Luxury Performance Sedans

cdnpinhead · December 2006

The vast majority of people who drive cars in the lux or near-lux categories lease them. I won't trouble you with my riff on that subject.

If one leases, one couldn't care less how well the vehicle does after it's turned in. Plus which, while in possession of the car, no money needs to change hands. Hey, everything was covered by the warranty, and my time spent taking the vehicle in 1-XX times (I got a loaner!!) is worth nothing. What's not to like?

Point being, high-mileage data of any value whatsoever for cars that are mostly leased is hard to come by. We're left with anecdotal stuff, which is better than nothing.

Unless it doesn't support or advance your point of view.

lexusguy · December 2006

I have not been able to find reliability data that compares repair records of cars between, say, 50K and 100K. Have you?

"Using data from the 2001-2005 surveys, we compared how the vehicle lines from the major manufacturers fared as their vehicles age. We combined manufacturers' problem rates for one-year-old vehicles from each of the five surveys and did the same for two year old vehicles, and so on. Some key findings:

* The Asian manufacturers are more reliable on average, and continue to age more gracefully.
* American manufacturers still have not closed the gap between them and the Asians. Ford has been, and continues to be the most reliable among the domestic manufacturers for older vehicles.
* The European manufacturers continue to lag behind. Mercedes-Benz has fallen off in recent years."

domenickamarc · December 2006

I'm willing to be nitpicky here, statistically speaking. I've seen those CR graphs, but have not been able to read the numbers. Nor can I find any data (typical of CR) about how many units of each "competitor" are included in each year's comparisons, nor whether the cars at, for example, age 6, have been driven a similar number of miles.

As one exazmple, of how CR narrates its survey results, CR asserted: "According to our latest (2005) subscriber survey, Japanese and Korean vehicles still have the fewest problems on average." What are the differences between those Asian and American or European makes? Asian vehicles have 12 problems per 100 vehicles in the previous 12 months. U.S. makes had an average problem rate of 18 problems per 100. European makes, had 21 problems per 100 vehicles. So, what the reliability graphs show is that if you own an European car, in the worst case scenario, you had two repairs performed on your car in the past year, while the average owner of an Asian car had one repair performed.

Similarly, in the graphs and associated explanations copied by lexusguy, all CR will refer to is "manufacturers' problem rates", which, with CR often does mean that one car will be implied to be statistically more reliable (if it went into the shop for 1.2 repairs a year) than another car (that went into the shop for 1.7 repairs per year).

I would still assert that none of us can find any data about which we can have a discussion of how often cars need to be repaired as the mileage accumulates.

sfcharlie · December 2006

Models with improved reliability
Audi A6
Audi S4
Chevrolet Malibu
Dodge Durango
Ford Freestyle
Hyundai Tucson
Kia Sorento
Mazda6

lexusguy · December 2006

I would still assert that none of us can find any data about which we can have a discussion of how often cars need to be repaired as the mileage accumulates.

Yeah, unfortunately CR's reports and the VDS is about all their is. All I can say is that in my experience, critical mechanical parts in Japanese cars, transmissions, pumps, hoses, rotors, etc. tend to last a really long time. The interiors and electronics seem to start falling apart past 175K miles or so, but the cars will keep running.

domenickamarc · December 2006

Yeah, unfortunately CR's reports and the VDS is about all their is. All I can say is that in my experience, critical mechanical parts in Japanese cars, transmissions, pumps, hoses, rotors, etc. tend to last a really long time. The interiors and electronics seem to start falling apart past 175K miles or so, but the cars will keep running.

My guess is that, if we set the discussion point at 175K, we're pretty much down to a few anecdotes on this board. How many of us have kept even a couple of both German and Japanese cars past 175K miles?

We're into mythology at that point, not statistics. But, hey, whole cultures are guided by mythology and their self-fulfilling prophecy property (e.g. if you believe Japanese cars last forever and you're going to buy a car to keep for ten years, then you'll buy a Japanese car, keep it going to 200K, and tell al your friends it lasted forever; ditto, if you carry a runs-forever myth about German cars) keeps many believers happy.

autoedu · December 2006

Hey, what about Swedish cars? Everyone seems to forget about them...

You know Saabs & Volvos, they last forever too, well beyond 175K.
There is one exceptional case where a funny dude named Irv Gordon who still drives his World Record holder and famed Volvo P1800 passed the 2 millions miles mark and counting...(just google Irv Gordon and you'll see)

OK, let's not count that Volvo (it's an exception to the rule & that dude must have spent half his life driving in his Volvo) but if we bring it up in our discussion the 175K mark seems diminutive in comparisons.

lexusguy · December 2006

You know Saabs & Volvos, they last forever too, well beyond 175K.

In the past, perhaps. Now I'm not so sure. Saabs lately have been pretty mediocre even in their first few years of life. I also don't think that today's Volvos will last for an eternity like those wagons from the '70s. Volvo's reliability in the late '90s stunk. The initial MY S80 was loaded with reliability problems. They've definitely improved a lot since then, but I dont think they are necessarily better than anyone else.

domenickamarc · December 2006

I know old Volvo 240s from the late 1980s and early 1990s are still one of the car models likely to be a teenager's first "clunker" in my area.

The brief exchange highlights an issue we seem to get muddled. We really don't know the correlation among (1) repair-frequency during first three-years; (2) repair-frequency at various post-warranty mileages (when I once bought a cheap used Volvo 240 for a high school nephew, I didn't care if it was a 1990, 1991, or 1992, but, since it was 2000, I wanted to know the mileage); (3) time off the road for unscheduled maintenance (my sister absolutely loves her Mini Cooper; she reported in her CR survey 3 repairs in the first year, which were all minor glitches having nothing to do with driving and which were all taken care of during the day she brought it in for her first scheduled maintenance but which will show up as three dings against Mini in the next CR survey; whereas my neighbor's Lexus RX-300 was in the shop for two weeks for "only one repair", at 3K after he couldn't get the car to move in any gear when he got back in at a shopping center parking lot); (4) variations in satisfaction with total post 100K ownership experience (one of our managers is a keep-Toyota-till-they-fall-apart-guy and his closest personal relationship is with a family-run repair shop, but he loves the whole process, for some perverse reason, in which his "guys" manage to find cheap ways to repair it or keep it going).

