Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Cadillac XLR vs. Mercedes-Benz SL

exalteddragon1exalteddragon1 Posts: 735
edited July 2014 in Mercedes-Benz
should be compared to the SLK or CLK MB, bu the S Class. The fact that the market thinks the price is too high (if thats really true) is probably because either the interrior like you mentioned, even though i can't find anything to fault, or the fact that cadillac does not have a lower price roadster like MB.

The XLR though, has twice the road presence of the MB, and its both lighter and faster. Its got heated and cooled seats, Bvlgair dash and anodised aluminum. What can be cooler than that? The only thing i think is missing, is a stip of wood trim in front of the passengerm where it says "XLR" on the right side of the dash, from the center stack to the start of the side door. This would make it symmetrical with the wood trim on the steering wheel.

Just my oppinnion though, and not a deal breaker.

Something though, i agree should have been thought of better. Like there shoudl be room behind the seats for a suitcase (meybe behind each seat) and even though the XLR has the most trunk space with the top up, meybe another inch of trunk space would have helped the car edge out the SL in that C&D comparo. Although a Road and Track comparo has the XLR in 2nd place behind the Porche.

This, the way it is, is defenetley a weekend car, not a business car. Since there is little room to do much else. The execution of everything else, however is superb. The ride/handling, the platform, the roof, the leather. It is a wonderfully done car and a good flagship.
«1

Comments

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,656
    Well, I think the market thought the price is too high (and that is my opinion, although I've read the same elsewhere) not only because of the interior, but because it is a Cadillac. Many do not consider Caddy in the same league as MB, BMW or Lexus (or Audi & Infiniti!?) Unfortunatley, I believe all GM brands continue to suffer the sins of the past, especially Cadillac. I certainly remember the Cimarron and other (larger) basically rebadged GM products that did quite a bit to tarnish the Cadillac brand.

    Caddy is certainly turning it around with unique models and distinct designs (although to me the CTS and STS are of the "One sausage, two lenghts school" with the STS less unnatractive due to a generally cleaner appearance). The XLR and SRX work pretty well for me. Although, possibly save for the STS, none of the interiors work for me. Design, mostly with some GM parts bin pieces thrown in. As you said, not a deal breaker here (well, it was for the CTS when I was car shopping. Interior and exterior got it crossed very quickly off my list), but it is for many.

    And logically, the XLR will be cross shopped with the SL500 & SC430, possibly the SLK, in the hardtop convertible market. Throw in Jag XK and BMW 6 in the mix and it's a tough neighborhood. I think they should have priced the XLR closer to the Lexus, even undercut it. As far as being compared to the S Class? How? Only in price, but I doubt someone would compare a large four door sedan to a small two seat convertible, assuming they can only buy one car...

    Nice to see some action in this thread. And agreed, the XLR overall is a good flagship for Caddy.

    '13 Jaguar XF, possibly my favorite of all the cars I've owned. But, my '09 Jag XK was a beauty, as was my '05 Acura TL, '88 Acura Integra, '84 Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo & '78 VW Scirocco (my first!). And, of course, the '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R and '95 Saab 900s I bought for the ex... Ok, I like a lot of the cars in my life.

  • Sedan, I mean the SL500 Roadster.

    Look at Cadillac's competition...

    SL500 - Overpriced, too many of them around, but established

    SC430 - Slow, Pudgy, wierd Al interrior, but Lexus 'quality' and very low price

    Jag XK - big fat (not enough room for its size) and soft top - not in this league
    BMW 6 - same as Jag, but add ugly.

    now check out the cadillac - Priced in between SL500 and SC430, made of 3mm thick fiberglass, hardtop by the same people who make the SL's, lighter, faster, based on a true sports car chassis, but in this price range yet unestablished.

    I think its a good bet that this car has all the right moves. I am too young to remember much of cadillac's 'woes' but i believe it, still looking at today's cadillacs and i think they have more prestige than MB or BMW. This is IMO but i look at the showroom and I don't see 1980's, I see Matrix II, cars that look like they were pulled from the future. The XLR is the perfect icing on this very nice cake.

    Its also a great car to establish and test the waters of the 70+ K segment for cadillac. They might make a sedan in this range sooner or later.

    The XLR especially, has exclusivity without that horrible stench of Jaguar quality. Its built better than MB too. You can see the trends now, with MB going down and GM going up.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,656
    Again, I agree with much of what you say. But, perception is reality and imho that is the battle Caddy is fighting (and winning, I believe). Had they maybe taken a page from the Lexus book and made the XLR price more compelling, then slowly walk it up a bit all the while undercutting the established players... I mean, even the V has "Buy It Now" prices on Ebay in the low 90's from some dealers. 100K for a Caddy! Puhleeze.

    And, really, all MBs are overpriced compared to comparable cars. But, they've earned a reputation, recently tarninshed, but I don't think it's hurt them that much in the US...yet?

    The SC: Yes, the exterior is just odd from some angles. But, besides the lighter colored wood interior option, I find the interior just lovely. High quality.

    Jag XK: Gorgeous, still. Haven't seen enough of the '07, but the '97-'06 will always be stunning. Advantage of the soft top is great trunks space, but I'm not interested in a ragtop.

    BMW 6 I find handsome until you get to that horrible, tacked on, cheap looking, did someone attach the wrong part to the rear of the car trunk lid!!! I really can't stand to look at that trunk, it so ruins the car for me. Plus I'm not a big fan of the new BMW interiors.

    And I wouldn't use the phrase, "horrible stench of...quality" anywhere near a GM discussion! :P

    '13 Jaguar XF, possibly my favorite of all the cars I've owned. But, my '09 Jag XK was a beauty, as was my '05 Acura TL, '88 Acura Integra, '84 Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo & '78 VW Scirocco (my first!). And, of course, the '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R and '95 Saab 900s I bought for the ex... Ok, I like a lot of the cars in my life.

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,656
    Luxury convertible comparo. Caddy XLR-V brings up the rear, in C & D's opinion, trounced by the SL550. Price and interior are among the categories that hurt the Caddy. (Haven't read the whole article in detail yet).

    Discuss.

    '13 Jaguar XF, possibly my favorite of all the cars I've owned. But, my '09 Jag XK was a beauty, as was my '05 Acura TL, '88 Acura Integra, '84 Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo & '78 VW Scirocco (my first!). And, of course, the '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R and '95 Saab 900s I bought for the ex... Ok, I like a lot of the cars in my life.

  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I love the twist on exclusivity, when the truth of the matter is that the car simply doesn't sell as well as the others in the class. Exclusivity means that you could sell more, but don't, clearly not the case with the XLR.

    Better made than the SL? Really. No one in the industry has found this to be true, only GM supporters. The gripes about Cadillac's interior quality have been far and wide and in this latest comparo they got knocked on that again.

    The XLR-V just got trounced by the Jaguar XK and Mercedes SL550. To make matters worse the performance gap between the SL550 and XLR-V isn't nearly as much as it was just a few months ago. The SL550 scored better in handling and the XLR-V's brakes were clearly lacking compared to the 911 and SL550. So much for that "sports car" chassis being an advantage in the luxury class.

    Mercedes going down and GM going up? In what world is this? GM is dying, that is the trend. It has gotten to the point where others are approaching them to see if they can be of some help, while Mercedes is having a grand year with record sales and one impressive showing after another of various products.

    I find it very interesting that you don't remember Cadillac's woes, but Jaguar has a stinch? Cadillac and Jaguar were both literally in the same boat during the same period, the 80's and most of the 90's.

    M
  • woodlandswoodlands Posts: 10
    If you follow the quality surveys, the mercs are having significant problems (as are other German car brands....VW has been a disater). The Cads have better build quality and higher initial owner satisfaction.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Likewise if you follow the roadtest you'll see that the Mercedes is superior car in many other ways and just because a Cadillac reports less "problems" than a Benz in a survey doesn't mean it is physically built better either. Cadillacs interiors are still typcial cheap GM in build. Also in the last JDP survey about roadsters I didn't see the XLR in the #1 spot, it was the SL if I remember right.

    M
  • If you really want to know what Mercedes owners think about their cars go to one of the boards on the 'net and check out the comments. You will be shocked with the number of problems that are encountered. At least I was.

    I will say that I have never been a big fan of mercs or BMWs. However, I bought a Chrysler Crossfire and became interested in what SLK owners had to say about their cars because of the similarities to the Crossfire. Based on the comments you find it would take a fool to buy a new (or recent model) SLK. Way, way too many problems with every part of the car.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    And this has what to do with the SL and it being superior to the XLR?

    Do we really want to get into finding comments on the net about unhappy owners? GM owners would own the bandwidth on that one!

    M
  • What this has to do is with you trashing Cadillac, when in fact the ratings (JD Powers) reflect that owners/buyers believe they are as good as Mercedes.

    Mercedes has zero advantage regarding quality and in some cases places behind Cadillac (or other GM brand).

    I will admit that neither brand comes close to the Japanese competitors.

    It is interesting that for the 2006 JD Powers initial quality survey, the Chevrolet Corvette and the SL Class tied.

    If you want to know what owners think of their cars you need to survey 'net sites where owner's talk about the good and bad of vehicles. The Mercedes site says there are problems with the vehicles.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    No one is saying that Mercedes has had issues in recent years, but if you're going to harp about these surveys like Cadillac is some kind of standard for quality don't bother because for what have in reliability they lack in other areas.

    The SL and Corvette tied in initial quality - big deal.

    The SL has been wiping the floor with whatever roadster Cadillac has had for the last 20 years!

    What this has to do is with you trashing Cadillac, when in fact the ratings (JD Powers) reflect that owners/buyers believe they are as good as Mercedes.

