about the Buick Lacrosse.
As max said, the STS costs WAY too much money. They expect people to fork over E500 prices for a car that while it may be competitive, it leads the class at nothing. I've also seen barely midpack results in most comparison tests. Those kind of results generally wont set the boards a flame with desire for an overpriced, average player. The CTS got off to a weak start but then got its legs with the 3.6L engine. Unfortunately, with cars like the C350, the '05 A4 3.2, the new 3 series, and even the Lexus IS, the CTS is old news. Also, the once conquering CTS-V will be no match for the next M3 and RS4.
The LS is not even competitive. The Jag S-type has been repeatedly smashed by Germany and Japan, and the LS cant even measure up to the S-type. Its V8 is underpowered, and the V6 is dreadful. Its interior is lackluster, and the transmission is pathetic. The next version will be based on the Ford 500, which will most likely make things worse, as the DEW98 is more agile than its '90s era Volvo replacement. Lincoln will of course run the same ads as Ford saying how much you're saving over an Audi A8, but then again, you get what you pay for.
The problem is that there are not that many longer lasting 18" tires out there, especially when you get up to the V or greater speed ratings.
:-) Whew!
I had a '94 SHO for seven years. A great car. 220 hp Yamaha engine. I haven't looked at the new Ford 500 too closely but from what I've seen if Ford would stick in a 240-300 hp V-6 or V-8, say from the Mustang GT, add some comfort features, disc brakes, etc., they could come close competing with some of the imports.
In addition to adding a little performance and handling, American auto makers could stand to make their cars look a bit more "athletic." Ditch the thick bolstered seats, brighten up the interiors, etc. Do they still offer pages of options - all selected separately and then added on like an after thought? How about three or four option packages, each one inclusive of the previous?
I'd sure like to buy another (new) '94 SHO. I went with an Audi A6 (2.7T w/speed). Couldn't shake the image that my dad always wanted a Lincoln and the LS was rear wheel drive. the STS stared out with an ineffective V-6 (typical GM strategy). Only real alternative for luxury and performance was a foreign badge. (Host - did I do okay?)
Um, well, I'd say it's not a negative ... there's a difference. ;->
But we do need to stick to the topic. This discussion is linked to the Edmunds pages on the vehicles listed in the "What is this discussion about?" line at the top of the page, and I have my marching orders which say that we need to keep to those vehicles.
We can stray from those vehicles as long as we stray to vehicles that fit the topic. When we go off in other directions is when we (I) have a problem.
An example: I saw the Aura at the Detroit show. If they could just bring it to market "as is" they would have a winner. They say it is 90% production ready. I'll bet the 10% that doesn't make it to the actual model is the 250 hp engine and the European styling. What will we have then? A Malibu Max (Okay, so it's not a Buick, but you get the point).
(Host: I know the Aura is off-topic, sorry. I was typing it before your post. I'll stop now.)
Back on topic: I think that Cadillac has done a good job breaking out of this paradigm recently. They may be overpriced, but they are not dumbed down cars that appeal to the hordes of vanilla-loving-masses that US auto makers seem to see in the population. Personally, I still don't like the appearance of the CTS and STS and I still have a poor mental (stereotyped) image of the typical Cadillac owner, but at least my stereotype is softening with the latest Caddies.
There's a lively discussion (elsewhere -- Edmund's LS board is deader than dead) regarding why the LS is the FoMoCo red-headed stepchild.
The prevailing "wisdom" is that Jac killed the LS, along with the financial impact of the Exploder tire fiasco. Ford had no money to spend on the LS, just when it was needed.
Then there's the dealer network. LS? What's an LS? The dealers seem to consider it an easier-to-park Town Car, and sell it accordingly. Manual transmission? We don't need no stinkin' manual transmission! We won't stock 'em and we won't talk about 'em. If you want one, it's special order time. As a result, instead of getting the manual on the V8 after a couple of years (where it should have been in the first place, by the way), it was lost altogether. Thank you ever so much, you white-shod blue-haired-kowtowing-to morons.
I'm guessing the Cadillac dealers aren't all so much better, though GM had the money to spend on CTS upgrades & variations.