All of which is to say that we have no way, right now, given how data is collected, to know how to bet on the following horse-race: We gather up 150 Japanese, 150 German, and (OK) 150 Swedish cars with 100+K miles. We assign them randomly to 50 families to be driven another 100K -- one of each type of car to each family. When all cars have been driven 200K miles, we add up number of repairs, days in shop for unscheduled service, total cost of repairs. We also ask the test-subjects "If you had to do this again and had to do it with one of the three cars we gave you, which one would you pick?"

autoedu · December 2006

Generally, I don't think any modern car will ever reached the 2 Million miles mark set by the Volvo P1800 (Yes, including today's Volvo)

Why? Too much bell & whistle, too many electronics & computer. Mercedes & BMW suffered heavily in reliability recently because of electronic/electrical problems (not mechanical, although you will encounter it sooner or later once you reach 100K miles). Electrical items are bound to fail at some point, making it difficult to diagnose & costly to maintain and repair.

I think any car from any manufacturer today(with the exception of a few ie Jaguar, mercedes) is a safe bet to reach 100K miles with no problem. After 100K? I would only consider Saab & Volvo (with the exception of certain MY), Honda & Toyota.

Because after 100K it's not about luxury or performance anymore, it's about how low is the maintenance to keep it running. That's what the buyer of 100K+ vehicles are looking for.

After 200K? LOL I think most car is (excuse my lingo) a POS by then :P

calhon · December 2006

CR demonstrates yet again that they are not very competent in data analysis. There are a number of major problems with these charts.

1. The charts do not show how problem rates increase with age, because successive points on each graph are for different model years. The graphs are therefore confounded by reliability improvements over the years - about 5 to 6% improvement annually for the past several years.

This means, for example, that on average at least 30% of the increase in the problem rate of 6 year-old cars compared to 1 year-old cars is due to reliability improvements rather than aging. Note that the 6-year-old cars are 1995 (2001 survey) to 1999 (2005 survey) models, while the 1 year-old cars are 2000 to 2004 models.

2. The charts are not an accurate reflection of today's cars which are considerably more reliable than cars from the nineties. In addition to problem #1, the combination of data for different model years into each data point (e.g., 1995-1999 models at 6 years) inflates the problem rates all along the charts.

3. Brand and nationality comparisons are confounded by differences in the rates of reliability improvement over the years. For example, the reliability of Domestic cars have improved faster than the Japanese. The charts therefore exaggerate the differences in later years. The differences may be understated in other specific comparisons.

In summary, these charts provide neither an accurate picture of problem rates with age, nor a good basis for comparing brands or nationalities.

cdnpinhead · December 2006

an excellent discussion. I can tell as soon as someone mentions confounding data, that we're in an environment in which statistical analysis is spoken.

Much unlike the data that's discussed in the media (CR, Powers, etc.), where to be understood is to be found out. I'm relatively confident that each manufacturer has a pretty good handle on what breaks, when & how often. . .and that the information is guarded roughly as well as the gold in Ft. Knox. Warranty claims only begin to explain why. How many dealer service people have looked you straight in the eye and said "why, that's the first time I've ever heard of that?"

Then, as was pointed out a couple of posts earlier, much of this data doesn't distinguish among 1) a failure that leaves the car immobile, 2) a failure that allows the car to operate at a reduced capability, 3) a failure that doesn't affect the running of the car, but is seriously inconvenient (power window breaks in the "down" position, A/C won't work, windshield wipers won't work), or 4) one of the bells & whistles fails to function (my favourite is a broken sunshade power mechanism).

It's all the same in the land of "defects," but not in my world.

pearl · December 2006

as long as your "credibility" is a reflection of your board name, you have none. While you are bashing the Euro marks, why don't you tell us about Toyota's six speed auto? Very reliable, eh? This is not a one-time problem with Toyota autos, but something that has plagued them for many years. Japanese reliabilty has been dropping, and even if they run reliably, who wants to "drive" them?

calhon · December 2006

Correction

I wrote:

"This means, for example, that on average at least 30% of the increase in the problem rate of 6 year-old cars compared to 1 year-old cars is due to reliability improvements rather than aging."

I should have written instead:

"This means, for example, that a significant portion of the increase in the problem rate of 6 year-old cars compared to 1 year-old cars is due to the 30% (minimum) average improvement in reliablity, rather than aging."

markcincinnati · December 2006

. . .the desirability of driving the ultra-reliable car?

If "the driving pleasure" is high in importance, it would seem the past dozen or so posts virtually ignore that aspect of the automotive experience.

Lord knows, I want more reliable, cars, electronics, appliances, restaurants and human beings. Indeed, I assume we all want "everything" to be more reliable.

Yet, I would not give up fun, performance, safety and other characteristics just to gain ever greater reliability. As far as I'm concerned, these cars are, as a group, reliable -- some are very reliable. Also most of these cars are likewise good in the fun, performance and safety traits.

Then, on the other hand, you know what they say, "good is the enemy of great."

We have, overall, similar cars offered to us -- some are good at reliability and great and other things and vice versa. Those that are great (or reputed to be) at reliability seem good in the other areas.

Some folks apparently treasure reliability over "greatness" in driving and some just the opposite. The good news is, if good doesn't kill great altogether, we do seem to be improving the reliability of our vehicles (pretty much across the board, with an exception here and there) and the fun, performance and safety, too.

Drive it like you live! :shades:

domenickamarc · December 2006

If "the driving pleasure" is high in importance, it would seem the past dozen or so posts virtually ignore that aspect of the automotive experience."