    Whooptie doo, so they're happy that their Cadillacs aren't falling apart anymore, doesn't mean much when the rest of the car is lacking compared to the competition and getting beat left and right and doesn't sell in good numbers relative to the class. Win one battle, but Cadillac still looses the war big time. Let me know when Cadillac gets their build quality, styling, engineering, and interior plastics above regular GM products and truly worthy of a 100K car.

    Mercedes has zero advantage regarding quality and in some cases places behind Cadillac (or other GM brand).

    Yet it doesn't do them any good when compared to the competition! Reliability isn't the same as quality either. GM cars manage not to fall apart of cough up their internals in 90 days, but they're still shoddily built and for that the mis-informed take this as being a better "quality" car.

    M
  • Well, sure, I hope the SL550 would close a little of the gap that existed between the XLR-v and the SL500. This is the nature of out-of-phase product cycles in a hypercompetitive business. Brakes of an XLR-v not quite up to a 911's? Really? Not up to a Z06 either! That's because it's not a pure sports car and it's 600 pounds heavier than those two. However, this is easily corrected in the aftermarket if anyone really thinks that gap is worth closing.

    Crossed 9,000 miles in the XLR-v last week. Dead nuts reliable, feels faster than new, as expected. This car gets more attention than an SL. And the interior materials show no signs of use whatsoever. Very high quality, and not overwrought. A friend and I swapped cars for a few hours -- he has an SL55. Man, do you feel that extra quarter ton in the porky MB. Yeah, they keep the tires planted, but you feel the inertia of that useless mass in every change of direction. I far prefer the more incisive, agile V.

    Phil
  • I've been waiting for this rumored "shoddy" GM build quality to surface in either of our Cadillacs, and damned if it just refuses to show its face.

    9,000+ miles on the XLR-v and nothing about the car has deteriorated. Friends who have SLs have all been back to the dealer for numerous fixes, corrections, adjustments in similar mileage, including cars that refused to start. I noticed trim lifting from heat on a few SLs in parking lots in this hot summer in L.A. (an unusual 119 degrees F where I live, at peak heat). No such problems on my XLR-v. The car is nimble, quick, comfortable, fast, assured, stout.

    Similar miles on the CTS-v and same experience. Couldn't be happier, especially when I hear that dorky-sounding BMW V10 M5 beside (or behind) me on PCH. What a godawful, untuneful buzz.

    One really good sign for Cadillac: the XLR-v turns heads en masse near elementary, middle and high schools. Better yet, here's a story. This summer I was driving to Santa Monica through Topanga Canyon one morning. A car was stopped to make a left turn at the Fernwood Market, and a lost truck driver was blocking room to pass on the right. Some kids were standing in front of the market. I'm looking at oncoming traffic, and I see a Bugatti Veyron rolling in the opposite lane, approaching me. (I'm thinking it was Jay Leno, as he is sometimes seen on that road, and there are very few people who combine the means to own that car with the inclination to drive it in everyday traffic.) As the Veyron rolls past me, one of the boys in the parking lot points and yells, "Hey Mister, what's that?" I jerked my thumb in the direction of the just-passed Veyron and say, "it's the new Bugatti Veyron!" The kid says, no, not the Bugatti, YOUR car!" I said, "Oh, it's the Cadillac XLR-V." The guy making the left turn moved out of the way and I rolled away to two-handed thumbs-up from 6 teenage boys. This is an excellent harbinger for Cadillac.

    Anyway, I'm in the biggest local Mercedes market in the world, Southern California. You couldn't find a blander more cliched car to drive than an MB, and if you see who is driving them, you don't want to emulate the marque's drivers. It's not like the old days when Clark Gable drove something interesting. Paris Hilton drives an SLR McLaren for cryin' out loud! Really, none of their cars are the least bit interesting here. Fortunately I don't have to drive something so mundane. I'm also seeing a steady pickup in XLR/XLR-v in routine traffic. A few years on, the XLR design still looks fresh and advanced. The platform is light, high performance and luxurious in this iteration. If someone prefers a Mercedes SL, or worse a Lexus SC, that's up to them. But there is no substantive reason other than brand-seeking, social insecurity, or lemming behavior to buy either over the Cadillac.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Well, sure, I hope the SL550 would close a little of the gap that existed between the XLR-v and the SL500. This is the nature of out-of-phase product cycles in a hypercompetitive business.

    Well it is called being superior, now you can coat it with an excuse about products and phases if you like. Doesn't matter the SL was judged superior by all before the 07' upgrades.

    Brakes of an XLR-v not quite up to a 911's? Really? Not up to a Z06 either! That's because it's not a pure sports car and it's 600 pounds heavier than those two. However, this is easily corrected in the aftermarket if anyone really thinks that gap is worth closing.

    I have to ask you if you're been reading you're own posts up until now? I've been telling you that the XLR-V isn't a sports car all along, yet you going on and on about it being lighter and what not and yet none of that turned up in actual testing by the professionals, now you claim that the XLR isn't a sports car! Well no kidding! Now you've got to resort to the aftermarket to get brakes, how lacking is that on a 100K car!

    Crossed 9,000 miles in the XLR-v last week. Dead nuts reliable, feels faster than new, as expected. This car gets more attention than an SL. And the interior materials show no signs of use whatsoever. Very high quality, and not overwrought. A friend and I swapped cars for a few hours -- he has an SL55. Man, do you feel that extra quarter ton in the porky MB. Yeah, they keep the tires planted, but you feel the inertia of that useless mass in every change of direction. I far prefer the more incisive, agile V.

    Congratulations on the miles, but the rest of that I'd have to say it is time to turn that record over. Both MT and C&D judged the mere base SL550 to be better handling than the XLR-V, and to add insult to injury MT even said that the SL550 felt lighter and more agile. So much for your friend and his seat of the pants assesment!

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Whew listen to the salt in that post! ALl this down about Mercedes and what not yet, the XLR-V loses every single time it has to face the oh so pitiful SL.

    We're down to bragging rights about kids turning their heads when a XLR passes by? They can't buy and by the time they're ready, willing and able, the current XLR will be in a GM historical display in Detroit.

    I've never seen so much nonsense written in dislike of a particular brand, that wasn't based on anything but a clear and present bias and resentment of said brand building a better car.

    Goodness that was a lot of nothing guy.

    M
  • I said before the XLR-v is not a "pure sports car" but that it is a sporting GT and obviously less mass is an advantage.

    Who said C&D has any special insight about automobiles anymore? Not me. They are entertaining to read, but actual experience with a large number of vehicles only leaves me wondering what the magazine reviewers ever knew in the first place. Anyone who thinks an SL550 feels lighter and more agile than an XLR-v is numb or has otherwise dulled senses.

    The brakes on the XLR-v are fine. Exceptional really. Only if you want Corvette Z06 or Porsche 911 stop distances will you want beefier brakes to make up for the added mass of the luxury GT retractable hardtop. In which case you'll be mucking with the luxury/sports car axis by increasing the unsprung mass on all four corners. Cadillac has it right for the car's purpose.

    Phil
  • Not sure why you think there is bias reflected in my post. I never bought a new car from GM before, and only one used GM car in over 30 years of buying cars. I drove everything in the class and then some, and made an objective decision. No bias -- the XLR-v won on its merits and the ham-handedness of the competition. XLR-v loses to the SL? Not my experience and no reviewer's opinion is pertinent. What I usually see is the usual, "the SL's 50 year heritage gives the MB the edge in status..." and not much else. The SL is dated, overweight, overwrought and overestimated. Blah. It's boring and it's become a status symbol for the unimaginative, nothing more.

    Plainly, I'll say it again: Between the Mercedes SL-XXX variants and the XLR-v, Cadillac has built and offers the better car.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I said before the XLR-v is not a "pure sports car" but that it is a sporting GT and obviously less mass is an advantage.

    I'm sorry guy but you're just back stroking now because I've been saying that the XLR isn't a sports car all along and now that it has been tested and compared against the competition and found to be lacking you've all of sudden seen the light. Also, this advantage you keep talking about regarding mass hasn't materialized anywhere especially in regards to handling, where the SL was chosen to be better at the task. Maybe it is the skinny tires on the XLR or something, who knows, but this weight advantge you're maintaind hasn't shown up in any tests so far.

    What C&D said was that in the mountains the SL felt agile and MT said that SL actually felt more agile also.

    Having to mention something, anything about going aftermarket for brakes a luxury GT car is downright inexcusable and really ridiculous. Now to be fair in the C&D test the XLR-V's brakes were pitiful, but in the MT test they turned in the same distance as the SL550 so that could have been just a one time thing, but still. The XLR-V is a the top of the line XLR, the SL550 is the base SL and for all the talk done before the differences are very slight. The SL55 AMG would rip the XLR-V good if the SL550 can come oh so close to doing so already, so much for all that about the Corvette's platform and what not, hasn't amounted to anything, only last place in C&D's comparo.

    It is amazing how you now refer to the XLR as a "luxury GT retractable hardtop", when just few months ago it was this oh-so light sporting machine that made the SL look like a beached whale. Hilarious. "Unsprung mass" and "right car for the purpose" yet it loses to a bunch of other cars and to the SL each and every time. I love it!!!

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Denial is tuff guy.

    What I find interesting is that the SL won this latest round based on how it performed and drove, no one at C&D mentioned status and prestige as the thing that put the SL over. Now MT did mention status and what not as icing on the cake. It isn't MB's fault that Cadillac ruined their image with so many years of lame cars.

    One minute when the mags praise the XLR in a single car test they're all knowing and really on the money, but when they compare it and find it lacking they're clueless. Oldest about-face in the book.

    Plainly, I'll say it again: Between the Mercedes SL-XXX variants and the XLR-v, Cadillac has built and offers the better car.

    Only in your mind. Cadillac apparently hasn't built or offers squat better than MB, BMW or Jaguar for that matter.