When you get right down to it, high-end American car companies don't have a clue what to do with a "sports sedan," whether it's entry-level or otherwise.
The dealer cabal wants to sell boats to white hairs. They may have won the battle, but the manufacturers are in the process of losing the war.
Oh, and did anyone mention the UAW? and the associated pension/health care/featherbedding costs?
I'm in the process of driving my one and only US-built automobile into the ground. After which (say 2-3 years from now), I'll go back to Asian.
Apparently I'm not alone.
When you say stick to the topic of luxury performance vehicles, are you saying that Edmunds feels Cadillac and Lincoln don't qualify and discussion of them should be banned here? I think GM and Ford might object. And on the subject of the decline of the U.S. industry, we're basically discussing why Detroit has been so unsuccessful in producing LUXURY PERFORMANCE CARS. See, right on the topic.
kirby2010, Ford doesnt have a V6 with 240hp. Not even Jaguar's heavily modded versions of the Duratec can muster 240. Anyway, the Mustang's V6 is a SOHC unit thats older than dirt. A poor choice. The GT's 8 is just a modded version of the corporate truck V8. Not really a good choice either for a sedan thats supposed to have any kind of refinement. Ford's engine situation is absolutely miserable. Since the 500 is essentially a cheapened Volvo S80 anyway, I have to wonder why they dont just offer Volvo's T6.
So what?
Ordinarily I am in favor of packages as they seem to bundle things that most of us would order if they were 100% unbundled, but when put together as a package they do generally offer the package at a lower cost than the individual options would have cost.
But with Cadillac well you have to order in some cases some $13,000 worth of options or options demand other options as prerequisites and so on, until a V6 SRX with AWD and sat nav rushes from under $40,000 to over $53,000 just because you wanted some part of the package.
When buying my wife's new X3, she did put over $10,000 worth of options on the thing, but many of the options were "one off's" (servotronic steering, stand alone priced at $250, ditto the premium sound system and ditto even the DVD navigation system.
I had read the early, but incomplete, announcement about the new STS and I had driven and liked the CTS -- soooo, I got the wild crazy idea that I might like an STS w/AWD -- since the base car, or so I thought "base" as I might equip it, would be in the high $40's, well I thought, add $1950 for AWD and the car is not just north of $50K and "bingo" winner -- and I "help the US economy" without buying something I don't want or respect.
Well -- try putting together a new STS with AWD -- basically it shoots north of $60,000 (practically $63,000 as I recall) instantly.
But, you do get not one, not two, but three kitchen sinks!
Stop the insanity.
Even Audi, and some of you know my quarrels and concerns with the four rings marketing and financing programs, allows the configuration of lots of little options to get one of its new A6's to just south of $60,000.
Heck, even the way off the scale priced (IMHO) BMW 530 allows lots and lots and lots of relatively inexpensive single choice options to get the price of a low HP (as it stands today) mid size nearly $60,000 car.
Then, I look at the RL, the new M35x with just two "packages" and life gets so much more simple.
The STS, if it is a grown up CTS would HAVE to be a triple, perhaps even a home run if you could build one that didn't "force" you to buy $10,000+ worth of gear some folks may not want.
Cadillac MIGHT have a winner on its hands with the STS -- yet some of will never know if the "great bundling" of options into bloated packages continues.
Of course the STS AWD at about $63,000 is already "advertised" at $56,000 which (in my experience) means a selling price something south of that number.
And it isn't even year end model year close out time.
Like the man said, remember how Lexus came to market?
By the way, I think keyless entry/start is another marginal feature that every company is afraid to be without. How lazy are Americans becoming that they can't put their hands in their pockets and pull out a key. Really. No wonder we have an obesity problem in this country!
For those of you who have great concerns about tire noise, wear, and ride you really should consider avoiding the sport model or yank the OE wheels and tires off when you get the car. Try a minus two sizing and go down to something like a ContiSport or a low end Michelin PilotSport. You won't get the same level of performance but you'll get greater wear, less road noise, and a smoother ride.