Actually, my "variations in total ownership experience" and my suggested question "if you had to go back and pick one, knowing what you know now, which one would you pick?" were targeted right at "driving pleasure" and perhaps even more broadly at "total ownership pleasure" (under which umbrella term I subsume driving pleasure). In fact, looking back over the last few times some variation of Japanomania catalyzed this type of exchange, the total pleasure factor is always marginalized. This whole round appears to go back even further than you note, back to one comment by someone hoping to escape the bad experience they had with a German sedan by switching to a new Japanese vehicle (which, ironically, happened to be the Japanese brand with the worst "reliability" record according to the outfits that make a living by over-dramatizing the statistical significance of the data they gather). Maybe these "reliability" exchanges are part of how we have fun on this forum (our equivalent of "Have a great time at The House of Pain while visiting Vegas"). They seem to arise out of Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance concept that, for some reason, was written up recently in the Wall Street Journal: once you make a decision to go left your mind fills up with terrible images of what lies in wait for all who go right and you become really attached to the conviction that only by choosing as you chose can anyone hope to be happy. Whoever says that often says they didn't say it (they only meant that they couldn't bring themselves to buy another MB after their's broke down 18 times in three years, which we all totally understand) when one or more people catch it, but usually it appears to be too late to forestall another round of exchanges in which we try to explain why we don't all buy the same car.

lansdownemike · December 2006

Mark,

Isn't this a little bit of a straw man? No one wants to "give up fun, performance, safety and other characteristics just to gain ever greater reliability." The problem is strictly at the margins of each characteristic. Almost all of the cars we're considering are quite good on all characteristics. The question is how much fun or safety are you willing to give up for a given additional bit of reliability?

This is really hard to measure quantitatively but it certainly makes sense behaviorally, doesn't it? Am I willing to give up the sensation of smiling whenever I anticipate an open road drive in my new car in order to save myself one trip to the dealer per year to take care of an unexpected problem? Not me. On the other hand, would I be willing to give up .5 seconds in the 0-60 and .05 g on a skidpad to save that trip? Probably I would (in particular because I've had such a bad two years with my current ride).

So I do care about reliability and I'm interested in the discussion that you sound like you're dismissing. But not at the expense of any consideration of fun and safety.

sfcharlie · December 2006

I'm not, of course, answering for Mark ... just contributing to the discussion.

Sometimes it has seemed as if Mark was saying that the purchase of a car is always, in his experience, this wild, emotional, impulsive act, which not only should be, but almost always really is unaffected by what's been written about a car in magazines or in CR and JDP reports.

But even if that characterization of Mark's position or the one offered by landsdownemike is hyperbolic, I thought Domenick offered a conceptual resolution with his "overall ownership pleasure" concept.

For me, that allows for the possibility that each car-owning experience will, for each of us, include different weighting on different variables in the equation. One person might be totally bummed out by having had his or her car in the shop for a week each year (even if the dealer immediately put them into a really nice loaner). Another person might find the whole experience of driving a high-maintenance MB sports car to have been worth every penny and every trip to the dealership.

It's also a bit of a different issue when we're talking prospectively rather than retrospectively. When we get into comments that imply what prospective buyers should keep in mind and how much weight they should put on any quality of a car (as they imagine each car to possess those qualities), then, for some people, what CR and JDP report might weigh heavily. Put another words, a very bad reliability record is probably going to sour the total ownership pleasure for many drivers, even if not for all. As we move down the continuum from "owned a lemon and will never buy one of those again and would recommend no one else buy one or at least not be stupid enough to keep it beyond warranty" to "had a few glitches, but loved it and would do it again," we'll find a multitude of overall ownership assessments which cannot be crammed into a dichotomy such as "reliability matters or doesn't" or "driving pleasure is all that matters or isn't".

markcincinnati · December 2006

Yep, that's what they always write. . . .

They also say, "your mileage may differ. . . ."

Today, not yesterday, we seem [to me] to be at least moving toward having our cake and eating it too.

Yesterday, however, whenever I went shopping, it often seemed I could only gain improved reliability by getting a more bland car.

Lexus cars seem to represent that remark -- at least yesterday.

Lexus built highly reliable and not much fun to drive cars.

I was willing to accept "good reliability" but wanted great fun to drive performance.

I could have a Lexus or a Bimmer or a Lexus or an Audi. I couldn't have the traits I loved in one and wanted in another in the same car at the same time.

"Tomorrow" when I go shopping, I will again look for two, two, two cars in one!

I actually have some reason to believe I may be able to come close.

markcincinnati · December 2006

. . .some of you may think my wife and I went slumming, and from a dealership standpoint, that MAY be true.

But shucks and darn if we didn't go to a Jeep dealer and a Chrysler dealer and have a good, long look and test drive of a Chrysler 300 and a Jeep SRT-8. If we "bought" both of these cars the total full list MSRP would be about $90,000. The Jeep was $46K and the Chrysler was $44K.

These cars had almost all the "gadgets" I've come to know and demand in my $53,286 Audi A6 -- and both of them had tremendous POWER and even though I WANTED them to be unrefined -- damn near "rough hewn," well, gulp, frankly both of these cars seemed like they would not require THAT much adjustment, if any, from a driving perspective.

The handling -- or perhaps better said -- the crispness I expect from an Audi was close in the Chrylser and easily there in the Jeep.

Moreover, more than just a huge engine on a skateboard, the handling of the Jeep was on-par with many of the Euro cars I have either owned or test driven -- no, no, it was EASILY on par.

The Chrysler seemed way nicer than the last SRX Cadillac I rented and far less floaty than a RWD standard supsension STS -- and way more powerful, by far.

The nav system wasn't as nice as my Audis, cause you couldn't talk to it. But you could use the phone via voice command pretty much as I'm used to in the Audi.

Both these vehicles had DVD units in the rear.

=======

It makes we want to ask this board, this well opinioned and erudite board: what excludes the Chrysler from this forum (other than our agreed upon car brands and number of cars that can be discussed.)

There are clues to these cars being "from around here" rather than from "over there." But there are few traits lacking.

What makes one a member and one not?

markcincinnati · December 2006

I, in no way, think this board will include any SUV, no matter how far up the pole it goes, or how high the sticker climbs.

lexusguy · December 2006

It makes we want to ask this board, this well opinioned and erudite board: what excludes the Chrysler from this forum (other than our agreed upon car brands and number of cars that can be discussed.)

Come on Mark, we've heard this all before. The 300 and GC are nice cars. This however, is the luxury performance sedans board, and the 300 is not a luxury car, just like the Avalon, Azera, 500, Lucerne, and the rest of that segment. Luxury is more than horsepower, a NAV system and leather seats. If that was enough to qualify, nearly every car on the market would be considered a luxury car.

There's no law that says a LPS can't be domestic. The STS qualifies, as will the Lincoln MKS. Thats it. Chrysler aint included.