    M
  • M,

    Never did I say that the XLR-v is a sports car. If I wanted a sports car, I would have bought a Z06. Still might add one. I said the V is a sporting GT and it is the leader in architecture, design and agility in its class, not least because it is designed to avoid the useless bulk of the SL.

    What the magazines have to say about relative agility is irrelevant to me. I have mountains to drive in and have driven both. The XLR-v is the more agile car and easily feels by far the lighter of the two. MT and CD are just wrong, but they may write what they wish.

    If you look at my posts, I wrote repeatedly that the XLR-v is a sporting retractable hardtop GT. My position is entirely consistent. You're misrepresenting the facts. NO ONE will feel they must go to the aftermarket for brakes for an XLR-v. But just as Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Audi, Ford and others have cars that support rich aftermarkets, options exist for the V too on many fronts, owing to its Corvette architecture. Do you need aftermarket brakes for the V? Not in the least. Can you get some monster brakes that will harshen the ride and boost chance that lesser cars rear-end you? Absolutely. Buyer's choice. The car is perfectly balanced stock.

    The biggest improvement one can make to any car using run-flat tires is to migrate to a stickier conventional inflatable in the high performance Z or W class. It's easy to do and if I wanted to discreetly and seriously affect the reviewers' perceptions of the V, that's the change I'd make. But in real world driving, the Pirelli Eufori on the car is excellent and the security is well worth the current cost in that technology to ultimate grip and ride.

    At a quarter ton heavier, comparing the SL to a beached whale is an insult to the whale. It's 500 pounds of lack of engineering imagination any way you cut it. The SL55 has torque, in the way that the 5.7L pushrod Chevy small block had a twist advantage over the 4.6L OHC Mustang mod motor. But it feels like even more of a pig than the SL550. It gets out of its way maintains traction, but the pendulum of that quarter ton degrades everything about the experience in motion. In 8 or 10 years when MB finally re-architects the car, maybe they'll come up with a modern lightweight structure. Nah....maybe not.

    You're bench comparing the opinions of magazines that are packed with as much bias as you'll find on any internet board. I've actually driven the cars. When you do, you can come back and talk about winning or losing comparos. I'm in a position to say, and my verdict is XLR-v leads this class of car. And yes, it is the most sports-car like of the category, which is one of the reasons it wins for me.

    Phil
  • I don't think I've ever represented what a magazine has to say as proof of their credibility. In the past I've made a few citations because you seemed to assign credibility to content on coated stock. Sometimes a writer gets something right! Point is, when someone points out that the Cadillac is light and feels agile and then they criticize the interior and the brand image, at least I know they have taken the time to holistically present their view of the car. When someone writes about MB technology, quantified performance, and brand value (mostly to the unthinking and unimaginative today) but they ignore the ruined kinetics of the car due to brontasaurus mass in a 2 seat sporting GT, and the extra cost and engineering all that extra mass requires just to tame it, then I know they are willfully not analyzing the car holistically.

    They might still say, "The MB SL is wildly overweight in its class but we like it anyway." Then I can say it's an honest review and the writer's priorities are woefully misordered.

    Anyway, no I did not ever think magazine reviewers of any employ were worthy of influencing my perception of a vehicle. And yes, the current SL is antediluvian with respect to its designers' nonchalance about useless mass. I wouldn't want to be associated such lack of progress.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Never did I say that the XLR-v is a sports car. If I wanted a sports car, I would have bought a Z06. Still might add one. I said the V is a sporting GT and it is the leader in architecture, design and agility in its class, not least because it is designed to avoid the useless bulk of the SL.

    Again the same ole same ole, and yet this advantage hasn't shown up anywhere. Why is that? It doesn't exists because someone at GM didn't take advantage of it. Ok you say the mags are wrong I could respect that if, and only if you hadn't praised them before when the tested the XLR by itself and found it to be a good car. Now just because they didn't put it ahead of the SL or any other car in the class, now they're just wrong. You can't have it both ways.

    If you look at my posts, I wrote repeatedly that the XLR-v is a sporting retractable hardtop GT. My position is entirely consistent. You're misrepresenting the facts.

    Actually you are because for the fact that XLR weighs less hasn't turned up any advantage in handling. You're the one trying to turn a slight weight advantage into something heaven sent and it has proven to be anything but that.

    At a quarter ton heavier, comparing the SL to a beached whale is an insult to the whale. It's 500 pounds of lack of engineering imagination any way you cut it.

    Wrong again, the exact weight difference is 380lbs, not a 1/2 ton, yet another inaccuracy you've given here and to say that SL has a lack of engineering imagination is really ridiculous. The SL has more featurs than the XLR to begin with such a a pop-up roll over protection system that adds weight and yet they've managed to "engineer" it to handle better than the lighter, gussied up Corvette known as the XLR. Imagine that.

    You're bench comparing the opinions of magazines that are packed with as much bias as you'll find on any internet board. I've actually driven the cars. When you do, you can come back and talk about winning or losing comparos. I'm in a position to say, and my verdict is XLR-v leads this class of car. And yes, it is the most sports-car like of the category, which is one of the reasons it wins for me.

    Sure and until then keep thinking that you're found something superior when the industry experts are saying otherwise and as far as C&D goes they didn't even think enough of the XLR-V, a 100K top of the line Cadillac to put it over BMW or Jaguar either, so Mercedes is about the least of your worries. Cadillac ain't superior, heck they ain't even at the front of the class. They're bringing up the rear as most GM cars do.

    The only reason I find most of what you say to be bunk is because you think that the XLR is superior in every way and there is no car in this class that is superior in every possible way over the competition, such a notion is absurd and this bs about weight and what not is really special because it hasn't turned up anywhere. If what you say were true wouldn't someone else agree with you about it? The mags can't be smart and all-knowing one minute, but they next they're cluess.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I don't expect a magazine to decide what car is right for you, my issue here is that you're making a 380lb weight difference to be the world and that is somehow turns the XLR into some type of superior sporting machine when it doesn't.

    Put aside who won what for a moment and just look at what is being said about the handling between the two cars. Your weight advantage theory just hasn't held water.

    Sure the SL is heavier and could stand to be lighter, but if you can't see the effort that MB put into making the car drive smaller than it really is then there is no point it talking to me about how light a Cadillac is either. The SL's weight has been dealt with using their ABC active suspension and they've done a superior job at it.

    Now as to what feels more agile that is arguable for sure, but this nonsense about the SL not beng able to handle or that is someone this poor handler and the Cadillac is so much better is just plain BS, regardless as to which car won the overall comparo.

    All the while you seem to have forgotten that this class of car isn't decided upon by dynamics like sports cars are, that is why even if the XLR were a superior handler (which it isn't) it still wouldn't top the SL. The XLR is cheaply made and doesn't come anywhere near feeling like a 100K car.

    M
  • You miss my point. I've already said it's evident MB had to put additional engineering into the car to manage its weight. To make it "drive smaller" as you put it. Which of course also adds a little further weight. This doesn't impress me when it would have been much more creative to design the car to avoid that weight in the first place. That 380 lb difference, which grows to 500 lbs. with the SL55, is the additional mass of adult males in a two seat car!!!

    The GM active suspension is at least the equal of MB's, so no points for DCX, especially since the GM method is simpler, lighter and more elegant from an engineering point of view.

    I never said the MB doesn't handle or can't put up the numbers. I said the experience is degraded by the weight and that ruins the kinetics from the driver's perspective, relative to the Caddy. Yes, the SL keeps the tires planted. No, it doesn't feel as composed doing it. The only small definciency that Caddy V has experientially is the very slight sideways bump in a potholed or bumpy curve, which is a characteristic of every Corvette with a transverse-glass-leaf suspension. I kinda like it. Feels fun and doesn't actually disturb the car's stability. I'll take that over a car you can feel fighting to manage its own mass.

    This class of car is certainly a sporting class of cars and dynamics in motion are among the criteria for success. Certainly very high for me and others who own the V. If I only cared about cruising, there are Buicks to buy along with the myriad Mercedes choices. How about a Buick with a V8?

    As I said, I am still waiting for this allegation of cheap build to evidence itself in my V. Relative to everything else that costs $100K, the V feels like a hundred Large to me. The Jag XKR doesn't handle well enough for $100K. The Aston V8 Vantage isn't quick enough for its price. The Mercedes SL feels too ponderous and pretentious. The wonderful Maserati Grand Sport's clunky transmission undermines its price with every shift. Uh...let's see.....the XLR-v has leather, wood and plastic inside just like everything else put to shame by the Italians. And none of it seems to be wearing in the slightest. It runs in the 4s right out of the box. stops and turns on a dime. Stone cold reliable. Gets as much attention as any car I see here in L.A. at any price. Comfortable. Sports car dynamics. But the plastic surrounding the nav screen and a few buttons come up short in some people's eyes? Hmmm....in a world where every competing car is imperfect in a meaningful way, I think I can hack the 6 square inches of untextured plastic and enjoy my car while Cadillac revises the cabin on v2.0.

    Phil
  • If you look at my posts, I have cited the quarter-ton difference in weight as being relative to the more peer-correct SL55. The nearly 400 lbs. against the SL550 is bad enough and not "slight."

    Didn't I cover the mags? I'll cite them for people who seem to respect them. I won't for people who don't use them as "evidence." I've explained how a writer gets my respect and attention, and it isn't the conclusion but how they get to it and whether they are holistically evaluating the car in question.

    I also never said the XLR-v is "superior in every way." I've said it is on balance the best car of its car in its class. Nobody in the class has a perfect polar graph of selection attributes.

    The Maserati has easily the most beautiful interior in the class, the loveliest paint, and it has a fab naturally-aspriated Ferrari-derived engine (my preference over supercharging), but it also has a cloth top, a clunky tranny, a strange driving position, and spotty service distribution. I almost bought one.