While I wish that it was possible to option out everything on a car including wheels and tires, do you think it's really feasible? Do you want to pay the costs associated with trying to run such an assembly line? Unfortunately, as much as manufacturers try to build cars that will please everyone, we all know that it's not going to happen soon. So choose we must.
P.S. - Considering the stiffer sports suspension, 19 inch wheels and low profile tires, I think the Sport offers an amazingly supple ride. I think it's very well mannered in day to day driving.
Also, the sticker is a warning. It's not saying they will definately wear out in 15K miles. It ultimately depends on driving style. I remember someone on the GS boards a few years ago who stated they got like 50K miles out of his factory Bridgestone 17" tires on his GS400, yup the same car that came with a 15K mile warning sticker.
I don't think he was talking about just the sport option. For example, the Infiniti M35/M45 come standard with 18" wheels, which probably have the warning sign on the windows also. Even if they do not wear out in the 15K miles, 18" tires are still expensive to replace. ON tire rack 1 good tire in this size will probably run $175+ that means the average dealer will probably charge $300 for that same tire and the corner tire shop will probably charge $225+ for the tire. Add up 4 tires plus additional installation charges and you are talking easily $1,000 for tires.
"For those of you who have great concerns about tire noise, wear, and ride you really should consider avoiding the sport model or yank the OE wheels and tires off when you get the car. Try a minus two sizing and go down to something like a ContiSport or a low end Michelin PilotSport."
Well, then one could make the argument you'll still have to spend about $2K to buy a nice set of wheels and replacement tires. Not to mention, the car won't handle/ride as advertised.
I doubt that we really need $15,000 option packages on a $39,999 car -- but as usual, I could be wrong.
With respect to the short lived tires, well these cars are in response to customers' desires for better handling and bling-y wheels. An 18" wheel with a 60,000 mile tire is probably within our technology -- I bet they would not handle well however and they may be noisy too.
If I lease my car for equal to or less than 39 months, I would consider one or two sets of tires to "go with the territory."
In this too, I could be wrong, but I PREFER the high performance wheels and tires on these new cars.
You suggest "minus sizing" to get longer-wear tires, etc. Can you give an example of minus-two sizing? From what to what? Wouldn't that mess up the speedometer/odometer?
If we could just try to keep the main focus on the cars themselves rather than manufacturer issues (a little of that on the periphery is fine, but we can't get too lost in it), we'll be on track.
Okay?
Say for example your car comes with 225 x 17 x 55 series wheels and tires. Most people would, if they could without too much pentaly other than the cost of the tires, like to improve the handling, performance and look of their car.
Plus "0" sizing in the above example: 245 x 17 x 50 will retain the speedo and computer accuracy within tolerance and there will be some improvements in the handling and look. Of course, the fatter the tires get the less snow friendly they are.
Plus "1" or "2" sizing would allow the following (depending upon your starting point): 245 x 18 x 45 -- bigger wheel, lower profile sidewall, same tread width but presumably improved turn in (some ride quality MAY be sacrificed due to the additional stiffness this set up would likely bring along for the ride.
Reverse this -- the M35x comes with 245 x 18 x 45 series tires (usually stated, BTW as 245 x 45 x 18"). If you wanted to minus size the tire/wheel combo, it should be apparent that you can go from a 45 series tire to a 55 series and from a 18" wheel to a 17" wheel if the tire width is reduced to maintain the ration of tread width to profile.
Net net: in theory a 225 x 55 x 17" wheel/tire combo is workable on this car. The ride quality may improve, the tread life may improve, the handling will degrade and the snow performance with UHP Summer or A/S tires will improve somewhat due to a skinnier footprint.
Personally, I would never minus size -- the only reason to do so is a desire to lower tire costs -- since you would have to buy both new tires and new wheels, however, I question how many miles it would be before you had a break even (for they aren't going to give you much allowance for the factory soxs and shoes, if any.
If you are getting a Premium sports sedan from America, Europe or Japan, you need to be aware of what it is you are getting, which --today -- is typical tire life of UNDER 20,000 miles.
Drive it like you live.
Everybody enjoys quoting the performance figures of cars of this ilk but gasp when they realize there is an associated cost. I acknowledge the costs, enjoy the benefits that I derive and live with it.