One thing is for sure, there's definitely nothing luxurious about your average Chrysler dealer.

markcincinnati · December 2006

Like I said, it did not escape me that we had perhaps gone slumming. But what makes the STS a player vs the 300C? The term that seems to be used is entry level.

Forget the Chrysler for a moment. At what point of feature or creature comfort or horsepower or whatever, does the car move from entry level to full on member.

It seems to me, there are certainly subtle differences -- the Audi has bi-xenon articulating headlights. It appears the Chrysler has xenon low beams that do not articulate.

The M's from Infiniti had low beam xenons last year (they may still have for all I know.)

My point is, the car seemed smooth, responsive, quite and the suspension seemed capable.

I am just wondering what qualifies?

For the money, there is no way I would opt for the STS over the 300 and the dealers of both vehicles in my experience are way below any Euro car dealer I have ever visited.

Of course both the Infiniti and Lexus dealers are in the same auto mall as the Chrysler and Jeep dealers and it simply seems that in such an environment the dealer personnel aren't much different from each other.

My Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen and Volvo dealership are that "cut above" that higher level of class that you know the moment you walk in the showroom. The Chrysler, Jeep, Infiniti and Lexus dealers (in our big town) all suffer from that 1960's Russian TV look and the people that work there have just discovered hair-mousse.

If that is what I have to choose from, frankly, I'll keep my $10,000 and at least consider the Chrysler (all other things being at least semi-equal.)

The question is, is it price? is it feature function? is it 0-60 time, is it residual? What attribute set defines this segment?

Some folks only tolerate my pick as long as it is the AWD version -- the FWD version is booed, i.e.

Others swear by RWD and a V8 saying all others are "posers."

Is it "real wood trim" vs plastic trim? Some folks swear the M's from Infiniti have the worst wood trim ever, so fake looking?!?

The upper most M has aluminum.

The Cadillac STS is a nice car, I would gladly have one. But until one equips it with the luxury performance package and accessories at some $13,000, the STS is a lackluster and unconvincing (to me) entrant into the LPS class. Yet, equip one with the V8 and the magnaride package and the sport bits and the car is certainly desirable.

And $16,000 more than a very similar 300C.

This question is more about figuring out how to define the subtleties than it is about disagreeing with you.

The Americans, as evidenced by the products I mentioned, have come a long way in a short time.

How about this: the American car, personified by the Chrysler 300 has come further, faster than the [apparently] next level up cars (LPS's) -- the gap has closed significantly if not entirely (not counting the blast from the past visit to a "modern" Chrysler dealership.)

Edumacate me.

lexusguy · December 2006

The question is, is it price? is it feature function? is it 0-60 time, is it residual? What attribute set defines this segment?

Is it "real wood trim" vs plastic trim? Some folks swear the M's from Infiniti have the worst wood trim ever, so fake looking?!?

Price, yes. In general, the "entry-lux" level is around $30K-40K, and "luxury" starts above the $40K level. The key word there is "starts". The 300 in its V6 versions can be had for well below that, and thats one of the reasons it is not a luxury car.

Features and gadgets are only a part of it. The Germans seem to think that technology = luxury, but thats not really true. Take the "old school" Bentleys like the Arnage, for example. Very little in terms of state-of-the-art gadgetry, but unquestionably a luxury car.

0-60 doesn't really have anything to do with it, although if a luxury car is significantly slower than its competitors, it will suffer, at least in this market. Same for residuals. Some brands are great (BMW, Lexus) some brands tank (Jaguar, Cadillac). Its up to the buyer as to whether or not thats an issue.

I would say that real wood trim is a must, yes. There's just nothing luxurious about "wood looking" or "aluminum looking" plastic, when that kind of trim is available in a Chevy Aveo. The quality of the M's wood is a subjective thing, but it IS real. A LPS with fake trim is unacceptable.

tayl0rd · December 2006

Mark, the main reason those cars can't be included is their lack of snoot appeal. On average, LPS owners tend to be a bit "high sadiddy" and if they can't turn their noses up to 85% of the other cars on the road, it just won't do. Dollar for dollar, is a BMW 525i better than a 300C SRT8 in any way whatsoever? I would argue NO. Is an Acura MDX any better than a Grand Cherokee SRT8? Hell no!

The badge makes all the difference. I would argue that a 300C is as good as any LPS car. I would argue that a Grand Cherokee SRT8 can hold its own against (and beats) any other upper end SUV on the market.

pat · December 2006

Your and others' opinions notwithstanding, the luxury performance sedans class is defined by the marketplace, i.e., price, amenities, etc. The 300 in any flavor doesn't fit here, although it may be an entry-level performance sedan. The MDX and the GC of any flavor do not fit because they are missing a rather important criterion of the topic, sedan.

All of you, please feel free to create any comparo that suits you, but this discussion is focused on the LPS vehicles defined at the top of the page. There may be others that fit the category, but, unless I've missed something, the ones mentioned recently really don't.

markcincinnati · December 2006

I appreciate what you've said regarding "price" and "amenities." I also know that this forum is about specific cars and there is a quantitative limit to the discussion.

What (or where do we go to find the answer) are the specific amenities (since price appears to be "OVER $45,000 BASE"?) I am just wondering why we "accept" the 5 series, the A6, the Lexus G's, etc? Or, why we accept the STS but wouldn't accept the 300.

The STS -- to keep in the American car realm for a moment -- is a fine car. But a base STS, nice as it may be, is barely luxurious, hardly much to write home about with respect to performance -- uh, but it IS a sedan. A $45K STS, if you can find one compared to a $45K 300C would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Were I being gifted either car, in this case, I would take the 300 -- 'cause the STS lacks both lux and performance at that price point.

NOW, therefore, however, notwithstanding: a high zooted up STS does seem like more car than the 300. But, heck the price goes north of $60K.

Is there some DNA test that says "none of your ilk shall pass" or "because you are a fill-in-the-blank, you will be given the secret handshake?"

Would it be possible for a current LPS car to "fall from grace?" What would make it fall.

I spent the last four days driving a very nice 530xi station wagon (the loaner while my wife's car is in for a recall of her telemetrics). The MSRP in the glove compartment says it is $58K. The car has "premium pack" on it, is silver with a black leather interior.

