That's amusing. CR's reviews are akin to what my mother-in-law would write.
The A3 weighs as much (V6 AWD) as a CTS yet has a 101" wheelbase and your telling me it drives better than the CTS?
v6? AWD? I'm talking 2.0T, starting at 25k, not that warthog AWD model with the 3.2. 2.0T with manual is around 3200 lbs. That's a significantly smaller, lighter, more responsive car.
You're comparing a tight tiny compact wagon to a roomy full size entry level lux sedan?
Both are considered entry level lux. What you call "roomy" I call yacht-like. I have no need for a car's with a cavernous interior and extreme exterior dimensions. My e90 is far too big inside and out for what I want from a 4 door vehicle.
BTW, a loaded A3 Quattro can top $40k. Is that not overpriced?
It is. But then again, the A3 I found entertaining was priced less than 30k msrp. The last CTS I drove had a sticker nearing 40k. That's 4k more than my e90 330i. :O
I wish I knew which CTS you were driving that drove like a "plow". Did you puncture the shock before getting behind the wheel?
Manual CTS loaded up with the sport package. The salesguy laughed when I said I wanted to drive a manual. He insisted nobody buys manuals and especially not a Caddy with a manual. He was convinced caddy = class and sophistication. Quite good for a laugh.
1. Not excuses, they are facts. Wheelbase length directly affects how "nimble" the car feels 2. This is America. We put emphasis on size/practicality. Some people might actually find it hard to justify spending $40k on a car who's back seat they cannot fit in. 3. Now your response can be classified as an excuse. As long as GM is getting dogged by the mags, it's a matter of fact. When things start to turn around, the mags aren't digging deep enough. Hmm, pot. kettle. black. 4. Did this same critic bother to focus the microscope on any other brand? It's easy to point to GM who is actually trying to compete unlike Ford/Chrysler who just folded under pressure. Despite the growing pains of their first effort (sigma) they are following up with an improved platform and a newer branch off (Zeta). Lincoln abandoned their LS platform. 5. I do not find where the CTS has been poorly put together. Exaggeration does not count as fact around these parts. I can't believe you could honestly use the word overpriced referencing any non-BMW model. If anything, BMW has allowed the price in this class to rise to these ridiculous levels. 6. The CTS' dash, while industrial looking is actually soft to the touch (grained portion). Lutz and GM have acknowledged spending big money on dashes that looked cheap. Now, they've come back with a nicer looking dash than probably cost less money to make. Is the CTS less ergonomic than an A4's tiny button array with no "off" button for the A/C? Was it's high centrally placed nav system less user friendly than the C's COMAND, iDrive or Audi's interface which placed the jog control on the right side of the screen furthest away from the driver? These comments are utterly ridiculous and much like the auto writers you are blaming, it seems you haven't dug deep enough into the cars that in your mind are so superior.
Judging by the sales of the current CTS, you seem alone in your opinions. I doubt most people who buy cars in this class are even enthusiast. A 50 year old woman in my department wants a 325i not because of it's reputation as the "ultimate driving machine." She wants it because it's a BMW and she doesn't like MB's (no reasons cited, just a matter of taste). She drives very slow and uninspired. She wants the car as a status symbol and despite the fact that she said she wants a quiet smooth ride and a roomy back seat, she'll probably get the 325i when a ES350 would probably fit the bill.
I fail to see why you think the CTS is so large. Its a midsize car and is sized accordingly. The car is 191 inches long which is hardly "yacht like" in my book. The DTS is a yacht as is the S550 or A8 but not the CTS. It seems like you want a really small car and in that case the CTS isnt for you but many people want a usable backseat and an airy cabin. Anyone over 5' 10" is likely to feel squeezed in a 3 series which you feel is too large.
"Manual CTS loaded up with the sport package. The salesguy laughed when I said I wanted to drive a manual. He insisted nobody buys manuals and especially not a Caddy with a manual. He was convinced caddy = class and sophistication. Quite good for a laugh. "
Most CTS models are sold with autos and this is the case for most vehicles which offer a choice of transmissions. I dont see how the dealer's attitude towards manulas is relevant to the conversation. If you wanted a CTS manual you could get one, thats the bottom line. Go to a Lexus dealer and look for a manual IS350 and see what reaction you get there. The majority of buyers in this segment want autos and thus most Caddy dealers are going to order auto equipped CTS'.
I thought you were saying "Ring" development didnt mean much and the IS was an example. If you own the IS than I assume you feel it handles well enough.
I disagree that development time at the Ring doenst mean much because I have yet to read about a product developed over there that hasn't handled well. GM had developed several vehicles over there and it seems to have paid off. I wouldn't use the CTS as an example of a vehicle that was developed over there and didn't benefit.
Don't change up on me now, you said mags are no good because they accept ad dollars. CR doesn't so read them instead. Why all the excuses?
The way you're trying to blur lines in amusing. You're comparing a base A3 with no options for $25k with a loaded CTS for $40? How? Why? The A3 2.0T has NOTHING in common with a CTS. Less mass = lighter on the feet feeling, that's elementary. I mentioned the Quattro model simply because it's price would be the one thing in common with a CTS.
I don't know how you could call a base A3 entry level lux. It's Audi's version of a Mazda3 hatchback that can cost twice as much. There's nothing entry lux about a $25 car with a urethane steering wheel and no power seat controls. Gimme a break.
What options did the CTS have compared to your $35-36k 330? Options add money so you can't say it cost $4k more if it was equipped with $4k worth of options. It kills me when people compare a 3 series naked from the factory with a loaded up competitor and wanna talk price and value. BTW, Cadillac must serve a larger range of buyer with the CTS. They must serve people who like to drive as well as people who only want one because it's a cadillac. BMW markets their cars to enthusiasts only, which is fine. Poseurs who drive BMWs just because are the ones that have to put up with the firm ride, hard seats and 35 series run flat tires when all they wanted was a status symbol for a car.
I couldn't agree with you more. I remember when the original G35 came out, although it was fast and delivered good value, it wasn't refined enough and it's interior too cheap. Now that it's improved those areas, it's considered soft. If you aren't BMW in this class of vehicle, you can't win- PLAIN and simple. The IS350 currently has the best interior design and detail in the class in my opinion yet this is rarely mentioned. It's gauges and center stack run laps around the 3 series and so are all the other aesthetics yet this didn't matter because VDIM or whatever it's called couldn't be shut down (prior to '07 m.y.). These comments are aimed primarily against Car & Driver.
You honestly believe CR approaches reviews with an eye toward anything that would interest an enthusiast? Have you read a CR review? It's like a 50 year old lady wrote them.
You're comparing a base A3 with no options for $25k with a loaded CTS for $40? How? Why? The A3 2.0T has NOTHING in common with a CTS.
Ah, they're both entry level cars for the lux make.