    The Jag and Aston have the second best leather in the class, lightweight aluminum structures, and rich British interiors but both are down on power, handling is too soft, and structural rigidity on convertibles (which are cloth tops) trails the Cadillac.

    The Lexus loses in every respect. There isn't a single redeeming aspect of the car I'd prefer over the XLR-v.

    The Mercedes SL55 has more displacement and a large torque advantage set in a dated but torsionally-stiff architecture with long overhangs, short wheelbase, and a quarter ton of excess weight that reflects a lack of design imagination. Interior materials are high quality. Interior design is overwrought and functions are obscured by poor ergonomics. Its suspension technology is the only one in the class to approach GM's in efficacy. The Mercedes is monstrously overpriced and is common as dirt where I live.

    The SL550 shares the traits of the 55 AMG, but sheds some ponderous weight though it is not engineered to drive as sharply as the AMG. Both have a nice transmission.

    On balance, the V's only area of real, common, criticism relative to the class is the interior. I don't agree it is meaningfully deficient, and I am here to tell you it works and wears just fine, and makes the right impression on people who get in the car. Let Maserati loose on the V interior, and all the carping about the car would go away in a flash. The V's interior ain't a reason not to choose the car now, however. No doubt the next version will be better still.

    And by the way, other people do agree with me. The XLR/XLRv owner boards are full of people who bought the car for the same reasons I did, after having owned MB, Lexus, Jag, et al. And most of them never owned a Cadillac before, many never having previously owned an American car, either

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    The GM active suspension is at least the equal of MB's, so no points for DCX, especially since the GM method is simpler, lighter and more elegant from an engineering point of view.

    Well that is IYO, and it doesn't give the XLR any advantage in handling either. If this was true, that suspension combined with the weight savings should enable the XLR-V to run rings around the competition and it doesn't. Period. No points for GM and the handling advantage still winds up on the competitor's car.

    I never said the MB doesn't handle or can't put up the numbers. I said the experience is degraded by the weight and that ruins the kinetics from the driver's perspective, relative to the Caddy. Yes, the SL keeps the tires planted. No, it doesn't feel as composed doing it. The only small definciency that Caddy V has experientially is the very slight sideways bump in a potholed or bumpy curve, which is a characteristic of every Corvette with a transverse-glass-leaf suspension. I kinda like it. Feels fun and doesn't actually disturb the car's stability. I'll take that over a car you can feel fighting to manage its own mass.

    And what I'm telling you is that no one has found anything to support this advantage you keep talking about. These are professional drivers who have been testing cars for years and they all say the same thing regarding the handling of the SL and the XLR, one is good and the other is better, the latter being the SL. This nonsense about how the XLR feels and what not isn't enough to put it over the SL and the others in this class because the rest of the car is lacking.

    This class of car is certainly a sporting class of cars and dynamics in motion are among the criteria for success. Certainly very high for me and others who own the V. If I only cared about cruising, there are Buicks to buy along with the myriad Mercedes choices. How about a Buick with a V8?

    Here we go again, you're missing the point. Of course dynamics are a point of reference in this class, but the XLR falls down on its face in other areas which you'll all of sudden dismiss. The feel of the materials, design and quality of the XLR/V say cheap GM car, not 100K blueblood. That is why the XLR-V could have the best handling in the world and still come up short, heck it already outrun the SL550, 650i, and XK yet that didn't carry as much weight as the details, which is where GM is clueless still.

    As I said, I am still waiting for this allegation of cheap build to evidence itself in my V. Relative to everything else that costs $100K, the V feels like a hundred Large to me. The Jag XKR doesn't handle well enough for $100K. The Aston V8 Vantage isn't quick enough for its price. The Mercedes SL feels too ponderous and pretentious. The wonderful Maserati Grand Sport's clunky transmission undermines its price with every shift. Uh...let's see.....the XLR-v has leather, wood and plastic inside just like everything else put to shame by the Italians. And none of it seems to be wearing in the slightest. It runs in the 4s right out of the box. stops and turns on a dime. Stone cold reliable. Gets as much attention as any car I see here in L.A. at any price. Comfortable. Sports car dynamics. But the plastic surrounding the nav screen and a few buttons come up short in some people's eyes? Hmmm....in a world where every competing car is imperfect in a meaningful way, I think I can hack the 6 square inches of untextured plastic and enjoy my car while Cadillac revises the cabin on v2.0.

    Yeah let me guess, every other car has flaws except the XLR? Right? You kill me with all this about other cars yet you can't see the glaring cheapness of the XLR's interior. Driving the car for 8K miles doesn't prove anything IMO, any 100K can stand up to 8K miles of use. You've got to be kidding if you think that 8K is some type of milestone that proves quality!

    Now wait a minute, you've driven the XKR to know that it doesn't handle well enough for 100K or are you going by something you've read? I honestly feel for you if you think a XLR feels like a 100K car.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    If you look at my posts, I have cited the quarter-ton difference in weight as being relative to the more peer-correct SL55. The nearly 400 lbs. against the SL550 is bad enough and not "slight."

    Yet the SL gets the nod in handling. Go figure. Either someone is harping about nothing or the entire industry doesn't know what they're talking about.

    The Lexus loses in every respect. There isn't a single redeeming aspect of the car I'd prefer over the XLR-v.

    The only thing we agree on! The SC430 is for the pinky-ring set.

    I also never said the XLR-v is "superior in every way." I've said it is on balance the best car of its car in its class. Nobody in the class has a perfect polar graph of selection attributes.

    Your last sentence contradicts the first one. The XLR-V isn't even close to being the best car in this class, as it can't even beat a base SL550.

    The Mercedes SL55 has more displacement and a large torque advantage set in a dated but torsionally-stiff architecture with long overhangs, short wheelbase, and a quarter ton of excess weight that reflects a lack of design imagination. Interior materials are high quality. Interior design is overwrought and functions are obscured by poor ergonomics. Its suspension technology is the only one in the class to approach GM's in efficacy. The Mercedes is monstrously overpriced and is common as dirt where I live.

    Gotta love personal opinon on design passed off as some type of flaw. Just say you don't like the SL and this would make sense. Again your cited weight advantage hasn't proven squat in handling prowess in favor of the XLR. Gotta love the "common as dirt" comment too, i.e. Cadillac doesn't and can't sell anywhere near as many XLRs so I'll knock the Benz for being a commercial success. I love it when people who champion slow selling cars try to hint or imply that they are somehow more exclusive when the truth of the matter is the car in question is 10 or 10 times a sales dud! Exclusive is when you can sell more, but won't or when you only build a set number and that is it. GM could crank out XLRs all day long if the market warranted, but it doesn't so please spare me the hint or implication that the XLR is somehow exclusive when the reality of the matter is very few people want or would even consider a 75-100K Cadillac. The Caddy name doesn't warrant or carry nearly enough clout to sell a 100K car in any real numbers today.

    The V's interior ain't a reason not to choose the car now, however. No doubt the next version will be better still.

    IYO. Wait till next year or next time, a classic GM defense. GM never delivers a complete car, it is always wait until next time, which by then the competition will have moved the goal post.

    And by the way, other people do agree with me. The XLR/XLRv owner boards are full of people who bought the car for the same reasons I did, after having owned MB, Lexus, Jag, et al. And most of them never owned a Cadillac before, many never having previously owned an American car, either

    Seeing as how they sunk 75-100K into a market lagging American car they literally have no choice but to tell themselves this, otherwise they'd have the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the recorded history.

    M
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    The initial quality study is very important and gives a good reflection on the cars build quality. Depending on which magazine write up you read the Cadillac XLR is raising a lot of heads. I believe it was Car & Driver last year that had it being barely edged by the Mercedes with four cars being tested. The Cadillac is a tremendous car in every way and you have to get over your bias toward American cars. Cadillac uses a better quality plastic than Mercedes does as far as the noxious fumes that it doesn't give off. Other than that plastic is plastic and few people really notice the differences which are very minor.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    The XLR is considered a sports car as much as the Mercedes is, but just not in the same sence as a Corvette, Porche or Lotus; keep in mind that these cars are also considered roadstars like the Miata, Solstice, and M3.

    A sports car is classified as a two seater with rear wheel drive.
  • You continually cite magazines. I've already said I think what they think is irrelevant. The thing is, you haven't driven the XLR-v. You may not have even driven a contemporary SL. WHEN you actually drive these cars under varying conditions, you might have something worthwhile to say about this weight and handling issue. Until then, you're putting a skidpad number up against real-world experience. It's pointless. Driving the two cars contradicts what the magazines are writing. I experience no handling advantage for the Mercedes. Quite the opposite, the handling advantage conclusively rests with the XLR-v.

    More to the point, it would be impossible to build a sports car from the SL platform. It's stupidly heavy. Yet the light-for-class XLR-v is built on a platform that with the luxury stuff deleted and bigger stickier rubber added becomes a 3100 lb world-class sports car. The XLR-v comes from the factory tuned to a specific state of compromise. If you want to shift that mix this way or that, it's easy to do, and you'll be doing it with a quarter ton advantage over the porky SL55.

    Plainly, the XLR-v feels more incisive and gives me more information about the tire-road interface than the SL. Everything about the car is more communicative. It's not my fault if this isn't obvious to magazine jockeys. Want to really make the point? Put Corvette rubber on a V. Drive one, please, before you use someone else's opinion again to justify your own bias.

    "...because the rest of the car is lacking." This is not my experience.

    Now, I agree with you that 9,000 miles doesn't prove the long-term reliability of the V. But given the role of infant failure of componentry in gizmo-loaded luxury cars as a class, it's a good harbinger. Having put well over 100,000 miles on a prior generation Corvette, without so much as an upholstery scuff, I have confidence in the long-term stalwartness of the V. The basic durable goodness of the platform is routinely evidenced in harder-driven Corvettes in larger numbers. The long-term questions TBD are in the small-displacement supercharged engine and the top's mechanism. I'm expecting my car to be in my hands well into 6 digits.

    Haven't driven the new platform XKR (not sure it's shipped yet) but have driven the current XK. Extrapolating from that experience, and having driven the two cars in last gen and knowing that version's R difference, I don't think Jaguar's convertible handles like I expect 100K worth of car to handle. It has other merits to justify its price however. All these cars, even at 100K, are specific compromises.

    So having driven everything I can think of in this peculiar class of retractable hardtop luxury sporting GTs, plus the ragtop contenders adjacent to this category, every one is imperfect and every one makes a specific impression. On an absolute basis, none of these cars are worth $100,000, but that's a reflection of prevailing conditions. But in a world where an SLK 55 AMG starts at $61,000, a Lexus SC costs $70K, an XLR is $74K, a Jag is similar, and a Mercedes SL is $92K, yes the XLR-v is worth its price. No one thinks the XLR, XK or SC are too expensive for the market. For another $25K over the those, you get a hand-built semi-racing grade engine with added 123hp, bigger brakes, material upgrades in the interior, better transmission, larger wheels with more aggressive rubber, greater performance in every parameter. Sure, it's worth $100K in that context. Anyone who thinks it isn't worth $100K is essentially saying the brand is their issue, not the car. I don't have a problem with a $100K Cadillac at all. I didn't buy the car to make an obvious point about personal wealth. I bought it for its competence, power, comfort, fit, feel and intrinsic progressive emotion, compared to the other more flawed entries in its class, along with being the most agile performer lacking the ponderous dynamics of the SL and SC.

    Phil
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    A Cadillac that falls on its face, give me a break. These are all excellent cars and discrimination against one brand because it doesn't meet your needs or you admire another auto is uncalled for. You may find more to your liking on the Mercedes forum.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,656
    Wow, what a flurry of activity! I guess summer's over and folks are back to the keyboard...

    Anyway, Phil, what kind of real-world mpg are you getting with your V? And thanks for the write up...

    I think I'm much further away from grabbing my mid-life crisis car as the evil wife has announced that she wants to buy a lakefront home in New Hampshire or Vermont within the next year or two. Actually, so would I. God's Country are the Northern New England states. Dropped my skis off at the shop for a tune up, looking forward to Ma Nature making up for the dearth of snow last winter this year.

    '13 Jaguar XF, possibly my favorite of all the cars I've owned. But, my '09 Jag XK was a beauty, as was my '05 Acura TL, '88 Acura Integra, '84 Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo & '78 VW Scirocco (my first!). And, of course, the '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R and '95 Saab 900s I bought for the ex... Ok, I like a lot of the cars in my life.

  • Yeah, I had a busy summer and wandered in here to see if the Mercedes brigade was still pissing on the V's shoes. I thought of it when I saw the odo roll past 9,000 miles.

    Real world mileage? I live in L.A. I often have an entire tankful of fuel consumed at an average speed of 26 mph when I can't arrange driving time outside of the expanding "rush hour" on our freeways and city streets. When I have a tank like that, I get 16 mpg. On a tank of solidly mixed off-peak freeway and on-peak city streets driving, I get 19/20 mpg. And when I have been able to track mileage on sustained highway runs at speed, I get 24-26mpg. Example: I recently finished a meeting in south Orange County after midnight and had to drive home on the northwest side of Los Angeles. It was 88 miles. Knowing I'd have clear running, I filled up before I left, and then topped off at destination. 88 miles at average speed of 82 mph yielded 25.2mpg.

    I...uh....can also say that I know exactly how to drive mileage down to 12 mpg, but doing so is a deliberate indulgence of unfriendly acceleration.

    I'm happy with the mileage given 443 hp in a 3800 lb. car.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was helping a friend evaluate cars. I have to say that if I were more cash limited and wanted a mid-life crisis machine, the only other car today under $100,000 that can match the XLR-v's sheer charisma and presence is the Shelby GT500, especially in coupe form. Simple, competent, poised, sensational. Otherwise, when you buy that lake house, sneak in a just-off-lease XLR-v in 2007/8.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    The initial quality study is very important and gives a good reflection on the cars build quality.

    True and I don't think I've ever said that MB was perfect in this regard. However this year JDP changed the criteria because MB went from 5th to below average and that didn't happen due to a sudden drop in quality either.

    Depending on which magazine write up you read the Cadillac XLR is raising a lot of heads. I believe it was Car & Driver last year that had it being barely edged by the Mercedes with four cars being tested.

    Must be a magazine not published here on earth. No issue of Car and Driver has ever said anything near that, in fact it was just the opposite. The XLR has lost each and every time it faced the SL and not by a small margin. In this recent comparo they pretty much said the BMW 650i barely edged out the XLR, not the SL. The XLR hasn't raised that head of anyone that matters, buyers. GM has a huge supply of XLRs and they are simply put, slow sellers.

    Cadillac uses a better quality plastic than Mercedes does as far as the noxious fumes that it doesn't give off. Other than that plastic is plastic and few people really notice the differences which are very minor.

    Not! GM uses the same plastics in the XLR as they do their other cheapo cars. I give the XLR credit for being something no other American brand can touch, but that isn't saying much since Chrysler and Lincoln have nothing even remotely similar. The problem is that GM doesn't sweat the details and a 100K is all about the details.

    You look at GM's new Kappa twins, the SKY and Solstice. I had to stop and look at one up close on a dealer lot because I couldn't believe how sloppily the top fits on these cars when the top is raised. Whoever signed off on that should be fired, but hey that it typical GM. They'll introduce something with great potential and even get the engine right, but then muck it up in cheapo details.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    The XLR is considered a sports car as much as the Mercedes is, but just not in the same sence as a Corvette, Porche or Lotus; keep in mind that these cars are also considered roadstars like the Miata, Solstice, and M3.

    The XLR is no sports car and neither is the SL, they are GT cars. Big difference.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    You continually cite magazines. I've already said I think what they think is irrelevant. The thing is, you haven't driven the XLR-v. You may not have even driven a contemporary SL. WHEN you actually drive these cars under varying conditions, you might have something worthwhile to say about this weight and handling issue. Until then, you're putting a skidpad number up against real-world experience. It's pointless. Driving the two cars contradicts what the magazines are writing. I experience no handling advantage for the Mercedes. Quite the opposite, the handling advantage conclusively rests with the XLR-v.

    True, but who should I believe as far as the XLR goes? A biased person who has the car and thinks it is so superior to everything else in the class or the professional reviewers? Not just one, but all of them say the same thing about the XLR. I have driven the current SL a many times, thank you. This nonsense about handling and weight is the about most ridiculous thing I've seen harped about for a long time. When is it going to sink in that even if the XLR were a superior handler (which it isn't) that handling is not the sole criteria for buyers with these cars! So what if the XLR is a better handler, it still is skinny-tired and very much an aquired taste for many and it doesn't have an interior worthy of it's sticker.

    You keep harping about handling yet you'll then turn around and say that these are not sports cars. Which is it going to be? If you're going to make the case for the XLR and it's handling advantage (which no one else has found) then that is ok, but that doesn't outweight the rest of what is wrong with the car, especially the 100K version of it.

    More to the point, it would be impossible to build a sports car from the SL platform. It's stupidly heavy. Yet the light-for-class XLR-v is built on a platform that with the luxury stuff deleted and bigger stickier rubber added becomes a 3100 lb world-class sports car. The XLR-v comes from the factory tuned to a specific state of compromise. If you want to shift that mix this way or that, it's easy to do, and you'll be doing it with a quarter ton advantage over the porky SL55.

    So what? Mercedes didn't set out to build a "sports car" from the SL platform. I mean really is it that bad to the point where we have to debate shoulda/woulda/coulda been built from the SL platform. Now the XLR is a sports car again?

    Plainly, the XLR-v feels more incisive and gives me more information about the tire-road interface than the SL. Everything about the car is more communicative. It's not my fault if this isn't obvious to magazine jockeys. Want to really make the point? Put Corvette rubber on a V. Drive one, please, before you use someone else's opinion again to justify your own bias.

    Ok, to you, no one else. Fine, but that doesn't put the XLR over the SL. Seconldy why do I have to put Corvette rubber on a XLR? They aren't going for the same market, yet another "wait until next year" type apology. My bias didn't set in until I saw the reviews of the car because honestly I thought (initially) the SL would really have some competition, but it doesn't in either the market or on the road, at least not from Cadillac.

    Now, I agree with you that 9,000 miles doesn't prove the long-term reliability of the V. But given the role of infant failure of componentry in gizmo-loaded luxury cars as a class, it's a good harbinger. Having put well over 100,000 miles on a prior generation Corvette, without so much as an upholstery scuff, I have confidence in the long-term stalwartness of the V. The basic durable goodness of the platform is routinely evidenced in harder-driven Corvettes in larger numbers. The long-term questions TBD are in the small-displacement supercharged engine and the top's mechanism. I'm expecting my car to be in my hands well into 6 digits.

    Putting 100K on a Corvette has what to do with the XLR? I don't expect any car to have problems relating to it's structure nowadays. The XLR has more things to go wrong than a Corvette every had so if you can put 100K on a XLR and nothing goes wrong, bravo. Until then the previous mileage racked up on car as bascially simple (relative to the XLR) is matterless.

    Haven't driven the new platform XKR (not sure it's shipped yet) but have driven the current XK. Extrapolating from that experience, and having driven the two cars in last gen and knowing that version's R difference, I don't think Jaguar's convertible handles like I expect 100K worth of car to handle. It has other merits to justify its price however. All these cars, even at 100K, are specific compromises.

    So in other words your bias is there before you've driven the thing? How hypocritical is that? The new XKR shares absolutely nothing to do with the last generation car, nothing. Totally new chassis/platform etc, only the engines carry over so some of your own "until you drive it" advice would be in order for you here! I fully expect the XKR to trounce a XLR-V in handling if not in a straight line.

    Anyone who thinks it isn't worth $100K is essentially saying the brand is their issue, not the car.

    Bingo! Cadillac hasn't built anything in the last 30 years that even comes close to putting them in the position to ask 100K for one of their cars. You're right it is a brand issue that is supported by a car that simply doesn't feel like a 100K car.

    No one thinks the XLR, XK or SC are too expensive for the market.

    Not true, obviously buyers think the XLR is too expensive going by its lacklust sales performance, then again it could be the whole thought of sinking 100K on a Cadillac that won't be worth half that in a few years. In short Cadillac's comeback wasn't yet up to the level of being able to charge 100K for anything yet. All the the other cars have proven themselves to some degree, especially the SL. I share you're dislike of the SC430 as a GT car, but the car reeks of quality build, construction and materials, that is what puts it over. The previous Jaguar XK, while totally an antique until this new 07' model came along, was so gorgeous to the point where it could sell on looks alone.

    I can't take any of your dynamics argument seriously if you're going to say this:

    ..lacking the ponderous dynamics of the SL and SC..

    The SL is a lot of things, but ponderous it isn't one of them and to place it on the same level as the sedan-like driving SC430 tells me you simply don't like the SL because this claim is just plain untrue and ridiculous. The SL can run rings around a SC430 and you know it.

    M
  • You just don't like paying attention.

    1/ I'm not biased. I came to my decision about the XLR-v over the rest of the class BEFORE I bought it. I did so based on an objective survey of the class, driving each car under nearly identical real-world conditions. I was prepared to buy any of them, except for the SC. So yeah, you can believe me at least as much as a bunch of jaded magazine jockeys who are perpetually blinded by brand.

    2/ Handling matters as much to a GT's competence and suitability as a sporting car as handling matters to a pure sports car. The difference is that you tolerate some compromises to get more comfort and amenities in the GT for extended travel. But WITHIN the class, handling is as important a criterion for selection. A retractable hardtop GT roadster/coupe is a peculiar multi-function GT, but you still want it to handle and be agile.

    3/ I never said the weight and handling advantage of the XLR-v is the only reason to buy the car. It's a big reason. I did plainly say that the useless extra mass of the SL is the elephant in the room, and that the XLR-v has the best balance of compromises of any car in the class. It has the most progressive, dramatic and impactful aesthetic design, best interior ergonomics, best architecture, best mass-efficiency in its platform, and is competitive in every other area.

    4/ The XLR/XLR-v are built on a sports-car-derived platform and inherit those advantages. This doesn't make them sports cars, but does help to make them more sporting GTs -- especially the V.

    5/ You don't have to put Corvette rubber on your V, but the option exists, just as people put bigger wheels/tires on their SLs and every other car in the class. Point is, Cadillac could have spec'd tires tilted more to ultimate handling/stopping. They did not, because they chose to use the quietest run-flat to both preserve GT properties and give drivers the security of not having to change a tire on the freeway. Any owner who wants to shade the factory's chosen balance of factors is free to do so. In practical driving, the Eufori's grip will exceed the gumption of most drivers. Conventional performance rubber will certainly transmit less road rash NVH into the car.

    6/ Corvette is the platform basis, the body panel basis, the ancillary systems basis, and the automatic transmission is now the same between the two cars. From a reliability standpoint, the top mechanics, the DOHC hand-built SC engine and the engine management computer are the primary differences where things can go wrong. Corvette platform experience is a good harbinger of the V's integrity. But time will tell for sure.

    7/ I'm going to drive the XKR with an open mind of course. Note that I said I have driven the current XK, so I know what the platform characteristics are. I also know the difference between the prior XL and XK-R, and Ford's approach this time is very much the same, in terms of engineering differences between the new versions or XK and R. Having driven the base car, and being thoroughly familiar with the results to the "R" upgrade approach, it's not hard to extrapolate some expectations. The new XK aluminum platform is an excellent upgrade over the old platform. But modern Jags are shaded more toward comfort than sports traits than I think they should be. The XK-R will be in the $90sK like the last one. Will it be worth that? In the context of what cars cost today, sure, but not for its handling as its strong suit. Perhaps they will surprise me. In any case, there are other reasons for some folks to prefer that car.

    8/ The prior damage to the Cadillac brand had no bearing on my willingness to pay the price, because the car itself earns its place. I'm happy to be part of rebuilding the brand perception. No one considering a $100K car really cares financially whether it cost $10K less or $10K more. I can't imagine the V costing less than $90K retail in any sustainable scenario for Cadillac, so 90, 94, 98, 100K -- who cares? It's the most holistically advanced car in the category. It's worth it.

    9/ Yes, the SL runs rings around the SC even without a driver present. The SL and SC certainly have different dynamics, but both are indeed ponderous, though differently. Forgetting the design for a moment, the SC is both fat and sloppily sprung. It's aggressively un-incisive. Not a serious car in the least. The SL is a serious entry in the class, sure. It is made ponderous by virtue of the fact that compared to the lighter V, you can feel all its dynamics management systems constantly fighting the weight. Yeah, the tires stay planted. But the pendulum effects of that extra quarter ton....well, there's no getting away from it. It feels needlessly heavy in any situation other than straight-line travel at steady speed.

    Let's put this weight issue into further perspective. NONE of your vaunted magazine writers would agree that more weight is a good thing when you can engineer less. They all diss mass in cars they don't like. And then they don't hold DCX's feet to the fire. Cadillac delivers a retractable hardtop luxury 2-seat GT at 3810 lbs, using a hydroformed perimeter box-tube frame with rigid spine and torque tube. It surrounds this stiff driveable chassis with modern lightweight, ding-resistant, composite body panels. Jaguar delivers a ~3800 lb. cloth top convertible using an aluminum unibody with subframes, very modern manufacturing too. Maserati gets in there with steel. Mercedes saddles their short-wheelbase/long overhangs steel body car with 400 - 500 pounds more. Nice paint though. Imagine how good the SL could be if MB exercised the imagination to engineer that quarter ton OUT of the car and get down to the new class weight? If undercapitalized Jaguar can make the investment and "the world's on my shoulders" GM can innovate, why not DCX? Heck, I want to see the XLR-v get lighter too! Let's get Corvettes down to 2800 lbs., and XLR-v down to 3200 lbs. with all the luxury stuff. I didn't like the overwrought cabin of the SL, and the brand itself doesn't appeal to me. But if the car itself had been best-in-class in enough categories, I might have bought it. The big sore thumb of the SL's ponderous extra mass was distracting and disturbing to appreciation for the car. And I have to draw a line somewhere: any reasonably advanced automobile company ought to be able to keep a 2-seat perfrmance GT roadster under 4000 lbs. When you're looking at a 2 seat GT that packs the weight of a Lincoln Town Car, something's gone very wrong in product planning.

    Anyway, I live amongst a sea of SLs and I experience them first-hand routinely. Nothing about an SL prompts a single regret about owning a V, but owning the V confirms for me every day that I made the right decision.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    1/ I'm not biased. I came to my decision about the XLR-v over the rest of the class BEFORE I bought it. I did so based on an objective survey of the class, driving each car under nearly identical real-world conditions. I was prepared to buy any of them, except for the SC. So yeah, you can believe me at least as much as a bunch of jaded magazine jockeys who are perpetually blinded by brand.

    This I can buy, that you actually drove them all and decided what was best for you, never doubted that.

    Handling matters as much to a GT's competence and suitability as a sporting car as handling matters to a pure sports car. The difference is that you tolerate some compromises to get more comfort and amenities in the GT for extended travel. But WITHIN the class, handling is as important a criterion for selection. A retractable hardtop GT roadster/coupe is a peculiar multi-function GT, but you still want it to handle and be agile.

    And the SL has been judged by everyone but you to have equal or better handling than the XLR, period. This nonsense about how much better the XLR feels and handles hasn't helped the car at all in the marketplace because buyers of 100K GT are lookig for the whole package. Something you seem to completely miss. You act as though the SL can't handle and that my friend is BS, especially that about the SL and the SC having anything in common as far as dynamics. For what most people buy these cars for the Jaguar and Mercedes top the Cadillac without question. Want something more serious than the XK or SL550, the XKR and SL55 are waiting. Cadillac has no advantage on these cars except for weight, but the thing is none of these cars are true lightweights. The XLR being light for it's class is the same thing as when the mags say a heavier car handles good for it's weight. Either way you're spliting hairs.

    I never said the weight and handling advantage of the XLR-v is the only reason to buy the car. It's a big reason. I did plainly say that the useless extra mass of the SL is the elephant in the room, and that the XLR-v has the best balance of compromises of any car in the class. It has the most progressive, dramatic and impactful aesthetic design, best interior ergonomics, best architecture, best mass-efficiency in its platform, and is competitive in every other area.

    However in reality of marketplace and the type of buyer that usually goes for one of these cars they're looking for features and luxury not just some far-fetched notion about the XLR's handling being superior. That about the XLR's interior is your opinion, no where else have ever seen anything to support it either. The interior is the weakest link of any GM car! Where have you been? This about a different design ethic is just hilarious. A Jaguar has the same thing, but it ain't cheaply made. When oh when will that sink in? You can be different in every way regarding inteior design/function/layout etc, but the materials need not be of the cheapo variety as in the XLR. Period.

    The XLR/XLR-v are built on a sports-car-derived platform and inherit those advantages. This doesn't make them sports cars, but does help to make them more sporting GTs -- especially the V.