The car is a strippie -- I would hardly call it LPS>

domenickamarc · December 2006

Lexusguy always manages to draw attention to Japanese cars, no matter what the topic. Nothing wrong with that extreme degree of Japan-auto-love, but it is what it is -- not so much an argument as a fixed position. Here emphasis is switched from Lexus to the Infiniti M as defining luxury because it has real wood and lots of gadgets. That is what Infiniti successfully packaged and shipped specifically for American buyers like lexusguy, among whom there are many happy M owners.

Do German carmakers confuse engineering with luxury? Depends...for a while they ignored American preference for comfy seats and gadgets in favor of state-of-the-art drivetrains and chassis to produce that unmatchable 3-series type of handling. Then they began to add interior touches. Now, in many comparos of interiors, Audi is proclaimed the world champ.

Mark now demands a more specific definition or, perhaps, re-definition of LPS. I guess that would make it his burden to come up with one ... not enough to ask on what basis a car hasn't been included under the LPS umbrella.

These stereotyping generalizations can only go so far in capturing the reality of how a diverse universe of car buyers are assessing and buying cars.

qbrozen · December 2006

The problem is, you are injecting personal preference into what defines an LPS sedan. The STS may be a joke to you, but its an expensive joke, nonetheless. And people buy them, so its obviously not a universal fact of any sort.

If, for instance, an exception was made for the 300 based on your personal preference, what prevents someone from insisting on including an Accord because they feel it is just as good as the 300? Ok, maybe a slight exageration (maybe not), but insert any car into that question. Maybe the Buick Lucerne or Toyota Avalon.

Lines have to be drawn and they must be obeyed in order to have a reasonable discussion.

We had a very similar discussion not too long ago in the entry-level LPS sedans thread.

lexusguy · December 2006

You certainly have every right to choose to spend your money on a big OHV lump, rather than refinement, materials, and dealer experience. If you think that equals value, by all means buy your Chrysler or Jeep. Don't characterise ALL luxury buyers as badge snobs who only care about being "better" than their neighbors, though. If horsepower is all you care about, why not buy a Shelby Mustang? There's no cheaper way to get 500 horsepower, and you can laugh at all those Porsche driving badge snobs...at least until there's a curve in the road.

lexusguy · December 2006

Ok, I only even mentioned the M because Mark brought it up. I never at any point said that the M's interior "defines luxury". It's interior is pretty good for the class. Somewhere in the middle.

I'm sure there are many who would LOVE a return to the good ole days when German cars where all about drivetrain and driver. Unfortunately, those days are over. There's no better example of this than the M5. The old one was purely about driving pleasure. The new one is the epitome of German techno-obsession, with about 800 combinations of settings for the engine, suspension, and transmission. And not a single one of them can turn it into a good car. "Would you like your side mirrors in normal, sport, super sport, track, or race position?"

domenickamarc · December 2006

"Ok, I only even mentioned the M because Mark brought it up. I never at any point said that the M's interior "defines luxury". It's interior is pretty good for the class. Somewhere in the middle."

OK, I over-interpreted the point you were trying to make. Point taken now.

"I'm sure there are many who would LOVE a return to the good ole days when German cars where all about drivetrain and driver. Unfortunately, those days are over. There's no better example of this than the M5. The old one was purely about driving pleasure. The new one is the epitome of German techno-obsession, with about 800 combinations of settings for the engine, suspension, and transmission. And not a single one of them can turn it into a good car. "Would you like your side mirrors in normal, sport, super sport, track, or race position?"

I don't know how many people want to go back to the mid-1960s and relive the fun of what BMW was doing with a small sedan -- the unique combination of a sports car into which you could fit your family and a few groceries. The owners of German cars with whom I talk about their iDrives and MMIs and Command Centers don't lament them the way people do who have tried them out during a few test-drives or over a few days for an auto-mag review. There is no question that if you have to master them in a couple of days, as if preparing for an exam, you'll feel frustrated. The actual owners of BMWs, Audi, and MBs with whom I talk, with a few exceptions, do master the control system within a couple of weeks and then find it interesting and easy to use. I just don't get you objecting to over-generalizations by others and then throwing out a line like: "And not a single one of them can turn it into a good car." I have to assume that you mean none of them have created a control system that pleases you. You can't honestly believe you know that all German LPS sedan drivers hate the technology of their cars.

markcincinnati · December 2006

I am asking what "attributes" or "characteristics" are part and parcel of the definition of an LPS.

I do not in any way think the STS is a joke -- can't ever remember writing or thinking that. And, yes I was impressed with the 300, but I was just "wondering" as a point of discussion, what -- besides sticker price, for instance -- was/were several defining characteristics of the "breed."

And, yes you are correct, we could insert a Buick Lucerne, et al. But what I am asking is for the "generally accepted minimum requirements to be 'in the LPS club.'" This way, we would never even "go there" for the Lucerne would not have the qualifications.

When in college, I took zoology, we had to memorize the characteristics that defined, mammal, for instance.

What can we accept as the traits for LPS, "they give birth to live young?"

I don't think MSRP and power operated do-dads are sufficient, even if they are part of the "formula."

I would gladly take an STS -- but the base STS seems several notches UNDER the fully optioned, similarly priced 300C.

This is not, in any way, to suggest I am pro 300 nor anti STS. Just stirring up a bit of conversation to answer the question "whither LPS." :confuse:

lexusguy · December 2006

I just don't get you objecting to over-generalizations by others and then throwing out a line like: "And not a single one of them can turn it into a good car." I have to assume that you mean none of them have created a control system that pleases you.

No, thats not really it. I've driven the 5, the A6, and the E, as well as the last gen M5 (love it) and the current M5 (hate it). In both the old M5 and the E55, you mash the pedal to the floor, and it goes. If I were going to buy a super tuned execu-rocket, thats how I'd want it.

What I do NOT want is a million pointless settings, like 500 horsepower and 500 "sport horsepower". Who needs that?? Who is sitting in their car while the light turns green and all the cars behind are honking their horns thinking, "Hmm, it sure would be fun to do a nice burn out here, but I'm not sure just exactly how long I want those black stripes to be. Maybe 500 "sport" is a little too aggressive for this particular situation? What do you think, honey?"