What options did the CTS have compared to your $35-36k 330? Options add money so you can't say it cost $4k more if it was equipped with $4k worth of options.
My 2006 330i has xenons, sport package, leather, pdc, comfort access, moonroof, memory seats, power everything for $35.7k
A comparable CTS = $39,780. That's a 3.6 with sport, leather, xenons, luxury package, moonroof. It's still lacking my pdc and comfort access but I'll overlook that as the CTS has got some worthless doodads I'd never touch like dimming mirrors and such.
Investment banker Dresdner Kleinwort said BMW incentives in the U.S. are causing concern.
"BMW's discounting practice in the U.S. leaves us speechless. Since May 2006, BMW has offered structurally higher incentives compared to its peers and there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel," Frankfurt, Germany-based Dresdner Kleinwort said in a report.
"Incentives stand at an average of $4,125 per vehicle, which is about 60 percent higher compared to Mercedes ($2,573) and Audi ($2,607). Most of these discounts are related to BMW's active move into competitive lease deals," the report said.
Shrug and the lease deals work out for many reasons:
1. They get a buyer back into the fold after the lease 2. New buyers are sucked in by low leases 3. CPO cars = big profits and cpo cars from off-lease, cared for BMWs are common
Dude, I've had all the mags: CR, MT, C&D, etc. The point was you wanted objective reviews and as far as I know, CR is the only one that doesn't take money from the manufacturers.
Both entry level cars for the luxury maker? That makes them comparable? Wow.
What's pdc? An '06 330i with leather, spt pck, and comfort access cost $40,848. Is $35.7k what you paid cause it sure ain't the MSRP or even the invoice.
A 50 year old woman in my department wants a 325i not because of it's reputation as the "ultimate driving machine." She wants it because it's a BMW and she doesn't like MB's (no reasons cited, just a matter of taste). She drives very slow and uninspired. She wants the car as a status symbol and despite the fact that she said she wants a quiet smooth ride and a roomy back seat, she'll probably get the 325i when a ES350 would probably fit the bill.
One of my prior points...she lives in the US and chooses a non-US manufacturer. This is happening in ALL segments.
I really hope GM keeps developing and improving. IMO, I do not like the package they offer in either CTS or STS currently. It's as simple as that.
I also do not defend any manufacturer one way or the other but judge by the result of the product after I try it. But if they can't get me in their car because of the non-preferable looks, it's over for me. What does CTS stand for anyway? Could This Satisfy??
Actually, out of all of the ELLPS in the looks department, the new G is quite appealing to me as is the 335i coupe.
he point was you wanted objective reviews and as far as I know, CR is the only one that doesn't take money from the manufacturers.
1. We can't prove they do or do not take money... 2. Assume I care what CR (or any mag writer) has to say about any product.
Both entry level cars for the luxury maker? That makes them comparable? Wow.
You're right, they aren't, as the Caddy is inferior to everything else I can think of: IS350, TL, G35, C class, A3/4, 3 series, etc.
What's pdc? An '06 330i with leather, spt pck, and comfort access cost $40,848. Is $35.7k what you paid cause it sure ain't the MSRP or even the invoice.
Yes it's what I paid. SPDC = park distance control. Even if the Caddy had been 5k cheaper than my car, it would have been outrageously overpriced.
bluedotguy, read up on CR a little more. If you do you'll find that their testing methods are the most sound from an experimentation standpoint than any other auto publisher. You may not want to believe that because their reviews don't focus a great amount of time on the one component that other publishers do but it's true. If you want to argue this point then it just tells us you truly don't know their methods.
bluedotguy, read up on CR a little more. If you do you'll find that their testing methods are the most sound from an experimentation standpoint than any other auto publisher.
I'm well aware of their propaganda.
You may not want to believe that because their reviews don't focus a great amount of time on the one component that other publishers do but it's true. If you want to argue this point then it just tells us you truly don't know their methods.
I know their methods, their claims of objectivity and I'm well aware of the mystique some provide them with - my father swears by them. That said, if I want to find out about a dryer or stovetop, I'll check their data. If want a car review...I'll go drive the car for myself.
Tell me, do you really let the review of someone on say R&T influence your decision? Will a grandma's review from CR push you away from an RX8 because the reviewer writes that the car rides rough?
Or are you talking about projected data related to reliability and such? Data some - like my father - take as gospel. I've personally owned two BMWs, a Mazda and a VW in the past 6 years. Of those 4 cars, only one was an exceptional car that never had a single problem: the Mazda. Does CR's data back that up or refute it? Don't know; don't care. I bought the other cars for fun and my next vehicle in 08 (unless God answer's my prayers and kills my e90 or gets it stolen in 07) will be purchased based more on emotion than data.
I can live with the highly rated toaster or the suggested grill but when it comes to cars - something I'm passionate about - I don't care about the reliability/IQS scores. It's a toy first, appliance second.
I don't buy my cars based on the reviews of any publisher. My point was that as far as publishers go their data and test methods are the most reliable and are tied to the specific purpose of the vehicle. That's why some of their highest rated vehicles are sports cars. So, they don't always just base all comparisons around the Accord and Camry.
Oh, as for the reliability/IQS scores you should realize they are based on the likelihood you'll experience a problem. Simply stating a car is reliable does not mean it will never encounter problems. It merely means the ones rated highest have the least likelihood of experiencing problems. So, it's probable but not likely a car rated highly can have a lot of problems and likewise a car rated poorly can have none.
The CTS and any other RWD sports sedan is more balanced than a front heavy Audi.
The 2.0T Audi A3 is very balanced and not front heavy at all in the least bit. You could argue the 3.2 V6 Audi A3 is a bit front heavy, but not the 2.0T.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't know how you could call a base A3 entry level lux. It's Audi's version of a Mazda3 hatchback that can cost twice as much. There's nothing entry lux about a $25 car with a urethane steering wheel and no power seat controls. Gimme a break.
LOL, are you kidding? Everything in, on, and about the Audi A3 speaks luxury and sporty refinement. The interiors fit and finish and build quality is supreme. The plastics are of extremely high quality and have that "soft" feel to them. The steering wheel on sport and premium trim lines in an extremely high quality leather (I agree Audi screwed up the base version steering wheel big time). However, you can still get a sport or premium 2.0T A3 for less than 30K MSRP.
Numerous reviews have praised the interior ergonomics and refinement. The leather seats are very nice. Even the base version cloth is superior to other cloths. The A3 is a luxurious, more sophisticated and faster Mazda 3 Hatch, and is priced accordingly. The Mazda 3 is a great car for its price by the way. Features do not make a car entry-lux. If you want power seat, get the premium package, if you want sport, forget the power seat and get the sport package with firmer and lowered suspension.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Are you seriously stating that cars like the GS, IS, STS, CTS, etc. have ntohign in common with the C, E, 3 and 5?"