    Yet this has yet to amount to anything real advantage in either the market or to the press. Talk about much ado about nothing.

    You don't have to put Corvette rubber on your V, but the option exists, just as people put bigger wheels/tires on their SLs and every other car in the class. Point is, Cadillac could have spec'd tires tilted more to ultimate handling/stopping. They did not, because they chose to use the quietest run-flat to both preserve GT properties and give drivers the security of not having to change a tire on the freeway. Any owner who wants to shade the factory's chosen balance of factors is free to do so. In practical driving, the Eufori's grip will exceed the gumption of most drivers. Conventional performance rubber will certainly transmit less road rash NVH into the car.

    A grand excuse plain and simple.

    Corvette is the platform basis, the body panel basis, the ancillary systems basis, and the automatic transmission is now the same between the two cars. From a reliability standpoint, the top mechanics, the DOHC hand-built SC engine and the engine management computer are the primary differences where things can go wrong. Corvette platform experience is a good harbinger of the V's integrity. But time will tell for sure.

    What modern car is going to have trouble with body panels? All the other stuff that is shared between them I'm fully aware of which is one reason why a XLR is simply not worth 75K not to mention 100K. Secondly the XLR has a few extra features like a folding hard top and those ridiculous electronic door latches that could prove troubleseome, not saying they will, but those are some of the differences between the XLR and the Vette.

    I'm going to drive the XKR with an open mind of course. Note that I said I have driven the current XK, so I know what the platform characteristics are. I also know the difference between the prior XL and XK-R, and Ford's approach this time is very much the same, in terms of engineering differences between the new versions or XK and R. Having driven the base car, and being thoroughly familiar with the results to the "R" upgrade approach, it's not hard to extrapolate some expectations. The new XK aluminum platform is an excellent upgrade over the old platform. But modern Jags are shaded more toward comfort than sports traits than I think they should be. The XK-R will be in the $90sK like the last one. Will it be worth that? In the context of what cars cost today, sure, but not for its handling as its strong suit. Perhaps they will surprise me. In any case, there are other reasons for some folks to prefer that car.

    Again you haven't driven the car so all this about the previous version is matterless. WOW! Wait a minute you'll condem the Jaguar based on what Jaguar/Ford has done before, but I'm supposed to believe that GM has totally changed their normally laggard ways when turning a Corvette into a Cadillac? That is pretty rich don't you think? Hypocritical, very hypocritical!

    The prior damage to the Cadillac brand had no bearing on my willingness to pay the price, because the car itself earns its place.

    Apparently not, but it hasn't earned anything and Cadillac certainly hasn't. They just stopped building junk just a few years ago.

    cont....
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    No one considering a $100K car really cares financially whether it cost $10K less or $10K more. I can't imagine the V costing less than $90K retail in any sustainable scenario for Cadillac, so 90, 94, 98, 100K -- who cares? It's the most holistically advanced car in the category.

    True, 94, 98 or 100K wouldn't make a difference, but when you have a Cadillac to cost that much it certainly does because the brand doesn't have the reputation to command such money anymore. The regular 75K XLR is expensive enough compared to other Cadillac, but 100K is ridiculous for any Cadillac or GM product IMO and apparently buyers feels the same way since Cadillac can't catch any of the other cars in this class in sales. 80, 90K whatever over 65-70K is too much for a Cadillac that will drop like a rock at resale time.

    Yes, the SL runs rings around the SC even without a driver present. The SL and SC certainly have different dynamics, but both are indeed ponderous, though differently. Forgetting the design for a moment, the SC is both fat and sloppily sprung. It's aggressively un-incisive. Not a serious car in the least. The SL is a serious entry in the class, sure. It is made ponderous by virtue of the fact that compared to the lighter V, you can feel all its dynamics management systems constantly fighting the weight. Yeah, the tires stay planted. But the pendulum effects of that extra quarter ton....well, there's no getting away from it. It feels needlessly heavy in any situation other than straight-line travel at steady speed.

    What? The only part I agree with here is that about the SC430. Now their different types of ponderous? Again, the weight advantage the XLR has hasn't showed up likely due to it being under tired to begin with.

    Let's put this weight issue into further perspective. NONE of your vaunted magazine writers would agree that more weight is a good thing when you can engineer less. They all diss mass in cars they don't like. And then they don't hold DCX's feet to the fire.

    That is because all the cars in this class are somewhat heavy and they aren't sports cars! Plus, plus, plus the weight of the SL has been largely checked due to various engineering solutions. I get the XLR is lighter, but it is a lightweight in features and build quality compared to the SL and none of the other cars in this class had the option of taking a true sports car and fattening it up with wood and leather. You act as though GM has made some type of break out innovation when they've been doing platform sharing for years!

    No one but you cares about the SL's extra weight once they drive it and your continual harping about this is just plain ridiculous when the XLR has faults that you just dismiss with some excuse about it having a different design "asthetic". Specious.

    M
  • Now the problem here is that you say the XLR-v is cheaply made, and I'm telling you it isn't. When you have driven the car, you can then detail with some measure of credibility how the car is cheaply made. So far, you have only asserted over and over that others say the car is cheaply-made. You haven't said how you, personally, experience this or arrived at this conclusion.

    Now, we do know a lot about the platform because it is shared with the Corvette. Between the two cars, Corvette and XLR/XLR-v, I haven't ever read anything indicating that the structure, engine, transmission, brakes, body, or any other system in either car is "cheaply made." The only, ONLY, references to cheapness in the car have been about the interior. This is a canard.

    Yes, there are differences between the various class-competitors' interiors. These differences are minor, with the exception of the Maserati, which puts everyone else to shame. If you're not buying a Maserati, or let's also add the Aston V8 Vantage, then you're in the same realm of plastic/wood/leather/metal in all these cars. From a design and ergonomics standpoint, I prefer the masculine straightforwardness of the Cadillac. The materials are fine. Fit and finish of the interior on my car are fine. I don't see the problem. Can everything be further improved? Sure, this is true for every car in the class. Even the Maserati can stand an upgrade to some of its switchgear. In my car, everything works, everything feels good, plastics are fine, there is 360 degrees of leather, wood and metal are used appropriately. I don't see any aspect of this car that is "cheaply made."

    Mercedes has trouble delivering working electronics. Jaguar gets criticized for the "cheapness" of using some Ford switchgear and materials. Cadillac gets painted with a "GM interiors suck" brush by people who pay no attention to what's actually in the XLR-v. Frankly, I prefer to have electronics that work, presented in straightforward clean design, through materials at the touch points that feel honest, luxurious and last.

    You will understand the weight advantage of the XLR-v when you drive one. It has been amply detailed for you here.

    The Corvette, by the way, has the electronic door latch actuators too. The system is reliable, but a mechanical safety override is at your fingertips by the seat. I didn't say anyone in the class has "trouble with body panels." I pointed out that Cadillac uses lightweight composite panels and these have the added advantage of resisting dings compared to metal.

    On the Jag, you didn't assimilate my point. I don't condemn Jaguar for anything. They always produce an interesting beautiful car. I don't prefer the tuning of modern Jags on the handling/comfort axis. The relevance of the old platform to the new is that Ford's formula for R-ifying the standard XK is the same now as then. Supercharge the engine, larger wheels/tires/brakes, retune the suspension elastomers, spring rates, dampers, add appropriate cosmetic distinctions and you have an R. Pretty easy to guage where you'll end up if you've driven the base car and are waiting for the new R.

    Whatever you think about GM, no one considers the Corvette a laggard car, and no one has said the XLR-v, which is derived from Corvette, is junk.

    Phil
  • There's ponderous and then there is ponderous. The SC and SL don't feel the same by any means and the SL is the vastly better car. The SC is ponderous because it's squishy and imprecise. The SL feels ponderous because it is just plain heavy, and it's obvious when driving it that the car's dynamics systems are constantly fighting the mass.

    The car mags complain about weight in trucks, SUVs, sedans, sports cars and GTs alike. Of course they are inconsistent. A 4300 lbs. Town Car is heavy but they are mute about a 4300 lbs. SL or the ridiculousness of an aluminum Audi wieghing in over 2 tons. Weight is weight, and more isn't good when you can have less and still meet safety and structural requirements. The engineering solutions to manage the excess mass of the SL are band-aids that cannot conceal the weight itself. They only manage it. You feel this awkwardness in ever change of speed or direction in the SL.

    The design aesthetic of the XLR-v isn't related to your critique. It's a superior design aesthetic to me. You are carping about other things that I don't agree are true, or I don't think they are important to the selection of which car to buy in the class. That you know of few others who understand the penalty that 500 extra pounds imposes on the SL isn't my fault. But the weight penalty is still there for anyone to experience. Whether or not brand fealty blinds someone to it, my view remains the same. The XLR-v is a great car and the innovator in the class.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Now the problem here is that you say the XLR-v is cheaply made, and I'm telling you it isn't. When you have driven the car, you can then detail with some measure of credibility how the car is cheaply made. So far, you have only asserted over and over that others say the car is cheaply-made. You haven't said how you, personally, experience this or arrived at this conclusion.

    I don't have to drive the car to know that the interior is cheap and feels like any other GM car. There is no way that interior feel and quality is that much better than other GM cars that costs thousands less. I don't have to drive anything to know that the interior is typical GM in construction and material quality. There are few upgraded pieces here and there, but they missed the entire effect by a country mile. People at the Detroit show were wowed when they found out that the XLR-V costs 100K, no one there felt that the interior was up to 100K. Has nothing to do with driving it. Nothing at all.

    Now, we do know a lot about the platform because it is shared with the Corvette. Between the two cars, Corvette and XLR/XLR-v, I haven't ever read anything indicating that the structure, engine, transmission, brakes, body, or any other system in either car is "cheaply made." The only, ONLY, references to cheapness in the car have been about the interior. This is a canard.

    True, which is why I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Again, again, I don't expect the XLR to have any problems relating to anything it inherited from the Corvette, again, it is the other parts of the car that could, and I say could prove troublesome. Things like the top and those silly electric door latches. That was my point there, didn't have anything to do with the hardware or structure. Right, the interior is the cheapened part.

    You will understand the weight advantage of the XLR-v when you drive one. It has been amply detailed for you here.

    Yeah adnausem, mainly a lot of bunk, IMO. Feeling lighter doesn't mean better handling as the various test prove. The numbers don't lie and at the end of the day all you're getting with your XLR is a better "feel" at handling, not any differences in times or ability.

    I pointed out that Cadillac uses lightweight composite panels and these have the added advantage of resisting dings compared to metal.

    A fancy way of saying that a 75K-100K car has totally plastic body panels. Not something I'd tout.

    The relevance of the old platform to the new is that Ford's formula for R-ifying the standard XK is the same now as then. Supercharge the engine, larger wheels/tires/brakes, retune the suspension elastomers, spring rates, dampers, add appropriate cosmetic distinctions and you have an R. Pretty easy to guage where you'll end up if you've driven the base car and are waiting for the new R.

    Spin and twist it any way you like, you haven't driven the car and you can't form an opinion on it until you have, at least that is what you tell me. The XK is a totally new car and what they did with a 25 year old platform previously has nothing to do with it, unless you're going to say that they do things the same way each time. Careful because if that applies to Jaguar it applies to GM and their interiors, which it does by the way regarding GM.

    Whatever you think about GM, no one considers the Corvette a laggard car, and no one has said the XLR-v, which is derived from Corvette, is junk.

    We're not talking about the Corvette here, a car I'm crazy about as a matter of fact. We're talking about the XLR and it isn't junk by any means, but it isn't superior to the SL, which is my point. No one else has found any of the handling, schmandling bunk to be true or have any affect on actual results and everyone has found the interior to be lacking, all total opposites to what you're written here.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    There's ponderous and then there is ponderous. The SC and SL don't feel the same by any means and the SL is the vastly better car. The SC is ponderous because it's squishy and imprecise. The SL feels ponderous because it is just plain heavy, and it's obvious when driving it that the car's dynamics systems are constantly fighting the mass.

    Then please don't put the SC in the same category with the SL. The SL is another league as you seem to imply here. Secondly if that is the case with the SL then they've done a good job with those systems for it to be able to match and/or exceed the handling of your much lighter XLR. That and IMO a vastly better interior and styling, along with more safety features makes the SL a big winner in the market place something the XLR isn't.

    The car mags complain about weight in trucks, SUVs, sedans, sports cars and GTs alike. Of course they are inconsistent. A 4300 lbs. Town Car is heavy but they are mute about a 4300 lbs. SL or the ridiculousness of an aluminum Audi wieghing in over 2 tons. Weight is weight, and more isn't good when you can have less and still meet safety and structural requirements. The engineering solutions to manage the excess mass of the SL are band-aids that cannot conceal the weight itself. They only manage it. You feel this awkwardness in ever change of speed or direction in the SL.

    Time to turn the record over. The reason why the mags complain about weight in those cars because it either is managed too good or the weight is blatantly obvious. The SL's weight is well managed and not even you can spin that around. You keep missing the point of these cars which is why you're so hung up on this weight/feel issue. These are GT cars not sports cars and most buyers don't care about this a tenth of what you do, they want style, luxury, features, speed and good handling and the SL has the latter, so the XLR's advatange (in your mind) hasn't meant a hill of beans. Why can't you see this? If the XLR truly had such an advantage don't you think it would have caught on by now? Or is the fact that the Cadillac name is still mud to a lot of folks that keeps them from buying the "superior" XLR?

    The design aesthetic of the XLR-v isn't related to your critique. It's a superior design aesthetic to me. You are carping about other things that I don't agree are true, or I don't think they are important to the selection of which car to buy in the class.

    I'm sorry but this is bs. Design ethic could be whatever you want it to be, doesn't have to be done with cheap materials and poor fits.

    That you know of few others who understand the penalty that 500 extra pounds imposes on the SL isn't my fault. But the weight penalty is still there for anyone to experience. Whether or not brand fealty blinds someone to it, my view remains the same. The XLR-v is a great car and the innovator in the class.

    Actually isn't who I know it is the automotive press, they're clueless I guess. All of them are saying the same thing. What you don't get is that this weight advantage doesn't show up for most buyers and the cheap interior and poor reputation Cadillac has and those are the two main reasons why the XLR is a non-starter. You don't even take into account what the SL has in the way of features over the XLR as part of that weight difference, a difference that you try to hype by saying a 1/4 ton, like the SL is some lumbering SUV. Pluhease. The XLR hasn't innovated anything, it trails the class in what matters to most buyers in this class. These aren't sports cars and most luxury GT convertible buyers in this class aren't looking at weight specs, they're looking at the interior finish, material quality and other things that you dismiss or gloss over with that design ethic nonsense.

    The bottom line is that whatever handling advantage you think the XLR has over the SL doesn't matter enough in this class of car and said advantage DOES NOT outweigh the XLR's other faults, those faults being in more critical areas to the average buyer of this type of car.

    M
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Some people have a heard time getting over the perception of quality and are slow in catching on.
  • Yeah, I read the C/D comparo. What's written there doesn't correspond with my experience having driven the cars involved.

    Price? The Cadillac is competitive. Their comment on price was a matter of it being Cadillac's first 6-digits car and the writers were still getting used to that. No doubt some people feel that way. But it's an irrational reservation having nothing at all to do with the car itself.

    On interior, wrong again. All the cars have interiors distinct from one another. The Caddy's is the most straightforward, cleanest in design aesthetic, has best ergonomics for its functionality. As for materials, well, there's leather, aluminum, wood, and high-grade plastics in appropriate places, just like in the other cars. The interior issue is a red herring, unless you're comparing all the cars to a Maserati.

    Phil
  • Actually, you do have to drive the XLR-v to understand that the interior isn't the same as other GM products. You might have noticed that all GM interiors are improving rapidly with new model introductions. But if you haven't been in the car, then you don't know what you're talking about when you claim the interior can't be better than other GM interiors. Everything, every material and touch point, is better than interiors in less expensive GM cars. There is one exception -- the carpet and mats. I've said this before. The carpet/mats are not what they should be, no doubt. This isn't enough reason not to buy the car, to get the superior aspects of style and low mass with resulting handling character, compared to the the SL.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Actually, you do have to drive the XLR-v to understand that the interior isn't the same as other GM products.

    Wrong, driving a car has absolutely nothing to do with judging the quality and build of the interior, uless you're looking for squeaks and rattles.

    You might have noticed that all GM interiors are improving rapidly with new model introductions. But if you haven't been in the car, then you don't know what you're talking about when you claim the interior can't be better than other GM interiors.

    Yeah GM interiors are improving and guess what, they're still behind the competition in most areas, as are Cadillacs. Again, I've been in the XLR/V more than a few times and I've examined the interior several times and it doesn't pass for 100K, it isn't even close.

    This isn't enough reason not to buy the car, to get the superior aspects of style and low mass with resulting handling character, compared to the the SL.

    For you maybe not, but this bs about low mass and a non-existant handling advantage isn't reason for many buyers to pick the XLR over its competitor eithers or so the sales numbers prove. You gloss over the interior issue with this design ethic excuse and trump up weight and some handling advantage that hasn't shown up anywhere yet. You've got the average buyer's priorities for this segment backwards!

    M
  • I own an SL and have owned the Jag convertibles. Every now and again, I look for a change. I looked at the Cadillac and could not buy it ... and I was very open to it. It is certainly good looking and I never own a car long enough to get off warranty, so why didn't I buy it?

    The XLR is too much of a toy and not practical. Our kids are grown. My wife drives a sedan and I drive the convertible. The XLR has no storage room and therefore, is almost a 3rd car ... a toy! They need storage behind the seat and a trunk big enough with the top down to go away for a weekend with the wife or go shopping.

    Many of us better off empty nesters use these luxury convertibles as our only ride. The storage area in the XLR is just enough smaller than then the others to make it almost unfunctional.

    Just some thoughts.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Posts: 3,656
    Greetings:

    Did you drive the XLR? How did it compare/contrast to your (which model/year) SL? Ride, handling, NVH?

    A great bone of contention: The XLR interior. Your thoughts?

    '13 Jaguar XF, possibly my favorite of all the cars I've owned. But, my '09 Jag XK was a beauty, as was my '05 Acura TL, '88 Acura Integra, '84 Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo & '78 VW Scirocco (my first!). And, of course, the '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R and '95 Saab 900s I bought for the ex... Ok, I like a lot of the cars in my life.

  • This is such a rediculous error on behalf of GM. I think its the only mistake they made with the car. THe interrior has almost no storage, and this really sucks. The good news is that I think its got the biggest trunk with the top up, but the deign of the car/top/whatever means that when stowed, it kills that room. And what about interrior storage elseware? At least provide something. I understand this is Cadillac's ultamate car but a little storage would be helpful.

    Anywhay, part of me hopes the Merc guy, and C&D precail, and many people overlook the car. In terms of style/perfoaance, and value this is head and shoulders above the Mercedes. Then the value goes down and I may be able to own one. It is the best car in the class if you travel light, or with the top up untill you get to the hotel :P

    In terms of weight, acceleration, and everything else this is a better car. It is so many thousands cheaper (XLR-V vs SL55) that you must be hysterical to think the mercedes is better. The same is true for the base cars.

    Its just better, get over it.
This discussion has been closed.