More over, who needs a horsepower settings menu at all? Here's a novel idea, the gas pedal is an infinitely variable horsepower settings menu! Why didn't BMW think of that? Infinite is sure a lot better than three choices.

The COMAND or MMI systems would not stop me from buying an RS6 or E63. I just dont particularly want\need that kind of car. There's no way I'd buy an M5 though, unless it was the old one. The engine sounds lousy unless its screaming toward redline, the transmission is awful, and the fact that the car needs a "my favorite settings" button is idiotic.

cdnpinhead · December 2006

where none exists.

If it "feels" right, it is right. If you need to ask. . .

Or not.

sfcharlie · December 2006

Lexusguy, I think it's possible that you are both calling it as you see and letting people push some buttons,

It seem reasonable for you to take the position that, as you see it (and apparently you've had a somewhat unique opportunity to spend significant time behind the wheels of all three major German brands, as well as your Lexus), German engineers and designers have done something with cars that you don't like and, more, have done something that depletes the quintessential "car-ness" out of cars, turning them into computers with wheels. I guess I can also follow your skepticism that anyone who has bought and is driving one of these cars actually likes the electro-technology (although it can seem a bit presumptuous at times). I haven't driven the new 5-series. I am driving an A6. The mirrors are controlled by the usual knob on the driver's left and I actually find the MMI less distracting and time-consuming to operate than I found the huge array of buttons on the M35. But that seems to me like a personal preference that I only feel I know for sure after having driven both cars over 3000 miles.

Putting the A6 into "sport" mode is simply one shift of the gear-shift. No extended self-reflection or polling of passengers is involved.

The rant takes away from the points you're trying to make.

lexusguy · December 2006

German engineers and designers have done something with cars that you don't like and, more, have done something that depletes the quintessential "car-ness" out of cars, turning them into computers with wheels.

Exactly. I think that the ultra versions of the German luxury performance sedans should be like the old M5, a wolf in sheep's clothing. The old car didn't look much different than the 540i sport, both on the outside and the inside. You had to actually drive it to see where all the money went. The E63 and the RS6 still are that way, and I like both of them a lot. The new M5 is a wolf in wolf's clothing. It lost the stealthy "only I know what I've got until I nail the throttle" attributes of the old car. You won't be fooling any cops with it, thats for sure.

designman · December 2006

The new M5 is a wolf in wolf's clothing. It lost the stealthy "only I know what I've got until I nail the throttle" attributes of the old car. You won't be fooling any cops with it, thats for sure.

Not sure I understand what you mean. The look of the current M5 has a little more sass in comparison to the run-of-mill 5-series varieties, most notably the tailpipes but the average person can't tell the difference. As far as the cops, you ain't fooling them with anything. When they're on a mission they set those radars and it doesn't matter if it's a Prius or a Ferrari that sets them off. I seem to remember a time when they went after more expensive cars but from what I can see this isn't the case anymore. They seem to be pragmatic... anything and everything out there can and does speed.

cdnpinhead · December 2006

was meant to move the discussion forward. It seems there isn't a lot of logic involved in determining what constitutes an LPS, so far as this board is concerned. Mark has presented some very interesting questions.

Is it, at the core, all about snob appeal (certainly a dated phrase, come to think of it, but apropos)? I certainly hope not. After all, I've finally decided that I can live with owning a BMW, in spite of all of the people who drive one only because they've been led to believe they're somehow superior if they do. I think this falls into the category of reverse snob appeal, but I've "grown."

So far it appears to be about brand image. Lincoln isn't worthy, Chrysler isn't worthy, but Cadillac is. That's pretty much it for North American brands (oh, but wait, Chrysler isn't, really).

What constitutes, beyond being listed on the header, a Lux Performance Sedan? I'll clearly need help with this.

lexusguy · December 2006

I still think cops look at the car, at least if your right on the line of ticket\no ticket. If you're going 71 in a 55 in a Vette or Porsche, you're probably going to get pulled over. In a standard E-class looking E63, maybe not. If you're going 81, then yes, the car doesnt matter.

lexusguy · December 2006

I think Lincoln is worthy...at least as a brand. Its actual products are laughably uncompetitve, but they still qualify as luxury cars. The MKS at least counts as much as its Volvo S80 platform mate.

designman · December 2006

Well I suppose it can be a local thing, but around the NY metro area there is very little pacing done anymore. They find a nook and whatever trips the radar wins the prize. There are several notorious traps in my area and I've made it a point to see if any certain type of car gets caught. It really is a splendid variety. It's a matter of volume (revenue) and they don't take it "personally." If anything, I think the kids with the tuners are profiled, but they actually beg for it. Have you been in a traffic court lately to witness the processing of cattle? And that's nothing compared with those who just send the check in the mail.

lexusguy · December 2006

Well I suppose it can be a local thing, but around the NY metro area there is very little pacing done anymore. They find a nook and whatever trips the radar wins the prize.

Perhaps you are right. The last car I saw pulled over was a little white Hyundai just ahead of me, going about 2mph faster than I was. A little white sedan is about as "safe" as you can get, and it didn't work. If he hadn't been there, it might've been me.

rayainsw · December 2006

Several inflammatory words chosen ( intentionally? ) in this post  and several phrases that I find particularly intriguing.

1  big OHV lump, rather than refinement, materials, and dealer experience

Again, my current Daily Driver is not an LPS ( nor a PLS, depending ones priorities ), but I have driven several members of this club, considered a couple very seriously, and chose a Corvette Coupe, with a big OHV lump. I appreciate you granting me every right to chose my OHV lump.

Similar discussions to the above on Corvette boards here & elsewhere lead me to believe that although many magazine comparison tests pit the Corvette and a Porsche with similar performance, a very small percentage of Porsche buyers actually would consider the Corvette  and vice versa. The level of refinement ( allowing many now to position the Corvette as both a sports car and a GT car  partly depending on option level ) has increased markedly from the C4 to the C5 to the current C6. Materials & dealer experience are not yet at typical Porsche levels. And reliability of my 2007 remains to be seen. But the dealer experience has been satisfactory, so far. And not materially different than when I drove a couple of Lincolns.