No, I was saying that Cadillac has nothing in common with Lexus. You put Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence comparing them to German cars. Japan competes with Germany pretty well. In spite of owning a 911, I am still not afraid to steer soemone to my former Honda S2000 over a base Boxster. But when I consider all factors: build quality, fit and finish, driving dynamics, resale value, styling (subjective as it may be), I just can't accept that Cadillac really competes with EITHER the German or japanese premium cars.
"Never said the CTS is a leader in resale value but I have to admit your numbers seem a little off. I rarely see used CTS models around here for under $24k or so. Are those numbers based on one particular car you saw for sale or did you get that from kbb? sorry but $40K to $18k in three years seems a little off to me."
I got my numbers from Edmunds used car values, for 2004 models with 30,000 miles in "clean" condition, and comparably equiped. I was quoting dealer trade in values.
I really don't want to disparage someone who may prefer Cadillac. They may not be my cup of tea but I can accept that some people have different priorities. But I do believe that the ridiculously low resale values of GM cars in general (forget trucks and the Corvette) says a lot about their long term appeal. One thing I can almost guarantee you - if I took my 12 year old Maxima w/ 155k miles to a GM dealer, I'd be hard pressed to find a 3-4 year old car with 40,000 miles that looked as good, was a rattle free and drove as well.
Break dust IS really annoying, but lets get to the heart of the problem.
When people are compairing brakes (Lexus, BMW, etc) they are mostly disucussing issues with pads. It is true that every 20k I had to replace my pads on my BMW. But the difference with the BMW and the Lexus is that when I replaced my BMW pads, the rotors were perfectly fine and I got 3 sets of pads out of the original BMW rotors. On the flip side, with my Lexus IS250, I need to replace the pads and the rotors that the pads wore down 2mm. (Lexus does not machine at the dealer, you have to go outside of the dealer, then that gives them a fall guy to blame later "it was that non-Lexus shop that damaged your car, sorry not under warranty")
I expect to get high amounts of dust and frequently change the pads on any and all high-line perfomance cars. What is totally rediculous is having to replace the rotors with the pads every 20k and having Lexus think that it's normal.
FYI: I bought my IS 01/03/05 and 20k later up to today have had an issue with the brakes and they kept telling me that it was my driving. At the same time, they had this document in their TIS system:
Then on 06/30/06 Lexus released a TSIB on changing the brakes on 06/07 GS and IS models under warranty (free of charge), because so many people were complaining about the brakes. Here it is:
The interesting part here is not that they finally ponied up to fix their mistake (minus the rotors yet), but that it shows what type of a company they are when they blame you for a problem, knowing that the problem exists because they officially dont want to take responsibility for it. That is not what BMW does in my experience during my ownership of my 330i. It was always "Have a seat Mr. Will and we will see what the problem is with your 330i, or would you like a courtesy car?"
Edmunds figures are averages, no doubt. They did not use your personal cars as their models for calculations. So what? Where did you get your $22k 3 year depreciation figure on the CTS? If you are looking at leasing residual value guides, I believe you'll find those percentages are based on MSRP, not actual or TMV purchase prices. And when you calculated your $9k depreciation on your own Acura, how did you arrive at your figure? Edmunds is probably better than most when it comes to figuring True Cost To Own figures. If you think they are doing it wrong and can convince them why, I bet they'd welcome your input.
Don't like Edmunds? Here's what Intellichoice says are new luxury cars with the lowest ownership costs: (Cadillac STS is 4th best, Volvo S80 is 9th, Audi A6 is in 10th place)
New 2007 Cars with Lowest Ownership Costs
Best of Luxury Class
Saab 9-5............................Audi A6 3.2 Audi A6 3.2 Quattro............BMW 525 xi BMW 530 i........................BMW 525 i Cadillac STS V6.................Infiniti M35 Sport Infiniti M35 AWD.................Infiniti M35 Lexus GS 300 RWD............Lexus GS 300 AWD Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI....Saab 9-5 SportCombi Saab 9-5 w/Sport Package...Saab 9-5 SportCombi w/Sport Pkg Volvo S80............................Volvo S80 AWD
5 year ownership cost is: $46399 for Cadillac CTS 3.6 liter $44365 for Acura TL type S
The simple truth is that the A4 feels good adn seems to be a better car... until you push it hard. THen the illusion fall apart.
The CTS, otoh, it has a typical overboosted GM steering feel, but despite the numb wheel, it flies through twisties when you whomp on it. And with the 3.6VVT engine, you really can whomp on it hard.
Do a check online to see the new CTS-V being tested at "The Ring" - it growls and screams around the track like a startled animal. And goes like it's possessed - I mean, really, REALLY faster than any sane person could or would drive in the U.S. outside of a racetrack. At the end of the clip, note how it storms up on that white hatchback. That tells you how silly fast it's being driven.
Really - watch it and try to not keep your brain from siezing up. It drives well, perhaps "Cadillac" needs to put a new badge on it, because it's like no Cadillac that I've ever seen before. I guess this would be like buying an apple and it tasting like a strawberry when you bit into it. Something doesn't click in place. Lol.
The CTS-V is not part of this discussion. That said, folks from the Infiniti, Lexus, Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Cadillac camps have been saying for nearly a decade that BMW has lots of worring to do, and that "the end is near". I suppose folks will keep saying that for quite some time to come, however, BMW always seems to have no problem keeping the competition covered, and then some. I understand that there are a lot of folks out there that are constantly pulling for the underdog, and that no matter how good the reigning champ is, they'll always prognosticate a complete fall from grace in the very near term future.
My prediction? Not happening any time soon. Competition is a good thing. Competition improves the breed. BMW loves competition, thrives on it, feeds off of it, and contiually does what it can to both raise the bar from a performance perspective AND cater to its fans who could care less about the sporting nature of their cars. Worry? Nah. Keeping a sharp eye peeled to figure out where the next battle ground will be? Absolutely. ;-)
I'm really trying to understand how the FWD sled called the MKZ would fit in the ELLPS classification. I mean, is it sporting by Lincoln standards? Ummm, no, I don't think so, I mean, geez, an old Lincoln LS would be able to take that thing apart from a sporting nature. Sporting by ELLPS standards? I'm even more skeptical there.
Sorry, I think the MKZ needs to find another home.
Save your breath - I don't put much credibility in any of the "true cost to own" lists. Not Edmunds, Intellichoice, Kiplingers, or others. I think they try to be as accurate as they can, but they are, at best, based upon a lot of hypotheticals that don't match my own experience. I have always paid cash for all my cars. Has kept me from ever spending beyond my comfort level. Depreciation is a factor I consider, if I think there is a chance I'll sell/trade the car in less than 5-7 years.
From Kelly Blue Book, the "trade in" value for 2004 models of the Acura TL 6-speed w/ Nav and the CTS 5-speed w/ Nav, 30,000 miles each and "excellent" condition:
Acura TL: $23,875 vs. current MSRP of $36,125 = $12,250 "loss" vs. new MSRP Cadillac CTS: $18,625 vs. current MSRP of $41,180 = $22,555 "loss" vs. new MSRP
Everything on the TL (other than Nav) is standard, so it's hard to be sure I'm correctly optioning the CTS, but at a minimum, it appears the difference in MSRP is $5,000 without all the standard features offered by Acura.
The "true cost of depreciation" by my calcs shows the TL $10,000+ ahead of the CTS. Those are real numbers that are from real (KBB) trade in values today. You ask the Edmunds host and others how they came up with their figures. It is a mystery to me.
P.S. I suspect you'll counter that GM might give me a bigger discount on the CTS than I could get from Acura on the TL. But I managed to negotiate a $10,000 discount on a brand new 2005 Porsche 911S from a Baltimore dealer when the best I could do in the DC area was about $1,500 off. I would rather work hard to get a decent/good discount on a great car, than get a great discount on a (IMO) ugly, lower quality car.
P.P.S. My Acura dealer wants to buy back my TL for cash at slightly MORE than KBB Trade in value. It is a highly desireable car in the used car market. Try finding a Cadillac dealer that would do that with a 2004 CTS - not in a million years, at least in our area.
I would rather work hard to get a decent/good discount on a great car, than get a great discount on a (IMO) ugly, lower quality car.
Agree 100%. Say the CTS is $38K out the door. Let's go with a 335i sedan at $44,000. I think the $6k is not only justified for the return but since you can get the Bimmer for a lot less on ED, the difference would be halved and the return is golden at that point in comparison to the class of vehicle you get for the added $. But I can NEVER see someone cross-shopping BMW vs. Caddy! How odd! Since this rarely happens anyway, the point is moot. More likely CTS vs. MKZ.
CTS inferior to C class? I think not. The C class is the most inferior car in the segment. Again, how is the CTS or any other car in the class remotely comparable to the A3? You're out in left field with that one. The A4 is based on a decades old chassis and it has the lowest output of all the V6s in the class. Gimme a break man.
CTS is outrageously overpriced compared to a 3 series? You are really out there with that one. I don't know how you managed to get an expensive 3 series for so cheap but that does not reflect the sticker price. How can you make price comparisons based on price paid? We can only go by MSRPs because they are consistent across the board.
"Even if the Caddy had been 5k cheaper than my car, it would have been outrageously overpriced."
That pretty much sums up your form of logic. I don't see how this statement can even be made with a straight face.
I don't know what you people count as "sport" or "luxury" but any "premium" brand base model vehicle with no options is about the dumbest buy you can make. That's a true sign of buying into the brand more than buying into the particular car. As for the A3, I would never drive the base model with no luxury features. That would be a joke. I don't know what A3 you're talking about but the entire dash board is one solid hard plastic mold. Does it seem well assembled, sure. So what? CTS at least has soft plastic grain. Are you saying what makes a car "speak" luxury and sporty are nice fit and finish and complicated audio/climate controls? If that's the case, you could consider a bunch of cars luxury. My point is I don't consider a souped up VW Rabbit hatchback that weighs 3600 lbs and luxury car. Sorry.
PS- one of the cars in my garage is a Mazda3 for commuter duty. It ain't all it's cracked up to be and has had numerous issues with brakes (rears completely shot after a 1.5 years- $500 repair under warranty), creaking and rattling, terrible fuel economy (averaging 18mpg overall with 27k mi) rough idling, tranny shift shock, emissions equipment repair, and a scratch prone interior. The press and reviews don't mean jack to me because they worship this little annoying car.
Intellichoice figures in my previous post were for 2007 cars, not 2004. They are best estimations of what an average owner can reasonably expect, not numbers based on your own personal cars and your one person experience. I already told you that. MSRPs on the 07's don't matter because Intellichoice starts by giving the shopper a reasonable target purchase price, not one that requires them to drive to your Baltimore dealer or one that might for some reason sell a car with a discount six or seven times that offered by another dealer. In the case of CTS/TLS the target prices were CTS $31,302 and TLS-S $36,504. The five year ownership costs are averages for average owners, not supermen like you who achieve special deals on price, insurance, repair costs, financing, resale, fuel, maintenance, etc. But I agree with you if your idea is that a person should not necessarily seek a purchase price or resale price that some guide says is average. I trust you for your own opinion of what your own experiences are with your own cars in your own mind. Fair enough? But for a more realistic comparison guide as to what average owners can expect from any of hundreds of cars, I'll trust Intellichoice or Edmunds or Kelley, etc. Even if their numbers don't end up exactly matching mine after I buy, own and resell a car, my guess is that their rankings of one car against the others would still place them in about the same order in cost of ownership as I'd have realized had I owned several hundred of the cars at the same time. Guides are useful as guides. You are not meant to copy the numbers from them into your diary expecting them to match your personal experiences.
Lincoln MKZ is the entry level sedan from an established LUXURY nameplate which is intended by that manufacturer to be both sporty and luxurious. Seems to meet the requirements of an ELLPS. To be included in the discussion it does not have to be a slam-dunk winner. Hey, someone has to finish in last place, why not give more cars the chance?
CTS interior don't belong in the same sentence Chavis.
They just don't. I haven't been in an '08, but based on track record up until now, it's still Playskool-a division of General Motors.
From the pics I've seen, the proposed Pontiac G8 interior is more true lux than a CTS. Know who Lutz said they're using for sport-lux interior benchmarking?
Give me a break! You're speculating about interior quality of cars that aren't even in production yet, from pictures of concept cars? Wow...
Unfortunately, based on past results, GM bean-counters always step in in terms of interior quality and materials, and production variants almost always end up worse than concepts. The new CTS may perform, but GM needs to keep the accountants out of the interior in order for this car to even have a chance.
"any "premium" brand base model vehicle with no options is about the dumbest buy you can make."
Actually, I think it's the smartest buy you can make. I just built a BMW 328i with Premium Package, Active Cruise Control, Nav, Logic 7, Active Steering, Cold WX Package, Comfort Access, Sun Shades, Split-fold Rear Seat, Park Distance, and Metallic Paint. MSRP is $47,170.
The base 328i with no added options is $33,095.
The base 328i has the same wheels and tires, the same engine, same suspension, same interior (admittedly without leather), and the same exterior. It performs the same, looks the same, and feels the same yet costs $14,000 less!
This segment should be about the perfect blend of performance and comfort. I'd be thrilled to own and drive a brand-new BMW sport sedan for only $33,000. If I paid $47,000 for the same car, I'd hide my head in the sand.
"I don't know what you people count as "sport" or "luxury" but any "premium" brand base model vehicle with no options is about the dumbest buy you can make."
Different strokes for different folks. Some people strictly want a well balanced performance sedan with no frills. Others want a floating couch with every luxury item known to man. Most want something in the middle.
"That's a true sign of buying into the brand more than buying into the particular car." I don't agree. You can get a stripped G or a 3er and it will provide more performance than any other car in this segment i.e. if that is what your goal is.
Unfortunately, based on past results, GM bean-counters always step in in terms of interior quality and materials, and production variants almost always end up worse than concepts. The new CTS may perform, but GM needs to keep the accountants out of the interior in order for this car to even have a chance.
This is exactly one of the big reasons why GM/Ford/Chrysler are below the rest of the world. Cut the costs at all costs...result...crappy cars.
As you all know, it doesn't just happen in the auto industry.
chavis10 says: "The C class is the most inferior car in the segment".
I just had to chime in here. I bought a new car 11 months ago and went with the MB C280. I believe it really depends on what one is looking for in a car. I know that all the pundits seem to toss the C-class out as just not cutting it; but I compared to the BMW 3-series and the CTS (mine is an '06 not an '07). I have to say I was impressed with the CTS, in that it turns on a dime, is responsive, has good output (I tested the 2.8 liter/210 hp version). I went with the C280, though, for a few reasons.
First, I wanted a car with AWD given I live in a snow and ice area.
Second, I wanted a car with great suspension tuning; with all the $%& potholes around here.
Third, I wanted a narrow car (all of them are in this class), and the C-class was a couple of inches narrower than the CTS (or the BMW). I have a small garage and live in an urban area with tight spots.
So... my criteria could be a little different than most, but in an area where there aren't huge differences between these or the G35, IMO, its the little things that are important to different people that vary from buyer to buyer.
I dont want to get flamed for this, but based on the pics I've seen the new CTS interior seems to be quite nice. I dont know how relevant "track record" is when talking about an all new model. Personally, I think the new CTS interior looks as good as the TL, A4 or 3 series. I also like it better than the G8 interior.
I don't know what you people count as "sport" or "luxury" but any "premium" brand base model vehicle with no options is about the dumbest buy you can make.
Hmmm. I'd contend loading the car with options is the dumbest buy - you will lose money on every option and some options won't even show up for KBB/Edmunds/Nada pricing so you lose even more.
Like buying the smallest house on a nice block, buying the cheapest of a luxury brand isn't going to hurt you nearly as much financially.
Fed's 33k 328 is a great example. Buy that car and say it's worth 58% in 3 years. So 19.1k residual. That means he's out 17.2k (33k + 10% TTL).
The 47k car drops to 27260 (assuming all the features are shown as a value add...which they aren't!), so the guy who got that car is out at least 24.4k (47k + 10%ttl - residual). Of course that loaded car's features won't all be listed, so he's really gonna be down even more.
Comments
Yes. i like the first gen far more.
That's amusing. CR's reviews are akin to what my mother-in-law would write.
The A3 weighs as much (V6 AWD) as a CTS yet has a 101" wheelbase and your telling me it drives better than the CTS?
v6? AWD? I'm talking 2.0T, starting at 25k, not that warthog AWD model with the 3.2. 2.0T with manual is around 3200 lbs. That's a significantly smaller, lighter, more responsive car.
You're comparing a tight tiny compact wagon to a roomy full size entry level lux sedan?
Both are considered entry level lux. What you call "roomy" I call yacht-like. I have no need for a car's with a cavernous interior and extreme exterior dimensions. My e90 is far too big inside and out for what I want from a 4 door vehicle.
BTW, a loaded A3 Quattro can top $40k. Is that not overpriced?
It is. But then again, the A3 I found entertaining was priced less than 30k msrp. The last CTS I drove had a sticker nearing 40k. That's 4k more than my e90 330i. :O
I wish I knew which CTS you were driving that drove like a "plow". Did you puncture the shock before getting behind the wheel?
Manual CTS loaded up with the sport package. The salesguy laughed when I said I wanted to drive a manual. He insisted nobody buys manuals and especially not a Caddy with a manual. He was convinced caddy = class and sophistication. Quite good for a laugh.
2. This is America. We put emphasis on size/practicality. Some people might actually find it hard to justify spending $40k on a car who's back seat they cannot fit in.
3. Now your response can be classified as an excuse. As long as GM is getting dogged by the mags, it's a matter of fact. When things start to turn around, the mags aren't digging deep enough. Hmm, pot. kettle. black.
4. Did this same critic bother to focus the microscope on any other brand? It's easy to point to GM who is actually trying to compete unlike Ford/Chrysler who just folded under pressure. Despite the growing pains of their first effort (sigma) they are following up with an improved platform and a newer branch off (Zeta). Lincoln abandoned their LS platform.
5. I do not find where the CTS has been poorly put together. Exaggeration does not count as fact around these parts. I can't believe you could honestly use the word overpriced referencing any non-BMW model. If anything, BMW has allowed the price in this class to rise to these ridiculous levels.
6. The CTS' dash, while industrial looking is actually soft to the touch (grained portion). Lutz and GM have acknowledged spending big money on dashes that looked cheap. Now, they've come back with a nicer looking dash than probably cost less money to make. Is the CTS less ergonomic than an A4's tiny button array with no "off" button for the A/C? Was it's high centrally placed nav system less user friendly than the C's COMAND, iDrive or Audi's interface which placed the jog control on the right side of the screen furthest away from the driver? These comments are utterly ridiculous and much like the auto writers you are blaming, it seems you haven't dug deep enough into the cars that in your mind are so superior.
Judging by the sales of the current CTS, you seem alone in your opinions. I doubt most people who buy cars in this class are even enthusiast. A 50 year old woman in my department wants a 325i not because of it's reputation as the "ultimate driving machine." She wants it because it's a BMW and she doesn't like MB's (no reasons cited, just a matter of taste). She drives very slow and uninspired. She wants the car as a status symbol and despite the fact that she said she wants a quiet smooth ride and a roomy back seat, she'll probably get the 325i when a ES350 would probably fit the bill.
"Manual CTS loaded up with the sport package. The salesguy laughed when I said I wanted to drive a manual. He insisted nobody buys manuals and especially not a Caddy with a manual. He was convinced caddy = class and sophistication. Quite good for a laugh. "
Most CTS models are sold with autos and this is the case for most vehicles which offer a choice of transmissions. I dont see how the dealer's attitude towards manulas is relevant to the conversation. If you wanted a CTS manual you could get one, thats the bottom line. Go to a Lexus dealer and look for a manual IS350 and see what reaction you get there. The majority of buyers in this segment want autos and thus most Caddy dealers are going to order auto equipped CTS'.
I disagree that development time at the Ring doenst mean much because I have yet to read about a product developed over there that hasn't handled well. GM had developed several vehicles over there and it seems to have paid off. I wouldn't use the CTS as an example of a vehicle that was developed over there and didn't benefit.
The way you're trying to blur lines in amusing. You're comparing a base A3 with no options for $25k with a loaded CTS for $40? How? Why? The A3 2.0T has NOTHING in common with a CTS. Less mass = lighter on the feet feeling, that's elementary. I mentioned the Quattro model simply because it's price would be the one thing in common with a CTS.
I don't know how you could call a base A3 entry level lux. It's Audi's version of a Mazda3 hatchback that can cost twice as much. There's nothing entry lux about a $25 car with a urethane steering wheel and no power seat controls. Gimme a break.
What options did the CTS have compared to your $35-36k 330? Options add money so you can't say it cost $4k more if it was equipped with $4k worth of options. It kills me when people compare a 3 series naked from the factory with a loaded up competitor and wanna talk price and value. BTW, Cadillac must serve a larger range of buyer with the CTS. They must serve people who like to drive as well as people who only want one because it's a cadillac. BMW markets their cars to enthusiasts only, which is fine. Poseurs who drive BMWs just because are the ones that have to put up with the firm ride, hard seats and 35 series run flat tires when all they wanted was a status symbol for a car.
You honestly believe CR approaches reviews with an eye toward anything that would interest an enthusiast? Have you read a CR review? It's like a 50 year old lady wrote them.
You're comparing a base A3 with no options for $25k with a loaded CTS for $40? How? Why? The A3 2.0T has NOTHING in common with a CTS.
Ah, they're both entry level cars for the lux make.
What options did the CTS have compared to your $35-36k 330? Options add money so you can't say it cost $4k more if it was equipped with $4k worth of options.
My 2006 330i has xenons, sport package, leather, pdc, comfort access, moonroof, memory seats, power everything for $35.7k
A comparable CTS = $39,780. That's a 3.6 with sport, leather, xenons, luxury package, moonroof. It's still lacking my pdc and comfort access but I'll overlook that as the CTS has got some worthless doodads I'd never touch like dimming mirrors and such.
Investment banker Dresdner Kleinwort said BMW incentives in the U.S. are causing concern.
"BMW's discounting practice in the U.S. leaves us speechless. Since May 2006, BMW has offered structurally higher incentives compared to its peers and there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel," Frankfurt, Germany-based Dresdner Kleinwort said in a report.
"Incentives stand at an average of $4,125 per vehicle, which is about 60 percent higher compared to Mercedes ($2,573) and Audi ($2,607). Most of these discounts are related to BMW's active move into competitive lease deals," the report said.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/UPDATE/703060451/1148- /AUTO01
1. They get a buyer back into the fold after the lease
2. New buyers are sucked in by low leases
3. CPO cars = big profits and cpo cars from off-lease, cared for BMWs are common
Both entry level cars for the luxury maker? That makes them comparable? Wow.
What's pdc? An '06 330i with leather, spt pck, and comfort access cost $40,848. Is $35.7k what you paid cause it sure ain't the MSRP or even the invoice.
One of my prior points...she lives in the US and chooses a non-US manufacturer. This is happening in ALL segments.
I wonder why she didn't choose Caddy??
Regards,
OW
I really hope GM keeps developing and improving. IMO, I do not like the package they offer in either CTS or STS currently. It's as simple as that.
I also do not defend any manufacturer one way or the other but judge by the result of the product after I try it. But if they can't get me in their car because of the non-preferable looks, it's over for me. What does CTS stand for anyway? Could This Satisfy??
Actually, out of all of the ELLPS in the looks department, the new G is quite appealing to me as is the 335i coupe.
Regards,
OW
1. We can't prove they do or do not take money...
2. Assume I care what CR (or any mag writer) has to say about any product.
Both entry level cars for the luxury maker? That makes them comparable? Wow.
You're right, they aren't, as the Caddy is inferior to everything else I can think of: IS350, TL, G35, C class, A3/4, 3 series, etc.
What's pdc? An '06 330i with leather, spt pck, and comfort access cost $40,848. Is $35.7k what you paid cause it sure ain't the MSRP or even the invoice.
Yes it's what I paid. SPDC = park distance control. Even if the Caddy had been 5k cheaper than my car, it would have been outrageously overpriced.
I'm well aware of their propaganda.
You may not want to believe that because their reviews don't focus a great amount of time on the one component that other publishers do but it's true. If you want to argue this point then it just tells us you truly don't know their methods.
I know their methods, their claims of objectivity and I'm well aware of the mystique some provide them with - my father swears by them. That said, if I want to find out about a dryer or stovetop, I'll check their data. If want a car review...I'll go drive the car for myself.
Tell me, do you really let the review of someone on say R&T influence your decision? Will a grandma's review from CR push you away from an RX8 because the reviewer writes that the car rides rough?
Or are you talking about projected data related to reliability and such? Data some - like my father - take as gospel. I've personally owned two BMWs, a Mazda and a VW in the past 6 years. Of those 4 cars, only one was an exceptional car that never had a single problem: the Mazda. Does CR's data back that up or refute it? Don't know; don't care. I bought the other cars for fun and my next vehicle in 08 (unless God answer's my prayers and kills my e90 or gets it stolen in 07) will be purchased based more on emotion than data.
I can live with the highly rated toaster or the suggested grill but when it comes to cars - something I'm passionate about - I don't care about the reliability/IQS scores. It's a toy first, appliance second.
Oh, as for the reliability/IQS scores you should realize they are based on the likelihood you'll experience a problem. Simply stating a car is reliable does not mean it will never encounter problems. It merely means the ones rated highest have the least likelihood of experiencing problems. So, it's probable but not likely a car rated highly can have a lot of problems and likewise a car rated poorly can have none.
The 2.0T Audi A3 is very balanced and not front heavy at all in the least bit. You could argue the 3.2 V6 Audi A3 is a bit front heavy, but not the 2.0T.
LOL, are you kidding?
Numerous reviews have praised the interior ergonomics and refinement. The leather seats are very nice. Even the base version cloth is superior to other cloths. The A3 is a luxurious, more sophisticated and faster Mazda 3 Hatch, and is priced accordingly. The Mazda 3 is a great car for its price by the way. Features do not make a car entry-lux. If you want power seat, get the premium package, if you want sport, forget the power seat and get the sport package with firmer and lowered suspension.
No, I was saying that Cadillac has nothing in common with Lexus. You put Cadillac and Lexus in the same sentence comparing them to German cars. Japan competes with Germany pretty well. In spite of owning a 911, I am still not afraid to steer soemone to my former Honda S2000 over a base Boxster. But when I consider all factors: build quality, fit and finish, driving dynamics, resale value, styling (subjective as it may be), I just can't accept that Cadillac really competes with EITHER the German or japanese premium cars.
"Never said the CTS is a leader in resale value but I have to admit your numbers seem a little off. I rarely see used CTS models around here for under $24k or so. Are those numbers based on one particular car you saw for sale or did you get that from kbb? sorry but $40K to $18k in three years seems a little off to me."
I got my numbers from Edmunds used car values, for 2004 models with 30,000 miles in "clean" condition, and comparably equiped. I was quoting dealer trade in values.
I really don't want to disparage someone who may prefer Cadillac. They may not be my cup of tea but I can accept that some people have different priorities. But I do believe that the ridiculously low resale values of GM cars in general (forget trucks and the Corvette) says a lot about their long term appeal. One thing I can almost guarantee you - if I took my 12 year old Maxima w/ 155k miles to a GM dealer, I'd be hard pressed to find a 3-4 year old car with 40,000 miles that looked as good, was a rattle free and drove as well.
When people are compairing brakes (Lexus, BMW, etc) they are mostly disucussing issues with pads. It is true that every 20k I had to replace my pads on my BMW. But the difference with the BMW and the Lexus is that when I replaced my BMW pads, the rotors were perfectly fine and I got 3 sets of pads out of the original BMW rotors. On the flip side, with my Lexus IS250, I need to replace the pads and the rotors that the pads wore down 2mm. (Lexus does not machine at the dealer, you have to go outside of the dealer, then that gives them a fall guy to blame later "it was that non-Lexus shop that damaged your car, sorry not under warranty")
I expect to get high amounts of dust and frequently change the pads on any and all high-line perfomance cars. What is totally rediculous is having to replace the rotors with the pads every 20k and having Lexus think that it's normal.
FYI: I bought my IS 01/03/05 and 20k later up to today have had an issue with the brakes and they kept telling me that it was my driving. At the same time, they had this document in their TIS system:
Then on 06/30/06 Lexus released a TSIB on changing the brakes on 06/07 GS and IS models under warranty (free of charge), because so many people were complaining about the brakes. Here it is:
The interesting part here is not that they finally ponied up to fix their mistake (minus the rotors yet), but that it shows what type of a company they are when they blame you for a problem, knowing that the problem exists because they officially dont want to take responsibility for it. That is not what BMW does in my experience during my ownership of my 330i. It was always "Have a seat Mr. Will and we will see what the problem is with your 330i, or would you like a courtesy car?"
Lexus is a baby Enron in my opinion.
Party on!
Where did you get your $22k 3 year depreciation figure on the CTS? If you are looking at leasing residual value guides, I believe you'll find those percentages are based on MSRP, not actual or TMV purchase prices.
And when you calculated your $9k depreciation on your own Acura, how did you arrive at your figure?
Edmunds is probably better than most when it comes to figuring True Cost To Own figures. If you think they are doing it wrong and can convince them why, I bet they'd welcome your input.
(Cadillac STS is 4th best, Volvo S80 is 9th, Audi A6 is in 10th place)
New 2007 Cars with Lowest Ownership Costs
Best of Luxury Class
Saab 9-5............................Audi A6 3.2
Audi A6 3.2 Quattro............BMW 525 xi
BMW 530 i........................BMW 525 i
Cadillac STS V6.................Infiniti M35 Sport
Infiniti M35 AWD.................Infiniti M35
Lexus GS 300 RWD............Lexus GS 300 AWD
Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI....Saab 9-5 SportCombi
Saab 9-5 w/Sport Package...Saab 9-5 SportCombi w/Sport Pkg
Volvo S80............................Volvo S80 AWD
5 year ownership cost is:
$46399 for Cadillac CTS 3.6 liter
$44365 for Acura TL type S
Depreciation...$21,229....$18,092.....$18,365
Financing.........$5,019.....$5,699.......$5,941
Insurance.........$8,935.....$8,734......$10,150
State.Fees..........$392.......$429.........$434
Fuel.................$8,667.....$8,663.....$8,887
Maintenance....$1,722.....$2,466.....$1,512
Repairs..............$433........$281.........$986
The simple truth is that the A4 feels good adn seems to be a better car... until you push it hard. THen the illusion fall apart.
The CTS, otoh, it has a typical overboosted GM steering feel, but despite the numb wheel, it flies through twisties when you whomp on it. And with the 3.6VVT engine, you really can whomp on it hard.
Do a check online to see the new CTS-V being tested at "The Ring" - it growls and screams around the track like a startled animal. And goes like it's possessed - I mean, really, REALLY faster than any sane person could or would drive in the U.S. outside of a racetrack. At the end of the clip, note how it storms up on that white hatchback. That tells you how silly fast it's being driven.
Really - watch it and try to not keep your brain from siezing up.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/videos/spyshotvideos/203740/cadillac_cts.html
Yet, there it is. The world really does seem to have turned itself inside-out this time. BMW's got a hell of a lot of worrying to do.
My prediction? Not happening any time soon. Competition is a good thing. Competition improves the breed. BMW loves competition, thrives on it, feeds off of it, and contiually does what it can to both raise the bar from a performance perspective AND cater to its fans who could care less about the sporting nature of their cars. Worry? Nah. Keeping a sharp eye peeled to figure out where the next battle ground will be? Absolutely. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
Sorry, I think the MKZ needs to find another home.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Yes, we came to that agreement a few months back.
Save your breath - I don't put much credibility in any of the "true cost to own" lists. Not Edmunds, Intellichoice, Kiplingers, or others. I think they try to be as accurate as they can, but they are, at best, based upon a lot of hypotheticals that don't match my own experience. I have always paid cash for all my cars. Has kept me from ever spending beyond my comfort level. Depreciation is a factor I consider, if I think there is a chance I'll sell/trade the car in less than 5-7 years.
From Kelly Blue Book, the "trade in" value for 2004 models of the Acura TL 6-speed w/ Nav and the CTS 5-speed w/ Nav, 30,000 miles each and "excellent" condition:
Acura TL: $23,875 vs. current MSRP of $36,125 = $12,250 "loss" vs. new MSRP
Cadillac CTS: $18,625 vs. current MSRP of $41,180 = $22,555 "loss" vs. new MSRP
Everything on the TL (other than Nav) is standard, so it's hard to be sure I'm correctly optioning the CTS, but at a minimum, it appears the difference in MSRP is $5,000 without all the standard features offered by Acura.
The "true cost of depreciation" by my calcs shows the TL $10,000+ ahead of the CTS. Those are real numbers that are from real (KBB) trade in values today. You ask the Edmunds host and others how they came up with their figures. It is a mystery to me.
P.S. I suspect you'll counter that GM might give me a bigger discount on the CTS than I could get from Acura on the TL. But I managed to negotiate a $10,000 discount on a brand new 2005 Porsche 911S from a Baltimore dealer when the best I could do in the DC area was about $1,500 off. I would rather work hard to get a decent/good discount on a great car, than get a great discount on a (IMO) ugly, lower quality car.
P.P.S. My Acura dealer wants to buy back my TL for cash at slightly MORE than KBB Trade in value. It is a highly desireable car in the used car market. Try finding a Cadillac dealer that would do that with a 2004 CTS - not in a million years, at least in our area.
I agree completely...after the LS, which I owned, Lincoln is done with Performance. Perhaps in the future when they merge and reinvent the brand.
Lincoln is done with "Hot Rod" status as far as I'm concerned. "My pappy says, "Son, your gonna drive me to ..." The END.
Regards,
OW
Agree 100%. Say the CTS is $38K out the door. Let's go with a 335i sedan at $44,000. I think the $6k is not only justified for the return but since you can get the Bimmer for a lot less on ED, the difference would be halved and the return is golden at that point in comparison to the class of vehicle you get for the added $. But I can NEVER see someone cross-shopping BMW vs. Caddy! How odd! Since this rarely happens anyway, the point is moot. More likely CTS vs. MKZ.
Regards,
OW
CTS is outrageously overpriced compared to a 3 series? You are really out there with that one. I don't know how you managed to get an expensive 3 series for so cheap but that does not reflect the sticker price. How can you make price comparisons based on price paid? We can only go by MSRPs because they are consistent across the board.
"Even if the Caddy had been 5k cheaper than my car, it would have been outrageously overpriced."
That pretty much sums up your form of logic. I don't see how this statement can even be made with a straight face.
PS- one of the cars in my garage is a Mazda3 for commuter duty. It ain't all it's cracked up to be and has had numerous issues with brakes (rears completely shot after a 1.5 years- $500 repair under warranty), creaking and rattling, terrible fuel economy (averaging 18mpg overall with 27k mi) rough idling, tranny shift shock, emissions equipment repair, and a scratch prone interior. The press and reviews don't mean jack to me because they worship this little annoying car.
MSRPs on the 07's don't matter because Intellichoice starts by giving the shopper a reasonable target purchase price, not one that requires them to drive to your Baltimore dealer or one that might for some reason sell a car with a discount six or seven times that offered by another dealer. In the case of CTS/TLS the target prices were CTS $31,302 and TLS-S $36,504.
The five year ownership costs are averages for average owners, not supermen like you who achieve special deals on price, insurance, repair costs, financing, resale, fuel, maintenance, etc.
But I agree with you if your idea is that a person should not necessarily seek a purchase price or resale price that some guide says is average.
I trust you for your own opinion of what your own experiences are with your own cars in your own mind. Fair enough?
But for a more realistic comparison guide as to what average owners can expect from any of hundreds of cars, I'll trust Intellichoice or Edmunds or Kelley, etc. Even if their numbers don't end up exactly matching mine after I buy, own and resell a car, my guess is that their rankings of one car against the others would still place them in about the same order in cost of ownership as I'd have realized had I owned several hundred of the cars at the same time.
Guides are useful as guides. You are not meant to copy the numbers from them into your diary expecting them to match your personal experiences.
To be included in the discussion it does not have to be a slam-dunk winner. Hey, someone has to finish in last place, why not give more cars the chance?
They just don't. I haven't been in an '08, but based on track record up until now, it's still Playskool-a division of General Motors.
From the pics I've seen, the proposed Pontiac G8 interior is more true lux than a CTS. Know who Lutz said they're using for sport-lux interior benchmarking?
Audi.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/UPDATE/703060451/1148- /AUTO01
Why? Have you been in the G8?
Give me a break! You're speculating about interior quality of cars that aren't even in production yet, from pictures of concept cars? Wow...
Unfortunately, based on past results, GM bean-counters always step in in terms of interior quality and materials, and production variants almost always end up worse than concepts. The new CTS may perform, but GM needs to keep the accountants out of the interior in order for this car to even have a chance.
Actually, I think it's the smartest buy you can make. I just built a BMW 328i with Premium Package, Active Cruise Control, Nav, Logic 7, Active Steering, Cold WX Package, Comfort Access, Sun Shades, Split-fold Rear Seat, Park Distance, and Metallic Paint. MSRP is $47,170.
The base 328i with no added options is $33,095.
The base 328i has the same wheels and tires, the same engine, same suspension, same interior (admittedly without leather), and the same exterior. It performs the same, looks the same, and feels the same yet costs $14,000 less!
This segment should be about the perfect blend of performance and comfort. I'd be thrilled to own and drive a brand-new BMW sport sedan for only $33,000. If I paid $47,000 for the same car, I'd hide my head in the sand.
Different strokes for different folks. Some people strictly want a well balanced performance sedan with no frills. Others want a floating couch with every luxury item known to man. Most want something in the middle.
"That's a true sign of buying into the brand more than buying into the particular car."
I don't agree. You can get a stripped G or a 3er and it will provide more performance than any other car in this segment i.e. if that is what your goal is.
This is exactly one of the big reasons why GM/Ford/Chrysler are below the rest of the world. Cut the costs at all costs...result...crappy cars.
As you all know, it doesn't just happen in the auto industry.
Regards,
OW
I just had to chime in here. I bought a new car 11 months ago and went with the MB C280. I believe it really depends on what one is looking for in a car. I know that all the pundits seem to toss the C-class out as just not cutting it; but I compared to the BMW 3-series and the CTS (mine is an '06 not an '07). I have to say I was impressed with the CTS, in that it turns on a dime, is responsive, has good output (I tested the 2.8 liter/210 hp version). I went with the C280, though, for a few reasons.
First, I wanted a car with AWD given I live in a snow and ice area.
Second, I wanted a car with great suspension tuning; with all the $%& potholes around here.
Third, I wanted a narrow car (all of them are in this class), and the C-class was a couple of inches narrower than the CTS (or the BMW). I have a small garage and live in an urban area with tight spots.
So... my criteria could be a little different than most, but in an area where there aren't huge differences between these or the G35, IMO, its the little things that are important to different people that vary from buyer to buyer.
Hmmm. I'd contend loading the car with options is the dumbest buy - you will lose money on every option and some options won't even show up for KBB/Edmunds/Nada pricing so you lose even more.
Like buying the smallest house on a nice block, buying the cheapest of a luxury brand isn't going to hurt you nearly as much financially.
Fed's 33k 328 is a great example. Buy that car and say it's worth 58% in 3 years. So 19.1k residual. That means he's out 17.2k (33k + 10% TTL).
The 47k car drops to 27260 (assuming all the features are shown as a value add...which they aren't!), so the guy who got that car is out at least 24.4k (47k + 10%ttl - residual). Of course that loaded car's features won't all be listed, so he's really gonna be down even more.