But my point here is: The level of refinement is most cars is improving, as the standards evolve over time. Many previous Corvette owners ( including a good friend who owned 1 in the 80s ) have a perception of the Corvettes attributes that is largely a reflection of that ownership experience. A couple of minutes in my 2007 resulted in several comments about the progress in this area & others since he sold his. And the level of refinement in the current Corvette meets or exceeds ** MY ** thresholds. And the leap in refinement ( and price ) to a competitive Porsche is not worth the current incremental increase - for MY money. My Corvette = Value with a capital V. To me.

2  badge snobs

Am I a reverse badge snob, buying a Chevy? And driving a Corvette provides me with Porsche level performance, excellent fit & finish, seating & ride comfort sufficient to make my recent 6.5 hour drive to the Gulf Coast a pleasure  and even returned a rather pleasant 28+ MPG. Im happy  and I am not suffering from any Porsche Envy.

3  all you care about. . .500 horsepower

The 400 HP & 400 TQ in my Corvette is \ are certainly not all I care about. However, a burst ( or 2 or 3 ) of full throttle acceleration is something that I can enjoy virtually every time I drive it. ( Though briefly, most times  respecting most speed limits. ) And I find that level of acceleration quite satisfying. And the cornering is quite adequate, thanks. Probing the absolute cornering limits ( of any car ) is something I absolutely will never do on public roads. I always leave room for the unexpected  slippery spot, junk to be avoided and \ or idiot moves by other drivers.

We each care about different attributes, and set different priorities.

You spend your money & Ill spend mine. And ( with any luck ) well all be happy with our choices. . .

Just my 2 HP worth . . .
- Ray
Drive Happy!

tayl0rd · December 2006

You certainly have every right to choose to spend your money on a big OHV lump, rather than refinement, materials, and dealer experience. If you think that equals value, by all means buy your Chrysler or Jeep. Don't characterise ALL luxury buyers as badge snobs who only care about being "better" than their neighbors, though. If horsepower is all you care about, why not buy a Shelby Mustang? There's no cheaper way to get 500 horsepower, and you can laugh at all those Porsche driving badge snobs...at least until there's a curve in the road.

Good to see that you aren't one of those badge snobs. Although, it seems every other phrase in your reply simply validated everything I said. :confuse: And since you're dealing with human beings, dealer experience is a crapshoot. I've read plenty of posts here of people having horrendous experiences at BMW and Mercedes dealerships and others having fabulous experiences at Chrysler dealerships. If you think "dealership experience" is worth the tens of thousands of dollars you pay over a "lesser" yet equally capable/viable car worth it, you might want to get some friends so you can have a pleasant human interaction experience for free. The $20K - $30K you save could take you and your new friends on a really nice vacation.

qbrozen · December 2006

On one hand, you are asking for what makes an LPS an LPS, but then you go on to say you don't think price and features don't matter .... so it sounds to me like you already have the formula in your head.

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth regarding the STS. I just didn't write out my whole interpretation (as I didn't think it necessary), which would be more like "factoring in price, the STS is a joke compared to the 300." And I'm not saying your wrong or its a bad thing or whatever. I understand you don't think the STS is a joke, persay, just that, for the money, you'd go elsewhere.

The point was simply that, its opinion, no matter how you slice it or what adjectives you use. Again, not that you are wrong, but if one exception is made based on opinion ... well, anyway, you get the point.

So, why don't YOU state what you feel the criteria are that you apparently already have in mind?

To get it started, my suggestion is to concentrate on the "luxury" part of the equation, since the performance part is more easily quantified through statistics. What the titles of these discussions mean, as its been explained to me, is that the car is from a luxury manufacturer, not just a more luxurious offering from a mid-class manufacturer. So then that begs the question, what is a luxury manufacturer. And that has been the subject of some debate on these boards already. One host, i believe, suggested that, at the least, the manufacturer should have one car priced over $50k. I'm not sure how well that works, but I guess its a start.

markcincinnati · December 2006

Having the luxury of a friend who owns (at one time) 3 car dealerships and several reasonably close friends who work at auto dealerships -- coupled with a wife who loves to test drive cars (almost as a "hobby") for a year before she makes up her mind coupled with regular and frequent rentals of cars for long weekend drives (600+ miles) -- I have been able to drive perhaps a lot more different cars than one would expect "on average."

That being said, we spent the last weekends since Thanksgiving test driving or having "loaner" cars. First we were loaned an Audi Q7 4.2 Premium (two and a half days), then we test drove a Mercedes ML (350), followed by another loan (4 days) of a BMW 530xi station wagon, followed by a look at a Land Rover, a new Infiniti G, the X5 and then yet another test drive of a Chrysler 300 and a Jeep SRT-8. We even tested an Acura RDX and a Hyundai AWD Santa Fe back to back with a new Audi A4 2.0T S-Line (all the same dealer group's offerings made this latter flirtation easy to do.) We rented Cadillac CTS's, SRX's and DTS's, Chevy Tahoes, Pacificas, Chargers and Maxima's, too. Moreover, we were invited to the thinly disguised Cadillac Car & Driver/Road & Track "editor for a day" scam (did I say that out loud?) where we got to "test" Cadillacs against BMW against Lexus.

Meantime, I could back-to-back these cars with my own A6 3.2 and sometimes we could back-to-back a tested vehicle with my wife's X3 3.0.

The entire experience demonstrated a few near epiphanies. We, at this juncture, are in a sweet-spot of choice, quality and performance when it comes to cars, these days. I know, I know, a BGO (blinding glimpse of the obvious -- FOR SOME.)

The recent test of the DC products got me started thinking about the "dirty trick" Cadillac played on us "editors for a day." You see, the Cadillac STS outdid (in every way) a BMW 530 and two Lexus autos (an ES and GS). Heck, even the CTS felt ever so slightly better than the Japanese and German rivals. Of course, the "cheat" was that the STS, for instance had optional sport wheels and tires (probably inflated to maximum normal) and was outfitted with Maganride and the "luxury performance" bits, while the BMW, was a base car with tiny all seasons on smaller wheels and with spongy brakes. The Lexus cars, especially the ES, were woefully at a disadvantage seemingly unable to travel in any direction other than "straight and true" without tire howl.

So, there I sits in a $44K Chrysler 300, knowing that this car with its wonderfully smooth and potent V8 with its genuine wood panels, sat nav, voice controlled BlueTooth, rear seat DVD, heated and powered do-dads and leather lined, etc, showed none of the poor fit and finish I expected. Further, knowing what could be had from (for instance) the STS at a similar price point, I wondered "whither LPS?"

By this I mean, I consider this group of cars we report on, debate and discuss here to be "members of the club in good standing." Yet, were I to be given $44,000 and change and told to get an excellent 4-door sedan that could offer luxury and performance, fit and finish to be proud of and no discernible roughness or crudeness -- well, I would have to say I would be nuts not to consider the 300, despite its current status as a "non member" of the club.

The lines of demarcation in this historic sweet spot of cardom have been bent and have become blurred (for me.) I thought I knew what an LPS car was. Indeed, not too long ago, I was certain there could be NO American car on the list. I accepted the STS (the current iteration) as a member in good standing. I accepted the Germans and the Japanese (hell, I'm even willing to at least recognize at least the possibility that a Brit and a Swede qualify, these days.)

Yet, time and again, when I actually ask the question "how do you know?" or "what are the characteristics, the form, substance and perceptions that can be enumerated that describe such things as 'quality' or in this forum, an LPS car?" -- I get no answer.

If I had anything more than an inkling, I would gladly publish my list here and now for you to kibitz over, emasculate, eviscerate and perhaps even concur with.

My bubble, as of yet unburst, has at least developed a slow leak, that is.

The equation, thus far, seems to include MSRP. Does this by anyone's imagination mean that if the Chrysler 300 were, for instance, to somehow get to $54,000 that it would be a nominee for club membership? Does it mean if Audi were to have an across the board price cut of $5,000 that they would be driven out of town on a rail, banished from the club? If BMW elects to not only offer Mini's but import "really inexpensive" versions of their cars (such as are quite commonplace in the EU) that they too could fall from grace? Or is VW permanently precluded from consideration in the LPS - Members Only fraternity?

Can Lexus (and Infiniti and Acura for that matter), lacking global cred, ever find itself (themselves) in danger of being excommunicated?

What features, functions, affiliations, history, price, style, etc, qualifies one to be here. I kid you not. I thought I knew. I didn't.

As you know, I feel the cars we go on about here in LPS-land have become closer and closer and closer to each other in the traits and characteristics we seem to cherish. I wouldn't kick any of these fine cars out for eating crackers in bed. Heck for the gifting of one of these, I would gladly bring the crackers. To me, these cars are on a continuum from high lux to high performance. Yet, even the highest lux versions at the very least have adequate performance and vice versa. So, it gets down to styling preference and perhaps some historical evidence of reliability and durability (but even these statistics are, like a densely packed frequency histogram, almost opaque -- there's damn little white space between the dots that is.)

So, because I had the time to test and the time to write and the genuine curiosity, I started down the path of (to repeat) "whither LPS?" To what place will LPS go? If you were asked what "X" traits are "fur shure, fur shure" LPS traits, what would "we" (the experts, the customers) agree upon?

My zoology professor said, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- and this phrase leapt from the cobwebs of my mind as I pondered the meaning of LPS. As I recalled some of the interpretations of the theory, it made me wonder if all LPS cars were (are) not born from earlier "species" and that the LPS is just the highest form; and, if true, there are new LPS's being formed all the time. It just seems to me that what once were clearly NOT LPS contenders are advancing much more rapidly than the true LPS members are. It seems, that is, that the LPS cars are, as we discourse, able to look over their shoulders and see a new "ontogeny" gaining fast.

:confuse:

markcincinnati · December 2006

What defines LPS? The question, as far as I am concerned, has not been answered. Price and amenities can't possibly be the end all be all of this pithy topic? Do you think?

:confuse:

qbrozen · December 2006

Well, I'm going to stick my neck out here and take the stance that, yes, economy models in the lineup lessen a brand, and, yes, expensive models raise a brand's status.

I'll go ahead and be the snob here. I say that if Chrysler insists on keeping their badge on the PT Cruiser and Town and Country, they cannot be allowed into the luxo manufacturers' Xmas party.

If they eliminate those 2 from their lineup (send them to Dodge) and introduce, let's say, the Imperial, then we may be able to safely reclassify them.

I can't say what will happen in the future. If mercedes sells smart cars here with their badge, yes, it may diminish the brand. I can't say for certain, however, until actually seeing how it pans out with pricing, options, quality, etc.

sfcharlie · December 2006

I wonder if too much energy is being put into the task of categorization, for its own sake, when categorization (e.g. LPS, entry-level luxury, etc) matters not simply for semantic precision but because it is one legitimate source of the pleasure of owning and driving a particular car.

Viewed that way, it's allowable for one person to claim "I've feel I've located a hidden-gem bargain LPS in the form of the Chrysler 300, while it's equally legitimate for another person to say "well, good for you, but I wouldn't be able to extract the LPS-ownership pleasure ingredient from driving that car or any car from a line of cars that covers the whole range of car categories. There is actually a book by two auto-industry financial analysts where they argue that only MB, Audi, BMW, and Porsche make "Premium" cars and that Lexus and Infiniti are "only" luxury cars. If you bought their argument and that mattered to you, then you might heavily weight the pleasure of owning one of those brands.

A lot of what we argue about falls into categories of "general truth claims" (this is how things are and everybody who sees it differently is in denial) or "relative truth claims" (for me to have maximum pleasure in owning and driving a car it has to be one of these brands, not break down more than once in three years, etc).

As some of you recall, I made myself miserable by striving to make a purchase on the basis of convincing myself that I had found (in two auto mag comparos and in CR and JDP) an objective truth about the current LPS marketplace: no car could come close to the Infiniti M in providing overall car-pleasure. I over-road my own aesthetics and driving preferences, because spending this much for the first time made me more anxious than I anticipated. I found a lucky resolution based entirely on the enormous variations in how much pleasure (a multi-ingredient stew, I am suggesting) each person gets from one car or another. My sister-in-law is delighted with the M35 and I'm extra-delighted with the A6 S-Line (since I got a rare second chance to take the right fork in the road for me).

Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles