Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Cadillac XLR and XLR-V

13»

Comments

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    OK, something sensible to address.

    Prestige: No question that in 2006 Cadillac is playing from behind against the Germans and Italians. It's a wash with Lexus. Some Lexus buyers believe they are buying status and everyone else dismisses that as posing. Cadillac is actually well regarded now in some circles. However, I don't buy cars to telegraph my wealth or what I've achieved. In horsepower, money and success there's always someone with more anyway. I buy what I enjoy and in some measure what projects identity. No Mercedes could satisfy that for me. There are others like me and I really don't care whether that number exceeds the population of Mercedes brand seekers or not. I suppose on the contrary I prefer it is smaller.

    Style: Whether a 2-seat drop top is a toy or not depends on where you live. It undeniably has entertainment value but at times I've had sports cars as my only transportation. But style is a prime mover and on that front for me the XLR-v wins by a knockout over the squashed, bloated, long-overhangs SL. Others may disagree.

    Ride: You're probably correct that for some people this kind of car is expected to be a good cruiser. I'm not one of them. The cruiser character of the SL is precisely what excuses its surplus bulk and compromises it in the majority of driving. I strongly prefer the edgier, more sporting set of the XLR-v, and when it is in standard auto mode, the ride is soft enough for gliding around town on the no-longer-smooth streets of Los Angeles.

    Handling: I do agree that the status poseur only asks for reasonable handling competence, and that buyer likely has very little experience with a true sports car. However, there is a sub-segment of this market, in which I include myself, for whom handling is expected to be as close to sports-car-like as possible given the mass necessitated by its GT luxury retracting hardtop configuration. Hence, an XLR-v weighs about 600 pounds more than the performance-oriented Corvette that shares its platform.

    I agree that for the market-at-large today, Mercedes beats Cadillac in perceived prestige. If someone if buying a car to announce their success to the world and they want a specific recognition and response to what they are telegraphing, then Mercedes will do that and Cadillac may or may not. However for a more secure, confident person, this wouldn't matter at all.

    So it comes to the interior. No doubt, making it more....something...would overcome a certain kind of buyer's objections. At $76K I don't see the problem with the XLR interior and I've been inside everything it competes with. All the $60K - $80K cars have plastic and leather and wood inside, and none of it looks crafted. It's all mass produced and looks it. On the arrangement of functions, ergonomics, communications, the XLR is a specific aesthetic that I and many others like for its straightforwardness and simplicity. The XLR-v significantly upgrades the touch points and cosmetics on the same ergonomics. If I were the product planner, I'd say put the XLR-v interior in the XLR and then let's look at how we can boost the prestige visuals and tactiles in the V. Especially given the higher-than-average markup in the car. BUT, that's a nice-to-have and the way it is presents no reason not to consider or buy the car. It's quite convincing and accommodating the way it is. Given the serious gap in price between equal equipment SL55 and XLR-v, if upgrading the interior further meant losing any aspect of the drivetrain or dynamics, I'd be begging to keep the interior as is.

    Now, as a business move, if I were running GM I would consider pricing for the break-even point plus dealer profit to disrupt the market. The fact that they didn't do that is a business decision, right or wrong, that isn't a reflection on the car itself. The fact is, its pricing is more than competitive for what it delivers and the experience the driver gets.

    In introducing the V into this rarefied market, Cadillac is asserting that the criteria for selection in the class have room for alternative thinking. I can say that actually driving the cars has the potential to change your views about what matters and what doesn't in this class. Cadillac's challenge is to make sure the V gets evaluated. I approached this with no loyalty to GM, and in fact had never bought a new GM vehicle before this. A lot of people ask me for advice on cars and in this class, my message is, if you think you are working from a short list of one -- Mercedes SL -- you settling for less entertainment than you could be getting at the price.

    Phil
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Phil, you are 100% correct for yourself. From your posts, you did your homework and bought the best car for your needs/wants and desires. And I enjoy your reviews and thoughts. Also, to me, a point in the XLR's favor is its relative exclusivity. In Boston, as LA, SL500s are far from a rarity. But an XLR? Once in a blue...

    My comments were a generalization, as I stated. People buy a car for many different reasons and none of them are wrong. Because they are buying the car they want with their money for themselves (as did you). Whether it is prestige, style, economy, power, ride/handling or a pretty color, if they buy they are correct. Nothing wrong with that.

    I appreciate the effort Caddy is making to once again (re)establish a brand identity. While the CTS was crossed off my list early, it did seem to signify a new beginning. At least it is bold (and a good drive, from what I've read). As you've stated, while each Caddy may not be the "best" in its segment they are being compared/contrasted with the established peers and are fairing well. Finally, viable alternatives. However, I believe that their "ambitious " pricing has hurt their efforts a bit. Better cars, same discounts/rebates/trunk money/"Employee Pricing" to actually align the pricing with the market. But I'm no business genius, so what do I know? I'm just a car guy and consumer :)

    When it's time for the evil wife to upgrade her Lexus RX, I'm sure we'll check out the SRX (but again, that interior...I'm sorry. I know they all use plastics/woods/leathers but some mfg. just know how to put them to better use. To me, Audi and Lexus craft some lovely interiors. MB, too). I continue to window shop (used) XLRs, one never knows... EMC could hit $100/share again, right???

    Keep enjoying the Vs. Post any interesting tidbits, reliability/lack thereof, economy, performance, notes from the road. Unless, of course, you don't have time because you're out enjoying the ride!

    Three days to the beginning of the Red Sox valiant march to glory!

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • jlmartinjlmartin Member Posts: 7
    Greetings,

    I am one of the fortunate to have the opportunity to purchase a world class luxury roadster. For my requirements, MB SL500,Cadillac XLR and Lexus SC430 were the final three for serious consideration.

    I should note, Porsche 911, Chevy's Corvette, Jaguar's XK8, BMW's 650i Maserati's Spyder convertible were reviewed and I liked many aspects of what these cars offered. But for all that these cars offered and let me say they are wonderful products, they all were missing a key requirement, hard top drop ease. And quite honestly I was not looking for the ultimate sports car, but instead a GT luxury roadster.

    First, I would be happy with any of these luxury roadsters sitting in my garage. In my evaluation I ranked Cadillac's XLR best in class luxury roadster. The Lexus SC430 was eliminated after the first test drive. My wife's comment nailed it, "drives kinda like a Lexus sedan" and for me the overall styling was not my favorite. But Lexus has a fine product and we have owned two of their sedans and high quality with a big "Q", Lexus wins hands down. For the SC430, we found it to be a well wonderful car, but not very sporty feeling. So it ranked last. However, the Lexus SC430 was the bargain of the group, coming in at a little over $67,000

    The real contest for me came between the MB SL500 and Caddy XLR. For overall styling, (exterior/interior) XLR wins. For me when I walked up to the SL500 I liked what I saw, but it did not excite me, good styling overall and interior design nice, but nothing that grabbed me. But when I walked around the XLR, WOW is what came to mind. What a beautiful, exotic contemporary design. I could see myself peeking at it in my garage. And the interior design is beautiful with a fresh, uncluttered, modern styling that adorns the touch areas with luxury level leather, wood and aluminum. In comparison the SL500 is more traditional, with very good materials, but a bit busy design with lots of buttons when the SL500 is optioned to the level of the XLR. The SL500 priced a little over $108,000 compared to XLR' $78,000 price tag. But quite honestly, this was not the key factor. The key factor was the drive of the SL500. The SL500 is a very heavy feeling and interesting softer in its ride on some road conditions than the XLR. The XLR on the other hand, has better balance of feel and ride with a more sporty to drive sensation compared to the SL500. Let me state, none of these luxury roadsters offer the type of feedback that other high end sports cars offer and that is part of its appeal to me. The race track is not a weekend affair or of interest for me.

    From the point of view of specifications, both products are to close to split hairs about.

    Other design approaches become evident when comparing the XLR and SL500. From a driver standpoint the systems integration is better implemented in the XLR when compared to the SL500. For example there are no keys for the XLR (only for emergency). No key hole slot in the doors and as a matter of fact, the doors release electronically, no door handles of the conventional style. I know this may sound like a small item, but it added to the exotic design of the exterior. The same goes for the interior as well, no door handle release to pull, just a small round button and the door is opened for you. The Heads Up display works very effectively and once you become accustom to having this feature, it becomes an irritation to drive without it. All in all. I view the difference between Cadillac's XLR and MB's SL500 as matter of contemporary versus traditional. There is one other factor to consider, how the cars interfaces with its driver. This topic is not talked about very much, but was another edge I gave to the Cadillac designers in that, the XLR was the most intuitive in everyday use and created a ease of use better than the SL500. The SL500 made you feel you needed to review the owners manual from cover to cover before you can use its high tech features. On the other hand XLR's integration makes you feel a quick reference card is all you need. In other words MB SL500 forces you to adapt to it versus the XLR adapts to you. For example the act of making or receiving a phone call. In the XLR, you press a button and simply say Call and provide the number you wish to connect to. If you say Dial, you simple say the key word and the numbers you have stored are completed. This all without taking you eyes off the road. Another example is when you wish to change the XM station or switch to your favorite MP3, CD or DVD disc collection, simply select from your steering wheel buttons and view the results through the Heads Up display, it is seamless. This is one area where the XLR is far ahead of its competition in its design approach. No small feat when you consider the amount of technology within these vehicles.

    I would expect the next generation of the SL500 and Lexus's new $100,000 GT car will have me re-evaluating my XLR decision. But for now, Cadillac's XLR is, in my opinion the best in class luxury roadster.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    For some reason you have not been paying attention. I accept that the M5 is an effort to build a performance sedan, and that the 7 series is an attempt to build a luxury car. What you're not grasping is that someone who wants a more passenger-accommodating performance car than the M5, the STS-v is an alternative. And for someone who wants a more performance-oriented luxury car than the 7 series, the same is true.

    And what you're not getting is that the STS isn't superior (like you originally stated) to either one of them at what they're designed to do. Who said that a Cadillac wasn't an "alternative"? Of course they're an "alternative", but they don't best the BMWs at what they're designed for, 5 being sport and 7 being luxury. Why is that so hard to grasp? Just because Cadillac wants to be the odd man out and size their cars differently in a futile attempt to cover more segments isn't BMW's fault.

    For anyone who wants a car configured exactly to the 5 and 7 series formulas, only a BMW will do, since no one else will ever build the identical car. Cadillac didn't set out to build identical formula cars. I think it's you making excuses for BMWs that are too one-dimensional in their intent, as sedans.

    I think you've made nothing but excuses for Cadillac since day one.

    Sorry, but a CTS-v doesn't get "beaten badly" by an M5. Especially when you consider the nearly $30K difference in price. But I already addressed the reasons why the cars are closer than you say, in the prior post. Certainly in North American conditions, the CTS-v formula has more tractable, more accessible power, and in a lighter more entertaining package. It's only missing some extra leather and dead weight compared to the M5, and the gap is even narrower compared to a lesser 5. If Cadillac equipped the CTS-v to an $81,000 retail level of gear and creature comforts, it wouldn't be difficult to beat the M. But there's no need to. The better driver in the "slower" car can beat the average driver in the one with 500hp sitting up there at 7750rpm.

    I can't believe you're being serious here. The CTS-V gets its lugnuts handed to it by the M5. You can argue all day long about how badly the CTS-V gets beaten by the M5, but the in the end the result is the same....M5 wins. Period.

    There's no advantage to a surplus quarter ton in a GT car, no matter how much you'd like to sweep that under the rug. It's only penalty. Nothing positive can be achieved by that mass, especially since the price of the car suggests the engineering and materials would be more sophisticated to avoid the needles bulk. An interior is superficial and the differences you complain about are small. No doubt, some people will choose a car on that criterion alone. But then they're not really buying the car, are they? For an extra $40+ thou, I hope Mercedes can put a few more scraps of leather and metal in their interior! The XLR-v ergonomics are fundamentally correct however and they've come to market with something much more distinctive, better engineered for mass optimization, and more entertaining to boot, for enough less cash to buy a sports sedan. I expect there to be a little less of something somewhere. The interior is the logical place to dial back the opium den aesthetic.

    Yawn, yet when the two are compared the SL gets the nod in the handling department.

    I have to say your second post reads like nothing ever seen before. No one but a GM apologist could come up with so much nonesense about the M5 and so many excuses in an attempt to put over a clearly outdone Cadillac CTS-V.

    Most 5 series owners wouldn't know what to do with performance in a car if the instructions were written on the windshield.

    Really? I guess the average senior-citizen in a STS or DTS would? You seem to live in your own little world when it comes to Cadillac like their buyers are more informed about their cars and that Cadillac has all of a sudden become a performance brand.

    STS sales down? Yes, modestly. So are E-Class Mercedes. In Cadillac's case, part of this reason is the new DTS which is taking some STS customers who a year prior bought a smaller car than they originally intended. The STS drop off is just a few hundred units.

    Wrong. An 18 percent YTD drop-off compared to last year isn't modest, especially in the 2nd model year of the car! That ain't "modest" that is a problem for a new model. The E-Class is only down 3 percent YTD compared to last year, and it has been on the market since 2003. You trying to call that STS' drop in sales modest sounds/reads like all these recent press releases from GM in which they talk about their "turnaround" working while they bleed market share and sales every month like a cut pig.

    M
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Very nice write-up, thanks!

    While the interior of the SC430 is still one of my fave's, the exterior is a very distant third, imo, to both the XLR and the SL. Many people downgrade the SC as not being sporty enough, but I don't believe Lexus ever marketed the SC as a sports car, rather a GT, sport tourer.

    I, too, would (most probably) only consider a hardtop convertible. Luckily, over the next 18 months it looks like those ranks will grow offering true(er) four seating capability which, for my family, will be a good thing.

    Still, the XLR catches my eye. The kids can walk!

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    As premium fuel here in the Boston area rapidly approaches $3/gallon, anyone care to post their XLR mpg? A child of "energy crisis" and "fuel shortage" of the '70s, economy is always on my mind. And wallet...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    I drove through both the '73/'74 and '79 fuel crises too. On sustained freeway driving at 80+mph, my XLR-v gets 23-24mpg. In mixed Los Angeles urban/clogged freeway/canyon roads/open freeway, I get 18mpg, which includes the stop-and-go 4mph rush hour creep. On a whole tankful of nothing but city and rush hour freeway creep, I get 14mpg. I consider this excellent for a 443hp car. It's a little worse than my former manual tranny Corvette and a little better than other supercharged vehicles I've had. At $3.00/gal in SoCal, premium gasoline is still cheap in real dollar terms and not a concern if you can afford this car. Even at this price and mileage, I am paying a lower percetnage of my after-tax income for fuel than I was in 1973 or 1979.

    Phil
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    The STS-v is a better CAR than an M5. It costs less too. It's irrelevant whether the M5 has modestly better performance numbers. It's a little smaller, less useful as a passenger-carrying car, and its margins over the STS-v are scarcely meaningful in North American driving. On the contrary, the STS-v performance bias makes more sense on our continent than does the M5. As an abstract object M5 is finely engineered. So is the Cadillac. The Caddy and the BMW are close but each is optimized a bit differently, and this is true whether you compare it to the 7 or the 5. No one takes their M5 to the track to trade paint and no one thinks the 7 series is anything but a dreadnaught sedan. A difference in drivers can put the STS-v ahead of the M5 and magnify the porkiness of the 7. As cars, these three are different flavors and the STS-v gives you a good measure of the advantages of both, making it a better singular car than either.

    Reviewers have commented that the XLR-v chassis is sharper handling than the SL. It's true. It is. You only have to drive both the V and the SL500 or 55. When you've actually driven all these cars like I have, come back when you know what you're talking about.

    I didn't mention anything about Cadillac's customers' ability to leverage a performance car's performance. Cadillac isn't the brand with the hordes of status-seeking Mario-pretenders. As I said before, V-Series is a performance brand. Cadillac's brand is broader.

    The 18% drop in STS sales is modest when you consider the sales that went to the new DTS. E-class being down 3% is a problem for Mercedes too. It's a competitive market where if you're not growing you have something to attend to. BMW was up. Congratulations to them. They've successfully managed their brand for status-seekers for 30 years.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    The STS-V isn't better car than the M5, that is nonesense and no publication, professional driver would ever agree with such nonsense. The STS-V competes with the 7-Series in price only, not in much else. Face it, for the M5 was designed to do (be a sports sedan) it trounces any and everything from Cadillac. End of story.

    Reviewers have commented that the XLR-v chassis is sharper handling than the SL. It's true. It is. You only have to drive both the V and the SL500 or 55. When you've actually driven all these cars like I have, come back when you know what you're talking about.

    I haven't read that anywhere, care to give a credible source? Everything I've seen says the opposite, despite all this nonesense about weight and what not. Fine you've driven the cars and you found different, but your opinion is in the minority and I'll take the mags words before I will an obvious GM apologist that has a grand excuse and/or twist for every GM shortfall.

    I didn't mention anything about Cadillac's customers' ability to leverage a performance car's performance. Cadillac isn't the brand with the hordes of status-seeking Mario-pretenders. As I said before, V-Series is a performance brand. Cadillac's brand is broader.

    Broader, wider whatever you want to call it, yet they can't catch BMW with a tailwind in either sales or performance. It isn't Mercedes, BMW's or Lexus' fault that Cadillac destroyed their image in the mind of luxury car buyers to the point of not being on the image scale. If Cadillac were still the standard of the world you'd be cheering about how prestigious they are. Another thing has to be said too about this point, Cadillac has made nothing but old folks cars up until now and that group doesn't usually care about image and who not, but for brand who actually make cars that people want drive (instead of riding in) like BMW and Mercedes of course they'll draw more image seekers than a worn-out, tired old brand like Cadillac.

    The 18% drop in STS sales is modest when you consider the sales that went to the new DTS. E-class being down 3% is a problem for Mercedes too. It's a competitive market where if you're not growing you have something to attend to. BMW was up. Congratulations to them. They've successfully managed their brand for status-seekers for 30 years.

    An eighteen percent drop in the 2nd model year of a new model is "modest"?! More GM-type spin and excuses. The E-Class is up for a facelift and I'll bet you that they wind up selling more this year than last despite a 3-percent drop for the first few months of the year.

    Knock BMW and Mercedes because they're hot while trying to play up tired Cadillac as some type of thinking man's alternative because they've finally managed to become merely competitive after 30 years of building people couldn't care less about, yeah I've got it.

    Oh I get it, the STS' sales tanking in its second year is the result of all the educated buyers having bought one last year so now they've moved on to the even more boatlike DTS. Makes sense to me. Yet these are some type of performance buyers that would compare a STS to a 750i? Absolutely ridiculous.

    M
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    A professional driver's or a magazine's opinion one way or another about the STS-v being a better car for general purposes than an M5 isn't relevant. My point is that judging any sedan as a sports car or on sports car attributes is nonsense, as building to that spec reduces the vehicle's suitability as a passenger-carrying car. Now, if someone wants a 4-door built to BMW's M formula, fine. But really, even a sports-car-performing sedan cannot give you the sports car experience. The driver doesn't have the seating proximity to the drive wheels, seating position, chassis feedback, low mass, or the low center of gravity to have the same experience. Hence an M5 is optimized for factors that undermine its suitability as a passenger vehicle without delivering a sportscar experience, and the Cadillac makes fewer such sedan suboptimizations to favor irrelevent performance. It's a better formula for a performance sedan, not intended to duplicate the pointless M5, and sharper driving than the larger 7. If I want a car engineered to nth-degree performance, I'll buy a sports car where the intended experience is intrinsic to both the engineering and configuration, as in a Z06. For a 4 door performance sedan, the STS-v is a more considered and appealing mix of characteristics and, really, the number of people who agree with that is irrelevant to whether the observation is valid. No one drives a 4 door luxury sedan on public roads at 1g, and not even evasive maneuverability demands it.

    The one thing all these performance sedans have that is universally pertinent is big brakes for stopping power. Excellent! On the other factors, too much "performance" in a sedan begins to compromise its chief function while the form factor precludes the experience that extreme performance bias tries to capture. You end up with a cramped 4000 pound 4-door stuffed with a torque-anemic, V10 having its peak horsepower up in buzz-bomb territory near 8000 rpm. The image and mechanics just don't jibe. Where's the wing on trunk-mounted 3-foot drilled titanium supports? You have to drive the thing like a backwards-ballcap-wearing modified Ricer to extract the spec performance from that thing. You can't maintain any civil dignity in your $80,000+ teutonic, flame-surfaced, humpy box. BUT you can get something larger with more torque and plenty of peak horsepower accessible at 1300 fewer rpms; or something a quarter ton trimmer with more torque and plenty of usable horsepower accessible at 1700 fewer rpms. There, that's how it's done. BMW makes fine cars, really. None that I would own, but good cars nevertheless. They just don't make Cadillac Vs.

    If I cared about majority opinion at all, I'd have a stupidly-overweight, quarter-ton-too-heavy SL-something, and be sheepishly explaining that I'm just not independent enough to have bought the better car.

    As for the comment on the XLR-v having a sharper handling chassis than the SL series, Automobile Magazine for one. But as I said, if you actually go drive them, you don't need a reviewer to point out the obvious.

    Although I am old enough to remember a time when Cadillac made cars that young people aspired to, none of them actually interested me. Older people tended to own them because back then younger people couldn't afford the cars. Young people didn't expect to own prestige cars and if they did buy way beyond their means, they bought sports cars -- Corvettes, Porsches, Healeys and Jags -- or, later, msucle cars. Credit wasn't liberal, leasing was non-existent, and there was a lower incidence of brand status-seeking in the culture. Sure, Cadillac neglected and actively mismanaged their brand since the mid-sixties. But it's really status-seekers who have swelled the sales of BMW, Mercedes and Lexus above any intrinsic core buying population of people who might actually understand the car they've bought. Those companies have done a good marketing job over the last 20 years and until recently, Cadillac has not.

    I am not trying to open the eyes of status-seekers. They are mindless about product and driven by brand perception alone, and can only be turned around over time. I am only concerned today with car buyers who actually grasp real, meaningful product differences, know how to drive, and are brand-independent enough to be open-minded about better or more interesting product choices from a resurgent brand.

    I remain mystified how you came to the conclusion that I'm a GM apologist. I am a first-time GM new vehicle customer with no history whatsoever of GM fealty. I've owned at least 10 Ford vehicles. I think Rick Wagoner is latest in a long line of beancounter CEOs whose very mindset has hamhandedly put GM into its current plight. I'm apologizing for nothing about GM. However, when they win on product I'm ready to recognize it.

    A CTS-v is more usable than an M3 and more emotional and fun than an M5. Mercedes has nothing equivalent. An XLR-v is sharper, lighter and more fun than an SL-55, and more modern in its form. And these attributes are true even before considering Cadillac's price advantage.

    You continue to miss the point about the drop in STS sales and the intro of the new DTS -- the new DTS picked up some of the prior year's STS volume. Some new customers for Cadillac 4 doors prefer a larger car. They are not performance-oriented, not size-constrained, and for them the DTS works better, just as some BMW customers prefer the porky 7 to the more nimble 5. The DTS also picks up some customers in northern climates who have come to prefer the snow traction of front-wheel drive, irrespective of the fact that FWD isn't appealing to you and me.

    I don't know where you are, M, so if you're outside the US, what I'm about to say is not relevant. But if you are in the US, then you have a direct interest in seeing Cadillac specifically and GM in general succeed. The reversal of fortune there will not happen overnight. And it will be uneven, product-by-product. The turnaround task is gargantuan. If brand prevents you or others from recognizing, appreciating and supporting with your cash the instances of GM fielding world-class competitors, then you can't expect those efforts to continue. There are many car models where a GM buyer is effectively looking past meaningful product deficiencies to buy American, get Onstar, support a local dealer, or whatever. But the Cadillac V-series cars are not among them.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    My point is that judging any sedan as a sports car or on sports car attributes is nonsense, as building to that spec reduces the vehicle's suitability as a passenger-carrying car.

    Then what in the world is all the talk about the CTS-V being better than the M5 when it is about the same size and not nearly as luxurious in addition to being trounced by the M5 on performance? None of what you're saying makes any sense. You're still trying to give these Cadillacs a free-pass on being not up to par as sports sedans because they're slightly bigger depending on which angle you use to put the Cadillac in the best light possible. It won't work because the whole point of a car like the CTS-V is to be a sports sedan, the regular versions can carry people if that is what people are looking for. M5 scorches the CTS-V in any performance contest you can come up with...I'm not sure what about that fact is difficult to understand.

    The STS-V may be a more appeal package to you, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone else outside of the GM camp that agrees with this. You're clearly in the minority on that one.

    You can go on forever and a day about the BMW M5 and its V10 and how it develops its power but at the end of the day it will smoke any Cadillac build. End of story. You're right BMW doesn't make Cadillac "V"s they make something entirely different and according to most, better. The bottom line is that the M5 outperforms the CTS-V and there no amount of GM-induced spin that can change that.

    I remain mystified how you came to the conclusion that I'm a GM apologist. I am a first-time GM new vehicle customer with no history whatsoever of GM fealty. I've owned at least 10 Ford vehicles. I think Rick Wagoner is latest in a long line of beancounter CEOs whose very mindset has hamhandedly put GM into its current plight. I'm apologizing for nothing about GM. However, when they win on product I'm ready to recognize it.

    I don't see how you could be. You come up with an excuse for GM at every single turn and you seem to think Cadillac has managed to outdo BMW in building a sports/sporty sedan. This whole conversation reeks of excuses for GM left and right and/or a smear of competing brands with points like:

    1. Trying to compare Cadillacs to a one-up size BMW - typical specious GM tactic by both supporters and GM corporate alike.

    2. Talking about weight in the SL and M5, while at the same time saying that none of these cars should be judged as sports cars. This is the point I made at the start here, the XLR isn't a sports car and most buyers of a 75K roadster aren't going to throw it around like one, yet you went on and on about how the XLR is so tossable and how the SL is so heavy, but now these cars shouldn't be judged on sports car criteria??? Simply does not make sense.

    3. Labeling all BMW/MB buyers as mere status seekers like all of them are so clueless, all the while trying to make out Cadillac buyers as this incredibly well informed group of buyers when most of them wouldn't know any more about their cars than buyers of any other brand. In reality they likely know less especially when it comes to competitors cars. The only reason Cadillac is even still around is because there was a group of people so ignorant to the point that they wouldn't buy anything else during the 80's and early 90's when Cadillac heaved more junk on the road than anyone else. This applies to GM as a whole during that time and there is still a large group of GM-only folks around today which have kept the company going until recently.

    Perfect example of excuse making for Cadillac/GM:

    You continue to miss the point about the drop in STS sales and the intro of the new DTS -- the new DTS picked up some of the prior year's STS volume. Some new customers for Cadillac 4 doors prefer a larger car. They are not performance-oriented, not size-constrained, and for them the DTS works better, just as some BMW customers prefer the porky 7 to the more nimble 5. The DTS also picks up some customers in northern climates who have come to prefer the snow traction of front-wheel drive, irrespective of the fact that FWD isn't appealing to you and me.

    This is an excuse. So you're saying that Cadillac is so awful in marketing that they can't sell both the STS and DTS in good numbers at the same time? You've lost Cadillac's (or any car company's) plot if you think the reason for the STS' sales drop is the DTS. The idea is to sell both cars in good numbers to increase market share for the Cadillac brand, not alternate sales between the two. The STS has optional AWD so there goes the excuse about the DTS taking sales because it is FWD. No matter how you slice it, a 21 percent drop for a new model in its second year is a problem no matter what the brand is. Mercedes and BMW are able to sell their medium and large cars side by side without one of them dropping 21 percent when the other one is brand new. How about the truth for once? The STS is dropping like a rock because there are superior cars in its class. Newsflash: STS buyers aren't "performance-oriented" in the least. To even suggest that the STS is too much of a sporty car for the average Cadillac buyer to pass it over for the DTS is just plain absurd.

    I am not trying to open the eyes of status-seekers. They are mindless about product and driven by brand perception alone, and can only be turned around over time. I am only concerned today with car buyers who actually grasp real, meaningful product differences, know how to drive, and are brand-independent enough to be open-minded about better or more interesting product choices from a resurgent brand.

    Apparently a lot of buyers have been open minded about Cadillac in the last few years with their sales having risen dramatically in the last 3-4 years. My question for you is how do you know that these buyers are so well informed and so intelligent compared to BMW/MB buyers? Factual evidence please, not a story about someone you know who has an uncle/brother/nice/mother/neighbor/co-worker etc. etc. etc. that knows about cars and what you see on the road because none of that means anything here. Who and what says that Cadillac buyers more techincally astute then BMW/MB buyers??? Where is this written? Where is the proof of this? All BMW/MB buyers are mindless? That fits right in with all Cadillac buyers being geezers right? We both know that neither of those can't be true in every case.

    I personally don't want GM to fail, but then again if they do its their own fault...though we're talking about Cadillac here not GM.

    M
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Oh my.....you keep filtering out the content that answers the questions you pose. I already covered why the CTS-V is a preferable mix of attributes over an M5. It's more useful as a 4 door while delivering near sports-car performance in a sedan. The small (it doesn't "scorch" a CTS-V) raw performance margin in favor of the M5 comes at the price of a more cramped cabin, 500 pounds more useless bulk, overteched content, and a nice V10 (if you like V10s) that is just plain silly in its powerband for this application. It makes scarcely more sense in the M6; more sense still if they revived the Z8 and shoehorned it in the engine room. Judging a performance sedan on sports car performance alone is nonsense because no matter how far you bias its mix of attributes toward sheer grip, acceleration, top speed and handling, it still cannot duplicate the sensation of a sports car, nor does anyone actually drive a car of that configuration at anything more than 7/10ths performance.

    CTS-V has a better mix of attributes for a sporting sedan. More usable power that's more accessible in real conditions, in a more straightforward package, with more grip and stopping power than either car's buyers have the ability or courage to use. All at lower cost and less weight. It's not an excuse. Cadillac did not set out to duplicate an overengineered M5, they built a V instead. Moreover, with almost $30K price difference between the cars, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put merely SOME of that difference into tuner modifications to the V to handily outperform the M5 in the areas of advantage you cite. I can easily blow well past the M5's power and meet or exceed its grip and dynamics for much less than $30K, and I'll still have the better-looking, more usable, lighter-weight car. Hell, I can even slather it in more interior leather, too.

    That the STS-V's appeal over an M5 or a 7 series is a minority conclusion is irrelevant. Why would you even bring it up? If I agreed with the majority there'd be nothing to write about here. Clearly I think a lot of people are just plain wrong or at least willfully ill-informed.

    There are no excuses being made. Just reasons for differences. I've compared Cadillac V sedans to one-size up and one-size down BMWs. The CTS-V and STS-V sit between the BMW/Mercedes classes, so why not? A CTS-V is a better mix of performance sedan characteristics than an M3 or M5 for most drivers, whether they know it or not. An STS-V is similarly better-configured as a performance sedan than either and M5 or the "sportiest" 7 series. If more people actually drove these cars comparatively with a blind eye to brand, they'd reach the same conclusion.

    You keep condemning Cadillac for not meeting every spec of an M car. But they are not building M clones. They're building Vs. If Cadillac were to make the CTS-V an M5 clone, there'd be less than $28,000 difference in price between the cars. Less than $45K between an XLR-V and an SL55. Even with the traditional advantage to pragmatic American engineering, it would surely cost more to build 500 more pounds in either car and deliver more inaccessible horsepower.

    But how could they get there in the CTS in a better way? Let's see....7.0L LS7 from the Z06 for 505 hp and equal grunt in a lighter car. Not to mention that there's a 600+hp version of the small block under development and much more than that is cheaply reached in the aftermarket. Bigger front and rear sway bars. Make a differential cooler standard and bolster the diff case. Meatier bushings and a brace for the IRS. Punch up the spring rates a bit and stiffen the dampers some. Steering from the Z06. Z06 brakes. Bigger footprint tires and offer option of non-EMTs with a goo can. Oh...as a bone to you we'll put leather on the dash and doors and aluminum on the center stack. You're there. The M5 would be in your rear-view mirror.

    Uh-oh...but I forgot....WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER QUARTER TON to the car to equal BMW's engineering. How would you like your 500 lbs. of useless bulk? Bricks in the trunk? Depleted Uranium body armor in the floorpan? Maybe steel wheels with dogdish caps and cast iron in the exhaust? Geeze, it's hard find sensible ways to add all that weight, other than the upgrades in engine, suspension, brakes, tires. Or is the BMW M customer suddenly in favor of lead sound insulation? Isn't it self-evident by the $28,000 difference that a CTS-V isn't intended to clone an M5? Shall I start on the XLR-V v. SL55 along this line?

    None of these cars ARE sports cars. They are sporting cars. And weight is enemy to sporting characteristics as well as sensation, which is what sports cars deliver and sports sedans reach for. "Managed" weight might get to the numbers but still erodes the experience. There's no possible advantage to it. An extra quarter ton of useless bulk in a same-purpose, same-function, similar-spec performance car is bad, plain and simple. There's no way to disguise it. It infects everything from the car's economics to the sense of its behavior when changing direction. Just because grip can be engineered in doesn't make 500 pounds extra acceptable.

    You German car apologists and aficionados can't have it both ways. When Detroit's cars were heavy they were criticized mercilessly for their bulk. Now, the Germans are the ones packing on tubby lard and it's OK? Five-hundred pounds -- CTS-V to M5 and XLR-V to SL55. There is no consideration in which an extra quarter ton in mass is preferable in a similar-performing and same-function car that is already heavy due to luxury features. The XLR-V, based on a box-tube-frame/torque-tube, true sports car structure and chassis, is much more advanced in its vehicle engineering thinking than the tired, old-school, fat unibody SL. Remember when unibodies were supposed to be lighter? Now an aluminum bodied Audi weighs more than a steel body-on-frame Crown Vic and about the same as a Town Car.

    The STS is certainly sportier and perceived as harsher by Cadillac's legacy customers than a DTS. They will prefer the DTS because it's for them, not me. But the only cars we're discussing as performance cars on Cadillac's side are Vs. Yeah, the intent is to sell both cars and in fact, sales of DTS+STS last year exceeded STS+leftover old DeVille before that. The mix of sales settled into a market-driven STS and DTS proportions that trimmed STS for a year when the larger new car was introduced. So what? Now the task is to grow 2006 over 2005 for both cars.

    I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those c
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Oh my.....you keep filtering out the content that answers the questions you pose. I already covered why the CTS-V is a preferable mix of attributes over an M5. It's more useful as a 4 door while delivering near sports-car performance in a sedan. The small (it doesn't "scorch" a CTS-V) raw performance margin in favor of the M5 comes at the price of a more cramped cabin, 500 pounds more useless bulk, overteched content, and a nice V10 (if you like V10s) that is just plain silly in its powerband for this application. It makes scarcely more sense in the M6; more sense still if they revived the Z8 and shoehorned it in the engine room. Judging a performance sedan on sports car performance alone is nonsense because no matter how far you bias its mix of attributes toward sheer grip, acceleration, top speed and handling, it still cannot duplicate the sensation of a sports car, nor does anyone actually drive a car of that configuration at anything more than 7/10ths performance.

    CTS-V has a better mix of attributes for a sporting sedan. More usable power that's more accessible in real conditions, in a more straightforward package, with more grip and stopping power than either car's buyers have the ability or courage to use. All at lower cost and less weight. It's not an excuse. Cadillac did not set out to duplicate an overengineered M5, they built a V instead. Moreover, with almost $30K price difference between the cars, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put merely SOME of that difference into tuner modifications to the V to handily outperform the M5 in the areas of advantage you cite. I can easily blow well past the M5's power and meet or exceed its grip and dynamics for much less than $30K, and I'll still have the better-looking, more usable, lighter-weight car. Hell, I can even slather it in more interior leather, too.

    That the STS-V's appeal over an M5 or a 7 series is a minority conclusion is irrelevant. Why would you even bring it up? If I agreed with the majority there'd be nothing to write about here. Clearly I think a lot of people are just plain wrong or at least willfully ill-informed.

    There are no excuses being made. Just reasons for differences. I've compared Cadillac V sedans to one-size up and one-size down BMWs. The CTS-V and STS-V sit between the BMW/Mercedes classes, so why not? A CTS-V is a better mix of performance sedan characteristics than an M3 or M5 for most drivers, whether they know it or not. An STS-V is similarly better-configured as a performance sedan than either and M5 or the "sportiest" 7 series. If more people actually drove these cars comparatively with a blind eye to brand, they'd reach the same conclusion.

    You keep condemning Cadillac for not meeting every spec of an M car. But they are not building M clones. They're building Vs. If Cadillac were to make the CTS-V an M5 clone, there'd be less than $28,000 difference in price between the cars. Less than $45K between an XLR-V and an SL55. Even with the traditional advantage to pragmatic American engineering, it would surely cost more to build 500 more pounds in either car and deliver more inaccessible horsepower.

    But how could they get there in the CTS in a better way? Let's see....7.0L LS7 from the Z06 for 505 hp and equal grunt in a lighter car. Not to mention that there's a 600+hp version of the small block under development and much more than that is cheaply reached in the aftermarket. Bigger front and rear sway bars. Make a differential cooler standard and bolster the diff case. Meatier bushings and a brace for the IRS. Punch up the spring rates a bit and stiffen the dampers some. Steering from the Z06. Z06 brakes. Bigger footprint tires and offer option of non-EMTs with a goo can. Oh...as a bone to you we'll put leather on the dash and doors and aluminum on the center stack. You're there. The M5 would be in your rear-view mirror.

    Uh-oh...but I forgot....WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER QUARTER TON to the car to equal BMW's engineering. How would you like your 500 lbs. of useless bulk? Bricks in the trunk? Depleted Uranium body armor in the floorpan? Maybe steel wheels with dogdish caps and cast iron in the exhaust? Geeze, it's hard find sensible ways to add all that weight, other than the upgrades in engine, suspension, brakes, tires. Or is the BMW M customer suddenly in favor of lead sound insulation? Isn't it self-evident by the $28,000 difference that a CTS-V isn't intended to clone an M5? Shall I start on the XLR-V v. SL55 along this line?

    None of these cars ARE sports cars. They are sporting cars. And weight is enemy to sporting characteristics as well as sensation, which is what sports cars deliver and sports sedans reach for. "Managed" weight might get to the numbers but still erodes the experience. There's no possible advantage to it. An extra quarter ton of useless bulk in a same-purpose, same-function, similar-spec performance car is bad, plain and simple. There's no way to disguise it. It infects everything from the car's economics to the sense of its behavior when changing direction. Just because grip can be engineered in doesn't make 500 pounds extra acceptable.

    You German car apologists and aficionados can't have it both ways. When Detroit's cars were heavy they were criticized mercilessly for their bulk. Now, the Germans are the ones packing on tubby lard and it's OK? Five-hundred pounds -- CTS-V to M5 and XLR-V to SL55. There is no consideration in which an extra quarter ton in mass is preferable in a similar-performing and same-function car that is already heavy due to luxury features. The XLR-V, based on a box-tube-frame/torque-tube, true sports car structure and chassis, is much more advanced in its vehicle engineering thinking than the tired, old-school, fat unibody SL. Remember when unibodies were supposed to be lighter? Now an aluminum bodied Audi weighs more than a steel body-on-frame Crown Vic and about the same as a Town Car.

    The STS is certainly sportier and perceived as harsher by Cadillac's legacy customers than a DTS. They will prefer the DTS because it's for them, not me. But the only cars we're discussing as performance cars on Cadillac's side are Vs. Yeah, the intent is to sell both cars and in fact, sales of DTS+STS last year exceeded STS+leftover old DeVille before that. The mix of sales settled into a market-driven STS and DTS proportions that trimmed STS for a year when the larger new car was introduced. So what? Now the task is to grow 2006 over 2005 for both cars.

    I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those c
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    continued...

    I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those companies have achieved as marketers. You could argue I've implied that *I'm* better informed and that some people reflexively buying BMWs and MBs would actually be happier in Cadillacs if they took the time to learn the comparatives on an objective and experiential basis.

    I've said brand-seeking buyers are mindless about product, and this is true across the board. I've also said this is true for MB and BMW buyers OUTSIDE of their much smaller core aficionado constituency that actually does know about their cars. This latter is a small group and I am not concerned with them. They bought BMWs specifically for BMW's mix of attributes and they consciously don't care about the downsides. No issue there. I haven't said at any time that Cadillac buyers are more technically astute. You've injected that claim. I perhaps only implied that I am and more people should be.

    Phil
  • ClairesClaires Member Posts: 1,222
    Let's get back on track, please -- this is the XLR/XLR-V discussion. If you want to talk about the STS, DTS, or CTS, we have topics for each of them in the Sedans Forum. Thanks.

    MODERATOR

    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • xlrguyxlrguy Member Posts: 1
    You are living a "Yellow Submarine" pipe dream. I have just left a "reliability stained" 39 months with a 2003 E500, and my business associate just left (2 months earlier) a similarly stained experience with a SL500. Both of us were long time "believers" in the MB star. We both had late 80s - early 90s MBs that were good cars, but not great cars. They were reliable and delivered on the promise of quality. The two cars I mentioned above were in for a combined 31, ready that THIRTY-ONE, non-maintenance related events. I can only find comfort in the fact that he had more events that I, but not by much. Both of us had delivery defects that called for immediate service (why can't they at least check out the vehicles before turning them over to the customer) that did not serve well for the MB experience. It took over two years for them to solve just one problem that involved what I call "lost/delayed acceleration", but you will find many other choice names for it among the forums. I will not dwell on this point any more, but I would like you to note that MB is now far behind the latest upstarts (given that MB likes to state that they are the oldest car manufacturer in the world) from Korea when it comes to quality, warranty, value, and customer loyalty.

    My other associates experience with BMW is on a similar parallel, some with even worse experiences on the 7 series. The horror stories on the 5 (since it is relatively new) have only recently begin to hit with similar impact.

    You have consistently defended the inexorable and inexcusable engineering excess (primarily read that as obesity)of the SL(the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the expectation that something will change). I would like you to turn your attention to the latest Business Week, and to the report on how Boeing is (my term,"kicking Airbus's [non-permissible content removed]") by demonstrating the superiority of design utilizing the advantages of light weight provided by using composites in the design. The design wins are overwhelming, and it must be noted that Cadillac has chosen similar design goals.

    As an chemist and engineer myself, I found it very enlightening when I compared (with test drives) the SL500, XK, 650 and XLR. All are competent cars, but I found the XLR (coincidentally the lightest in the group) to be the the best car when it came to handling AND comfort. I did not know at the time that I test drove the XLR that it was a re-bodied, re-suspensioned, re-comforted Corvette, but it becsme obvious thirty minutes after exploring the car.

    Cadillac has spent a huge amount of capital in reversing their earlier ills, but I, for one, think that if they can get their product into a previous MB or BMW hands, believe that the "perception will no longer be the reality", and Cadillac will reverse the trend they started.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    First off just because the CTS-V uses a truck-grade pushrod V8 doesn’t mean the V10 in the M5 is overteched. People buy expensive cars for refinement as well as performance and the CTS-V is short on both when it comes to a car like the M5. BTW, the superior performance of the M5 isn’t “small” in the least. The stats don’t lie and the CTS-V can’t even keep a M5 in sight. Period. People don’t buy cars like the M5 or CTS-V for ferry around passengers, they buy them for increased performance otherwise they can buy a regular CTS or 5-Series. I don’t see what is so hard to understand about this. The M5 is a superior sports sedan and no amount of spin will change that. All this garble about useable power, weight, driver’s ability, is nothing but spin and excuses and yet you can’t deny that the M5 outperforms the CTS-V in any test of performance you can come up with.

    I have never seem so much written in order to spin/cover up the obvious superiority of the BMW M5, yet in the end the CTS-V is on the trailer.

    Feel free to speculate about Cadillac putting a 1000000hp engine in the CTS-V, but until they do all that is just that, speculation.

    The STS is certainly sportier and perceived as harsher by Cadillac's legacy customers than a DTS. They will prefer the DTS because it's for them, not me. But the only cars we're discussing as performance cars on Cadillac's side are Vs. Yeah, the intent is to sell both cars and in fact, sales of DTS+STS last year exceeded STS+leftover old DeVille before that. The mix of sales settled into a market-driven STS and DTS proportions that trimmed STS for a year when the larger new car was introduced. So what? Now the task is to grow 2006 over 2005 for both cars.

    No way, driven the STS and previous Devilles, uncles had Cadillacs for years and I've driven the new STS a few times. That is nothing but an excuse there unless the DTS got softer from previous generations, which I doubt since they're calling it a DTS now. Fact is that the STS is dropping in only its second year on the market, don't care who thinks it rides which way or whatever, sales are sales at the end of the day and Cadillac needs them in order to prop up a dying GM. The fact that they can't sell both cars without one having so much effect on the other (per your excuse) says a lot about Cadillac. If Cadillac was serious about becoming something agin the FWD DTS needs to go or be redesign to bring it up to date with other large luxury cars.

    None of these cars ARE sports cars. They are sporting cars. And weight is enemy to sporting characteristics as well as sensation, which is what sports cars deliver and sports sedans reach for. "Managed" weight might get to the numbers but still erodes the experience. There's no possible advantage to it. An extra quarter ton of useless bulk in a same-purpose, same-function, similar-spec performance car is bad, plain and simple. There's no way to disguise it. It infects everything from the car's economics to the sense of its behavior when changing direction. Just because grip can be engineered in doesn't make 500 pounds extra acceptable.

    The contradictions here are amazing. One minute these are not sports cars yet weight is a problem. You're right they aren't sports cars which is they the Cadillac's being lighter doesn't help them when they're trimmed in cheapo materials which is something that luxury car buyers care more about than flinging around a 100K car.

    You German car apologists and aficionados can't have it both ways. When Detroit's cars were heavy they were criticized mercilessly for their bulk. Now, the Germans are the ones packing on tubby lard and it's OK? Five-hundred pounds -- CTS-V to M5 and XLR-V to SL55. There is no consideration in which an extra quarter ton in mass is preferable in a similar-performing and same-function car that is already heavy due to luxury features. The XLR-V, based on a box-tube-frame/torque-tube, true sports car structure and chassis, is much more advanced in its vehicle engineering thinking than the tired, old-school, fat unibody SL. Remember when unibodies were supposed to be lighter? Now an aluminum bodied Audi weighs more than a steel body-on-frame Crown Vic and about the same as a Town Car.

    Your comparision doesn't have any basis because these German cars you're trying to say are to heavy can easily outperform the Cadillacs you're trying to compare them with and secondly that American junk you're talking about couldn't get out of its own way and had the build of a boxcar. Big difference compared to today's cars. I'll give you that the A8 should be lighter considering its construction, but compared to Lincoln Town Car? Don't be ridiculous. The Audi's interior furnishings alone embarrase anything from any American car company and it also has AWD which adds weight not to mention it is just a superior car.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true.

    And I'm saying that you don't have any way of knowing this beyond your own experience with them so you don't know what the percentage is and that more importantly you have know way of knowing that Cadillac buyers are any more intelligent.

    I've said brand-seeking buyers are mindless about product, and this is true across the board. I've also said this is true for MB and BMW buyers OUTSIDE of their much smaller core aficionado constituency that actually does know about their cars. This latter is a small group and I am not concerned with them. They bought BMWs specifically for BMW's mix of attributes and they consciously don't care about the downsides. No issue there. I haven't said at any time that Cadillac buyers are more technically astute. You've injected that claim. I perhaps only implied that I am and more people should be.

    Ok, I'll go with this but you still don't know how large that group of MB/BMW buyers are that know about their products. Since there is no way to measure this why bring it up? It's pointless.

    M
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Well you're talking about a whole different issue, I can certainly understand that if you've been burned by Mercedes why you would feel that way. However reliability isn't what was being debated here. Do I think Mercedes has a problem in that area? For sure. No argument from me there.

    I will not dwell on this point any more, but I would like you to note that MB is now far behind the latest upstarts (given that MB likes to state that they are the oldest car manufacturer in the world) from Korea when it comes to quality, warranty, value, and customer loyalty.

    I won't dwell on it either, but Korean cars don't even come close to MB in other areas. A better warranty is needed because everyone remember the junk they've built in the past and the driving experience isn't even up to Japanese levels let alone anything from Germany. Don't get into an accident in a Korean car either, nothing but tins cans designed to get 5-stars in government and nothing more. The only thing "quality" about a Korean car is the fine way they have in working plastiwood and placing well in relibility surveys...while they deliver a sup-par driving experience and tin-can build intergrity.

    You have consistently defended the inexorable and inexcusable engineering excess (primarily read that as obesity)of the SL(the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the expectation that something will change). I would like you to turn your attention to the latest Business Week, and to the report on how Boeing is (my term,"kicking Airbus's [non-permissible content removed]") by demonstrating the superiority of design utilizing the advantages of light weight provided by using composites in the design. The design wins are overwhelming, and it must be noted that Cadillac has chosen similar design goals.

    And others have defended similar flaws in the XLR and even have gone so far to completely disregard them when everyone else seems them. Thats the definition of insanity, you know the "they're all making it up" condition.

    There is nothing "inexorable and inexcusable" about the SL's engineering. That is absurd and really a baseless claim unless you know the complete interworkings of the car. You seem to have also forgotten that the SL isn't a sports car its a GT cars as is the XLR. Now if you found the XLR to be more competent (as at least one other here) then good for you. Problem is that the things you call "inexorable and inexcusable" are what make the SL the class leader and until cars like the XLR become more well rounded they'll forever play second fiddle. I hardly think the average buyer in this class cares about the weight of the car compared to the interior, features, comfort and overall experience (not just handling) and besides it isn't like the SL can't handle. Others here will argue that XLR can outhandle the SL500, but that isn't what the professionals say. Can't comment on the SL55 vs the XLR-V, haven't driven either.

    Seems like you're willing to excuse anything Cadillac does for whatever reason when I find the interior of the XLR to be "inexorable and inexcusable" for its price as well as its looks, IMO.

    M
  • skeezixskeezix Member Posts: 45
    Merc1 says "the CTS-V can’t even keep a M5 in sight. Period." I thought about that and decided to look at Road and Track's Summary from December 2005 that was lying on the floor. M5:0-60 is 4.8 seconds, 0-100 is 11.3 seconds, the 1/4 mile is 13.3@108.5, top speed is 155 MPH, 60-0 is 116 feet, 100-0 is 203 feet, the slalom was 66.4 MPH, and the observed gas mileage was 18.2 MPG. The CTS-V has the following stats to compare:5.0, 11.4, 13.4@109, 163, 115, 202, 66.0, and 17.1. I simply do not see the huge performance disparity that you quote. The cars seem very well matched to me, performance wise. The comment about the "truck engine" is one of the most false statements I have ever heard. These forums are good for that though. Just make a statement - that makes it true.
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Some things are just so lame it makes you wonder. Like calling the LS2 V8 "truck grade" because it has pushrods. Even the Euro-weenie car press doesn't think the LS2/LS7 are anything less than world class engines with huge character specific to them. So we'll ignore that bit of nonsense.

    A business acquaintence needed a ride from the airport yesterday. He drives an SL55, which has caused him no end of glitch torture. Anyway, he got in my XLR-v, not being familiar with the car. After a couple of miles, his first comment about the car was "What the hell is this? It feels way more nimble than my SL55." His second comment, looking around the interior was, "This is a Cadillac? They did a beautiful job on this car!" He agreed with me that the carpet should be upgraded.

    Premium gasoline hit $3.32 last night in SoCal. I had a late business dinner and then had to drive from Orange County back to L.A. I filled up before I left. 71 miles of night freeway driving, average speed of 82 mph, my gas mileage was 25.2 mpg. Not bad for a 443hp car with a juice drive.

    I've had the car 2 months as of today, 3000 miles. Like high-end audio gear and new guitars, the car benefits from break-in, so new owners should be patient about little extraneous noises. They all emanate from the top. Little chatters on rough pavement caused by glass-to-weatherseal interfaces and new seal-to-seal interfaces. I've heard the same thing from new SLs and Lexi too. But at about 6 weeks suddenly the seams settle in and the car quiets down. During this time if you need any assurance that the car is rock solid, put the top down and you'll hear that nothing moves that isn't supposed to.

    Another thing is that people just love this car. It gets nothing but favorable attention and response. The German luxury brand mindset has attracted so much social arrogance to it that many people resent a Porsche, BMW or Merc. Not this car. Like a Mustang, a Mini, a Ford GT, everyone has a soft spot for it. It is unifying rather than polarizing. Drivers of Bentleys, slammed Acuras, Mustang GTs, BMWs, Mercs, F150s, Mini Coopers and Ferraris give the car smiles and thumbs-up. The real arbiters of street cred, the Latino valet crowd, love this machine. I get more favorable lot position for the XLR-v than anything short of a Maranello or Gallardo.

    Weight is a problem in any car with sporting intentions. 500 lbs extra in the Merc! Ridiculous. Even the guy yesterday had to observe, "Makes my SL feel positively fat." Yeah. Looks it too. Side by side, the SL just looks old and in the way. Anyway, if you can't understand how deleterious a surplus quarter ton is to the character of a 2 seat GT with performance aspirations, I suppose no words will move the ball upfield.

    Not one of those larded up German cars "easily" outperforms its V series match. As another poster already illustrated, the vast differences you claim are fiction. In either car, the superior driver wins.

    My point about Audi vs Town Car mass was not to compare the cars but to point out that to make an aluminum car as heavy as a body-on-frame all steel behemoth is truly a reflection of overengineering run amok. It's just a shame so many clueless brand seekers don't have the sense to reject this approach. I recognize the missing 500 lbs. in my XLR-v in the arc of every turn.

    Phil
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Nice update on the XLR-v. I'd be pleased w/ 25+mpg as you describe. Premium here in Boston (home of the future World Champion Red Sox) has well crested $3/gallon. My TL is consistently returning 23 mpg in mixed driving that averages around 30mph. I'd guess at an avg. of 82 I'd get ~30mpg.

    Accepting the fact that interior beauty/quality is in the eye of the beholder, I thought I'd just paraphrase what I found to be a humorous quote from Bob Lutz. I believe it was printed in Autoweek some time back and Lutz was responding to the "cheap" interior materials used in the CTS. To paraphrase, "The materials we used are actually of high quality and expensive. We just made them look cheap..." Not sure if it was tongue-in-cheek or an admission of guilt!

    Good to see this thread active. I appreciate the XLR updates. And enjoy the Phil/Merc banter...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Let's talk about interior materials for a moment, since the XLR/XLR-v seem to take flak on this. There was a time when GM interior plastics were cheap and flimsy. At Chrysler they still are. Ford was the first domestic manufacturer to seriously address this problem. But no more. I think Lutz' comment was disarming and acknowledgment that in the CTS GM hadn't come quite far enough in perception of quality. The materials are fine and reflect a specific techie aesthetic. However, they don't conform to a tactile and visual aesthetic championed by the Euro makers and mimicked by the Japanese, and to some extent by Ford. However, unlike many European and Japanese car interiors, I expect the CTS-v and XLR-v interiors to be quite durable.

    As one who has traveled extensively for business, I've always been amused by the premium perception of Mercedes and BMW brand status here in the US. Here, there are no cloth-seats in a Mercedes. But land in an airport in Germany or Belgium, for instance, and slip into a clattering Mercedes E or BMW 5 scummy rattlebox with cloth seats and a stick, and you see how little they differ from "ordinary" cars. You never look at a Mercedes as a status brand again, when you come back home. I've seen these cars much worse for wear than a 250,000 mile Crown Vic in New York. The interior plastics to me have appeared to wear poorly, not matching the durability of many high-mileage American interiors of late.

    Then of course, here in L.A. there are a gazillion used German cars with years and miles piled up on them, up and down Lincoln Boulevard. Take a look in some of those cars and you'll be disabused of any notion that BMW, Mercedes, Audi interiors are something special beyond the first 2 years of their life.

    As Ford and GM pull back from fleet sales to rental car companies, Toyota is now diluting their brand with godawful strippers at the airports. But when you do get a Chevy or a Cadillac, its interior is invariably less worn than a Toyota's. It's shocking sometimes how quickly a Toyota interior loses its luster from rental abuse, when the odo reads 3,000 miles.

    Are German car interiors "better"? Well, they have developed a specific tactile character for touch satisfaction and many people have embraced that soft-touch, sanded finish as a reference for luxury. However, it has become light-soaking and boring, and not particularly durable based on what I see when time and miles accumulate.

    But in a market where many US buyers of luxury cars like the XLR-v and SL lease for short terms or buy them outright for brief inclusion in the family fleet, the initial owner only has perhaps a 2 year perspective on the interior or the rest of the car. The Cadillac techie interior aesthetic is a departure from the superficial coddled norm established by the Euro makers. That introduces friction for market acceptance at the same time it lubricates acceptance by people looking for a fresh alternative. Based on the materials I see in the CTS-v, I think that interior will show very little wear in 4 years, with the possible exception of the suede inserts on the seat upholstery, and even that might surprise me. For a real step up, you'd bypass the poseur Germans and go straight to Maserati, if interiors are foremost of your car criteria.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    Are you looking at the new M5 or the old one? Big difference. The new M5 will scorch a CTS-V, period.

    M
  • katcarkatcar Member Posts: 3
    I am seriously shopping for a hardtop convertible. I've pretty much narrowed it down to the SLK and the XLR. My hsb likes the XLR but I'm not convinced yet (it's my car). I was immediately impressed with the XLR styling but also love the new SLK look.

    I'm concerned about the lack of trunk room in the XLR. I look forward to long weekend drives but need room for at least small luggage. When I examined the XLR with the top down there seemed to be no trunk space at all. Am I wrong?

    From the Edmund's consumer feedback it seems the SLK has some trunk space with the top down. I still need a looksee on this car.

    I'm also concerned with the price difference. Is the XLR worth the additional funds compared to the SLK?

    Would love to hear some feedback.

    Thanks!
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Hello, Kat:

    "I'm also concerned with the price difference. Is the XLR worth the additional funds compared to the SLK? "

    I hate to be master of the obvious, but only you can answer that question. What do you need/want/desire/value and how much are you willing to pay to fulfill those variables? Is the XLR worth many more $ than a Corvette convertible, it's kissin' cousin?

    While I've casually shopped both, I never noted top-down trunk space, but I don't think you'll get much more than 6 cu ft. in any HT convertible with the top down. I think you are correct, though. With top down, the trunk is quite limited in the XLR. But not as miniscule as the Lexus SC430.

    Have you investigated the new Volvo C70, VW Eos and rumored BMW 3 series and Lexus IS HT convertibles?

    Lovely choice you get to make, though. Be sure to post as you compare/contrast and buy.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • katcarkatcar Member Posts: 3
    Laura,

    I have a lovely choice & a lovely husband! I've been observing various models on the road to see what visually appeals to me. I've also looked at the XLR @ the dealership but not the SLK- yet. I recently researched Edmunds on hardtop convertibles which was extremely helpful.

    The hardtop is my number one factor follwed by reliability, comfort and power (I like my horses!).

    I previously owned a '86 Fiero GT - great style, excellent engine quality, great horsepower - it was an exception to the Fiero rule. I'd like to experience the sporty feel & performance of this car but with more comfort since I'm no longer in my 20s!

    I have looked at the Volvo but it's not sporty enough. Actually Motorweek on PBS had a segment on it last week. I'm not a VW person and for the money I'm spending I want something a little more unique than the BMW 3 series. Also, half our execs have the BMW roadster- too common.

    My hsb thinks the XLR is worth the difference but I'm more practical-minded. I'm not convinced yet but hoping.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    It's interesting that you mention reliability and are shopping a GM vs. Mercedes! GM with its (probably well deserved since the '70s, but getting better?) less than stellar reputation for building reliable cars and Mercedes with its somewhat recent well-publicized quility woes.

    Having written that, I think Cadillac has been building better cars for the last couple of years. Maybe XLR owners here could chip in on the build quality/relibility of their cars. I just re-read a lux convertible comparo (on-line, forget which of the Big Three car mags it was and it was a couple of years old) and the XLR was the only one that had top operation glitches (they had to manually fold in one of the small rear windows, if I recall, when lowering the top). The XLR did fare well overall, but the MB SL came out #1.

    My only Fiero story (well, mentally I'm still in my 20s...!) was catching a ride with my friend Lori who had a black Fiero. Driving along and suddenly the driver's side window just fell into the door! "Not again!" she said. I think, unfortunately, she had a typical Fiero... ;)

    I, too, went the practical-minded route in my most recent purchase. I was shopping Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans (darn family!), the usual suspects. And the MB E Class. I really wanted the E, but my practical New England tendency got the best of the "just go for it" voice in my head. Voila, very happy owner of an '05 Acura TL. Nice car, the E. But I just didn't see the extra $20k. I'll take the savings and apply it to my mid-life crisis toy. I actually think I'm a bit late for the crisis?! :blush:

    Anyway, looking forward to your shopping reviews and decision process.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • ClairesClaires Member Posts: 1,222
    Folks, if you'd like to compare and contrast the features of the XLR vs. German or other autos, you're welcome to start another topic for that purpose. This topic's for discussing the features of the XLR/XLR-V. Continued off-topic posts will be removed, as will disrespectful ones.

    MODERATOR

    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    None of these 2-seat retractable hardtop roadsters have much trunk space with the tops stowed. When I travel for a weekend with my wife we usually do not have the top down for the freeway drive to the destination so it doesn't matter. With the top up, the XLR/XLR-v cargo space is comparatively vast out back. With the top down, we can carry two soft overnight bags and one small additional item if nothing is overstuffed. Two briefcases or computer bags are no problem. For a day trip I see no impediments to making it with only top-down space available.

    Is the XLR or V worth the extra money over an SLK or Corvette? The SLK is cramped and feels like a toy to me -- not remotely comparable as an automobile. The XLR shares the Corvette's underlying platform and the Vette is much lighter because it is a sports car, not a luxury GT. Which you want more is up to you. If you want pure performance, the Vette is your ride. If you want a luxury sporting GT, the XLR is the better variant, but with less ultimate grip and power-per-dollar.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    A business acquaintence needed a ride from the airport yesterday. He drives an SL55, which has caused him no end of glitch torture. Anyway, he got in my XLR-v, not being familiar with the car. After a couple of miles, his first comment about the car was "What the hell is this? It feels way more nimble than my SL55." His second comment, looking around the interior was, "This is a Cadillac? They did a beautiful job on this car!" He agreed with me that the carpet should be upgraded.

    Such a convienent story don't you think. This about the car feeling so nible and he wasn't driving is nonsense. I can make a Bentley feel nimble to a passenger if I throw the car around hard enough!

    The entire world has seen Cadillac's interiors for what they aren't - up to the standards of the competition.

    Weight is a problem in any car with sporting intentions. 500 lbs extra in the Merc! Ridiculous. Even the guy yesterday had to observe, "Makes my SL feel positively fat." Yeah. Looks it too. Side by side, the SL just looks old and in the way. Anyway, if you can't understand how deleterious a surplus quarter ton is to the character of a 2 seat GT with performance aspirations, I suppose no words will move the ball upfield.

    True and if the SL was a sports car you'd have a point. As a luxury GT this weight problem you keep talking about is all in your head and isn't shared by any of the professional reviewers that have put the SL at the head of this class time and time again. If you can't understand that weight isn't the main concern of a GT car then there are no words to convey this.

    Not one of those larded up German cars "easily" outperforms its V series match. As another poster already illustrated, the vast differences you claim are fiction. In either car, the superior driver wins.

    Ahh..the art of doing proper research. That poster quoted figures from the old M5, not the new one. That model beat the CTS-V and the new one destroys it.

    My point about Audi vs Town Car mass was not to compare the cars but to point out that to make an aluminum car as heavy as a body-on-frame all steel behemoth is truly a reflection of overengineering run amok. It's just a shame so many clueless brand seekers don't have the sense to reject this approach. I recognize the missing 500 lbs. in my XLR-v in the arc of every turn

    The comparision is absurd. An Audi A8 has way more features than a Linc TC and the A8's interior furnishings alone would give it more weight over the cheap interior of the TC, plus the A8 has AWD. The overall cheapness of the XLR's interior is just as noticeable.

    M
  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    GT, sports car, sports sedan -- any car of any configuration that has performance pretensions is compromised by excess weight. There's no justification for an extra quarter ton of mass in a same-function car, and Cadillac's excellent design and materials decisions put the porkiness of the SL in sharp relief. Read the array of SL reviews -- excess mass is a common criticism. That some reviewers then brush it off in an "oh, well..." comment is no matter to me - I can't control their foolishness. Point is, GT to GT, the XLR-v sets the standard for weight and vehicle dynamics appropriate to the class.

    No, you can't make a Bentley feel nimble to a discerning passenger. It's quite easy for a passenger to sense car dynamics without being behind the wheel. The Bentley can be surprising for its size and bulk, but neither will be disguised to even a mildly experienced driver -- or even a licenseless passenger who simply retained his or her high school physics. My story was only convenient in that it happened coincident with our participation in this thread. I suppose I should have hit the record button on the car's voice recorder to upload the unvarnished commentary. I've met a lot of people recently who are unhappy with their Merc.

    The old recent prior M5 was in virtually a dead-heat with the CTS-v. That the new one half-a-model-cycle later is a little quicker is no surprise, especially given the price. When the next Cadillac is introduce half-a-model-cycle beyond the new M5, things will be even or exceeded again. Still, I've driven the new M5. The V10 is a pointless change, the car feels heavy once again, the power advantage is inaccessible in normal driving, and the current V is more involving. It's really not an interesting car other than as an abstraction, like an engineering concept with no known utility. Better to buy a sports car, or step up to something emotionally engaging like a Quattroporte Sport.

    I live in Los Angeles. Every luxury, exotic or sports vehicle offered in the US is a routine sight for me on any day's drive to the office. I work in an industry where those cars are the norm. A Maserati, Mercedes, Audi, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW, Aston or Roller interior gets no special recognition. We've been in and out of all of them. Yawn. People who have moved from SLs to XLRs/XLR-Vs have not felt compromised by the Cadillac interior. They appreciate -- as I do -- its straightforward ergonomics, handsome design and honest materials. Metal, leather, cloth and plastic as appropriate to purpose. Carpet is the singular interior oversight, IMO. Everything else stands up to the Germans, and everyone else stands behind the Italians and perhaps Aston-Martin.

    More to the point, being in the car now for 3 months and 4000 miles, I like the interior better still with time and familiarity, and the SL interior -- which I am subjected to far too often -- seems in poor taste by comparison.

    And BTW, M, it's clear the absurdity of Audi's aluminum unibody sedan coming in at about 4400 lbs. is completely lost on you. But what else can I expect from someone who thinks a surplus quarter ton of useless bulk in a 2-seat Mercedes is something to turn a blind eye to? Oh...forgot to mention I saw three more new gold-badged Mercs in the last 24 hours. Love to see the superior taste of that brand-seeking Mercedes crowd.

    Phil
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Hi, Phil:

    I'll guess that, as your an Angelino, you are in the same biz as my brother (As I could have been had I tried. Or had talent... :cry: ). Your taste in cars, well that you don't have in common with him. His pilot was just picked up, he celebrated by buying a 1987 Chrysler Lebaron Convertible. Quite an upgrade from his '72 Buick Convertible! And, as I often lament, he can afford to buy all the cars I want but he buys the cars I can afford!

    You and Merc both have good thoughts, points and opinions. What I find to be in your favor is that after comparing/contrasting, you put your $ where your pen is and bought the best car for you. Can't dispute or argue with that decision.

    So, no issues to report with the XLR, nice. I think the revamped center stack in the '06 (base) has done a bit to improve the interior. But, dime a dozen and overweight or not, to me the SL takes the style prize. Both interior/exterior. But the relative exclusivity of the XLR is quite an allure to me.

    If only my tech stocks would return to their 2001 levels I could fulfill my mid-life crisis desire. Or maybe I should hit my brother up.... Nah, given his auto knowledge, I'd ask for a Caddy GT convertible and he'd send me an Allante...?!

    Keep posting XLR updates.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Before working in my current business, I had a long-term marketing and advertising career. Design sensibility and taste are intrinsically important. To me, all Mercedes cars from about 1974 - ~1997 were unexceptional from a sheer design standpoint and mostly inelegant. The sober, slab-sided Mercedes vault styling of that era was heavy-handed and not even really handsome. Just blunt and uninspiring. That the look was embraced by the moneyed class speaks more to the power of the brand about telegraphing success, than anything about the cars. This included the SLs of that era, a car which was formerly interesting.

    During that time, of course, Cadillac style devolved from exuberant to bland to downmarket until a return to taste was established by the Allante and the '90s STS and Eldo.

    The Allante was mechanically wrong, being FWD, but it was a looker in the day, the Pininfarina body lean, well-proportioned and much more expressive than the corpulently brick-like SL. In its last year it actually became pretty good, given the dynamics imposed by the platform and it still makes a stylish cruiser. I see some of them in virtually new cosmetic condition here in SoCal.

    Mercedes' stylists woke up to show some life in the late '90s and Cadillac got courage on the same front with the '99 Evoq show car. When the current SL form factor showed up, it wasn't ugly, nor bland, but it nevertheless has a certain deformed element to its shape that was overlooked at the time, due to the absence of anything more interesting, and the contrast with the simply strange latest Lexus SC.

    It's having the context of the XLR/XLR-v that reveals what's wrong with the current SL's design. Its wheelbase is 100.8" against overall length of 178.5". For the XLR/XLR-v, the same figures are 105.7" against 177.7". The extra 5 inches of wheelbase within a slightly shorter overall length looks much more modern, leaving the Mercedes looking '90s Camaro-like by comparison. The old-school (pre-1970) Mercedes expressiveness in the SL design has drama that the prior cars lacked completely, but the look is melted and droopy next to the chiseled XLR, and leaves the Merc with a very unflattering fat tail. Alone, the Mercedes keeps its dignity. Juxtaposed with an equally-well-maintained XLR-v its datedness stands out like 4 inch collars and mutton-chop sideburns. It's prettier than the Mercedes most people today grew up with, but no longer forward-looking or beautiful.

    The Merc interior borders on tasteless. It just tries too hard to impress without having the design sensibility of the Italians. I don't like it at all. The XLR-v gives me plenty of leather and the most straightforward, masculine presentation of the car's functionality of anything in its class. Really, I don't see the problem. I think most of the carping about the interior is reflexive defensive criticism by people who don't like to admit the crediblity of Cadillac's technical achievements with this car, which threaten their view of the market order. No matter, the drivetrain, platform, suspension and the notable lack of mass compared to the class reinforce all the reasons for buying the car in the first place.

    The car gets more enjoyable with use and time, and it gets just the right amount and kind of attention. Kids on crotch rockets to Moms in Range Rovers to performers in Bentleys seem to uniformly respond enthusiastically to the XLR-v. And by the way, while your brother's LeBaron is as pedestrian as it gets here, at least the top drops. And that '72 Buick drop-top can carry some serious street cred if it's shined up and not spewing blue smoke or black puffs from the tailpipes!

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    GT, sports car, sports sedan -- any car of any configuration that has performance pretensions is compromised by excess weight. There's no justification for an extra quarter ton of mass in a same-function car, and Cadillac's excellent design and materials decisions put the porkiness of the SL in sharp relief. Read the array of SL reviews -- excess mass is a common criticism. That some reviewers then brush it off in an "oh, well..." comment is no matter to me - I can't control their foolishness. Point is, GT to GT, the XLR-v sets the standard for weight and vehicle dynamics appropriate to the class.

    Until you know why that extra weight is there or have experienced the car fully then you're just shooting in the dark here. Isn't that what you've been telling me about the XLR? There is no way that the SL is compromised by a few extra pounds to the point of which you hype it up because if it was ALL the sources that have reviewed the car and compared it to the XLR wouldn't have put the SL over the XLR. Clearly someone would see the XLR as being superior if it truly were. Now you can't have it both ways. If the automags say that the XLR is a good handling car that is a worthy competitor you can't turn around and say they don't know what they're talking about regarding the SL.

    No, you can't make a Bentley feel nimble to a discerning passenger. It's quite easy for a passenger to sense car dynamics without being behind the wheel. The Bentley can be surprising for its size and bulk, but neither will be disguised to even a mildly experienced driver -- or even a licenseless passenger who simply retained his or her high school physics.

    Something tells me you can with the person you claimed felt a huge difference between the SL and the XLR just by riding in the XLR.

    I suppose I should have hit the record button on the car's voice recorder to upload the unvarnished commentary. I've met a lot of people recently who are unhappy with their Merc.

    Probably so. There are lots of people unhappy with any car on the market, this is nothing new. Not even all Lexus owners are completely happy!

    The old recent prior M5 was in virtually a dead-heat with the CTS-v. That the new one half-a-model-cycle later is a little quicker is no surprise, especially given the price. When the next Cadillac is introduce half-a-model-cycle beyond the new M5, things will be even or exceeded again.

    Until it happens it doesn't mean much.

    The V10 is a pointless change, the car feels heavy once again, the power advantage is inaccessible in normal driving, and the current V is more involving. It's really not an interesting car other than as an abstraction, like an engineering concept with no known utility. Better to buy a sports car, or step up to something emotionally engaging like a Quattroporte Sport.

    Well I haven't driven the M5, I was just pointing out to that poster about the differences in performance and that that were indeed looking at the previous M5's numbers. Interesting you should bring up the Quattroporte, now that is nothing but 4-door Ferrari in all but name. Something we can agree on. Love that car!

    People who have moved from SLs to XLRs/XLR-Vs have not felt compromised by the Cadillac interior. They appreciate -- as I do -- its straightforward ergonomics, handsome design and honest materials. Metal, leather, cloth and plastic as appropriate to purpose. Carpet is the singular interior oversight, IMO. Everything else stands up to the Germans, and everyone else stands behind the Italians and perhaps Aston-Martin.

    Sorry, but this will never have any merit with me so no need to keep repeating it. The XLR has a cheapo interior compared to the Germans and calling the materials "honest" doesn't change it. You're spinning here.

    And BTW, M, it's clear the absurdity of Audi's aluminum unibody sedan coming in at about 4400 lbs. is completely lost on you. But what else can I expect from someone who thinks a surplus quarter ton of useless bulk in a 2-seat Mercedes is something to turn a blind eye to? Oh...forgot to mention I saw three more new gold-badged Mercs in the last 24 hours. Love to see the superior taste of that brand-seeking Mercedes crowd.

    It is equally clear to me that the reasons why the A8 would weigh that much is completely lost on you, especially if you're going to compare it to a relic like the Lincoln Towncar. None of this surprises me either when it comes from a person that can see the obvious cheap-out GM did on the XLR's interior compared to its rivals. Taste, design all of that is up for debate for sure, but the materials are cheap and that you can't hide or dismiss by saying that the materials are "honest". Since you're such a stickler for low-weight and obviously don't care about interior furnishings you should buy a Lotus Elise.

    Did I mention that the local Cadillac dealer has several DTS models with cloth tops sitting on their lawn? Good to see the blue-hair brand is still being true to its roots.

    I see you've mentioned the Allante in another post. That car was a piece of pretty junk! A fwd roadster with a 140hp V8 upon introduction and GM couldn't figure out why it failed miserably in the marketplace. The Allante was one of Cadillac's worst moments in history. When the R129 SL came upon the scene in 1990 it sealed the coffin of the Allante.

    Really, I don't see the problem. I think most of the carping about the interior is reflexive defensive criticism by people who don't like to admit the crediblity of Cadillac's technical achievements with this car, which threaten their view of the market order.

    No, I have given credit where it is due for Cadillac and their V series cars, its the nonsense about weight is where we disagree. The implication that someone buys or seeks out the XLR because of lower weight how that somehow makes these Cadillacs all-superior. How these Cadillacs are so much better in every respect because they're lighter when you're really ignoring the fact that luxury cars (which is what these cars are) are supposed to do more than just be agile or peform, they're supposed to pamper also. That is where the XLR falls down hard, it doesn't feel the part interior wise and that I maintain more important to the average buyer in this segment, not whether or not the car is tossable. That is what you simply don't get. How many people you think push these cars to know the difference to the point of seeking out a Cadillac over a Mercedes. Now in your case, seriously if that is what brought you to the XLR then that is ok, but this ongoing nonsense about weight is just that because these cars are more about luxury than they are running slaloms though both cars can do it fairly easily.

    M
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    No, the '72 Buick was more along the "blue smoke" lines than "shined up!" But he doesn't care, for whatever reason he goes out of his way not to express any indication of wealth. It always made me smile when we visited him on the lot to see his car amonst the, well, more what one would expect to see. Just a normal guy in a sea of abnormality, I guess, my bro.

    While I can't argue with your opinion of the ext/int designs of the SL/XLR I can, of course, disagree. I'm no fan of the "Mr. Peanut" headlights of the SL, but overally I find it to be a very handsome, elegant design. The interior may be a bit overwrought, but I prefer the flow/cockpit feel. And, to me, the XLR tail, while "chiseled" is no less flattering than the SLs rounded derriere. Beyond material choice, the desing of the XLR interior is what least impresses me about the car. The center stack is just too plain and obtrusive, a slab. Also, the vast and unadorned expanse of plastic facing the passenger. Just too much, inelegant. As I mentioned, the '06 upgrade of the XLR center stack helps immeasurably, imo.

    To me, the XLR is the most successful execution of the Caddy "Arts & Science" theme. Followed by the SRX (a handsome Station Wagon). The CTS started it all off, a wildly overdone design to me. The STS is a somewhat toned down CTS, dull. The C pillar back just looks very wrong to me. Nicer interior, though. But, too each.

    And, again, overall I find the XLR a desireable package (noting I've not driven either XLR or SL, why torture myself!) which is why I continue to hang around here. I look forward to XLR owners postings because one of these days...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • 213xlrv213xlrv Member Posts: 38
    Merc,

    On the weight issue I am not shooting in the dark. I've driven the SL500, 600 and SL55. It's an informed observation. I elected to buy the XLR-v. I accept the weight penalty for the category of vehicle -- the XLR-v is 600 lbs heavier than the higher performance and less expensive Corvette Z06! Cadillac is setting the current standard for controlling weight penalty in such a car. The Z06 is on the same platform, and comparable to a Porsche in mass, so that's the baseline to establish how much weight penalty is necessary to accept for luxury retracting hardtop GT. The further quarter ton incurred by the SL is just useless, pointless, accumulated pork. We know why it's there. It's just that the XLR/XLR-v architecture demonstrates by its very existence the lack of good reason for it. It's 500 pounds of penalty no matter how you slice it. If I were claiming 1100 pounds of penalty compared to true sports cars, you'd have a point. But I'm not. I'm only pointing out the unmistakable flaw imposed by all that extra mass that has no purpose. It exists only because Mercedes is too lazy or complacent to engineer it out.

    I've driven all the cars. I surely can say that the auto mags don't know what they're talking about or that their priorities are a miss. Are you kidding???? You think the auto mag reviewers are beyond reproach somehow? What they write are nothing more authoritative than their subjective impressions. If they choose to ignore a 500 pound penalty that infects the entire experience of driving the car, that's there call. But it gets no special reverence from me.

    There's no spin in characterizing the XLR-v interior as "honest." It's what I think, plain and simple. I prefer it. I have 360 degrees of leather, sourced from a euro supplier who also supplies your brands. The plastics are comparable quality to anyone else's. The metal and wood touch points require no defense. And on design, the Cadillac wins. The rest of whatever difference you cite -- and you really haven't cited exactly what those differences are -- is ephemeral.

    But we agree Maserati knows how to make an interesting car that successful people want to spend time in. Good for that.

    However, you still miss the point about the aluminum Audi. I'm not suggesting a Town Car and an A8 are equivalent vehicles other than both being large 4 doors. But AWD or not, an aluminum unibody ought not to exceed 2 tons. That's just lazy engineering again. No one builds a 500hp car without performance in mind. So citing weight as a non-issue in the class is specious. The XLR-v has no shortage of "pampering" assets, yet it's dynamically more agile due in part to its lower mass. Sure, for lots of people these are nothing more than ego cruisers. I'm not interested in those people, and neither is Cadillac's V division. The marketing is clearly performance directed. In the XLR/XLR-v, Cadillac leveraged a very strong but lightweight world-class sports car platform from elsewhere in GM, and built a new take on the luxury retractable hardtop GT. It's sensationally effective and I'd feel much less progressive and entertained in the corpulent SL range.

    Phil
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    And I'm telling you that buyers in this segment don't care about weight as much as you do so your point isn't of the majority and it likely the smallest minority possible. The majority of buyers simply don't care about this weight issue that you're saying is so terrible and makes the German cars so awful to drive. It is a rediculous argument when taken to this extreme.

    I've driven all the cars. I surely can say that the auto mags don't know what they're talking about or that their priorities are a miss. Are you kidding???? You think the auto mag reviewers are beyond reproach somehow?

    No of course I'm not suggesting that, but how can all of them be wrong about two competive cars is what I'm asking. You keep forgetting that there are many factors when evaluating 75-90K luxury GT cars, not just their handling how much weight they don't have. You're using this single viewpoint, something that most buyers don't care one whit about, to claim superiority for the Cadillac when in reality most people buying car of this ilk care about features, styling, luxury and other things with handling being in the mix for sure, but it isn't the primary criteria for these cars.

    There's no spin in characterizing the XLR-v interior as "honest." It's what I think, plain and simple. I prefer it. I have 360 degrees of leather, sourced from a euro supplier who also supplies your brands. The plastics are comparable quality to anyone else's. The metal and wood touch points require no defense.

    Sure there is because like I said before, design, looks all that jazz is debatable, but when I see cheapo parts from a 20K GM car in the 75K XLR there is a problem. Saying that the materials are "honest" is a cop out plain and simple. GM's plastics have never matched their competition in anything they've built, especially in their expensive cars like the XLR.

    But we agree Maserati knows how to make an interesting car that successful people want to spend time in. Good for that.

    Yeah its a interesting car - agreed. Not sure what you're trying to imply with the "successful people" part. Let me guess though, we're back to the Benz/BMW buyers are pretenders again? While Cadillac buyers are the real deal?

    However, you still miss the point about the aluminum Audi. I'm not suggesting a Town Car and an A8 are equivalent vehicles other than both being large 4 doors. But AWD or not, an aluminum unibody ought not to exceed 2 tons.

    Says who? Where is this written, in the Automotive Engineering Handbook? You won't allow yourself to possibly think what an A8 would weigh if it were not made from aluminum. Could they have done better with it overall in the weight department? Sure, but to say that Audi is lazy is the "specious" part.

    No one builds a 500hp car without performance in mind. So citing weight as a non-issue in the class is specious.

    True to a degree, but the problem is that in reality that statement isn't always that cut and dry. Just because a car has 500hp doesn't mean it has to be some type of lightweight either. You miss the point about the SL or XLR, they're GT cars not sports cars. Luxury sedans have 500hp nowadays and they aren't light either. Now because Cadillac decides to dress up a Corvette they're supposed to be considered some type of brilliant innovator? Not.

    The XLR-v has no shortage of "pampering" assets, yet it's dynamically more agile due in part to its lower mass. Sure, for lots of people these are nothing more than ego cruisers. I'm not interested in those people, and neither is Cadillac's V division.

    See this is my point exactly. How would you know who Cadillac's V division is interested in? You act like Cadillac's V series cars are seen at the local autocross and are only driving by the most elite real-world drivers in the country. This is nonsense because the XLR is indeed nothing more than another luxury GT crusier for the overwhelming majority of its buyers just like any other luxury GT in the price range. I can't believe you actually think that most or even a majority of XLR buyers look at the XLR like you do and that this somehow makes all the other cars in the class irrelevant or how all the rest are driven by pretenders and badge seekers.

    Buyers of the XLR-V and SL55 are probably a little more frisky at times than regular XLR and SL550 buyers sure, but they aren't racers either and most owers who pay 100K and 125K respectively for these cars aren't going to be ripping and racing all over the place. You might catch them taking a few ramps or curves at speed and doing a few high-speed runs on a good stretch of freeway, but this about what type of buyer Cadillac is and isn't interested in is just plain silly. The fact is that the XLR is a slow seller and Cadillac would love to sell one to anyone that wants one. Try selling this theory about who Cadillac is wanting to buy the XLR to a Cadillac salesman and see what the response is.

    M
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    From watching Ebaymotors auctions: This weekend a low mileage '05 w/no reserve (Atlanta area) appeared to go in the mid/high $40s. It appears that more the norm for '05 prices are now dropping into the $50s. A few '06 are being offered "Buy Now" price around the "Employee Pricing" of last year, ~$69-70k.

    Unfortunately, the stock market is falling a lot faster than XLR pricing... :cry: :sick:

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • exalteddragon1exalteddragon1 Member Posts: 729
    then those are very lucky people,

    B/c the XLR seems to be holding its own in terms of pricing, GM is keeping volume low.

    Also, I bet you can get equally lucky with an SL, since there are so many of them. I prefer the style in side and out of the Cadillac, add in the weight advantage and mercedes becomes outdated.

    I wish the rest of GM's divisions could have such an advatage in the marketplace.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    I'm not sure it's just ebay as the local dealers here (Boston)are discounting '06 too.

    As far as GM keeping volumes low, I don't think that is by choice. When the XLR debuted as an '04, they were building 23/week. Due to lack of demand (imho due in no small part to the wildly high msrp and, as perceived by some, an interior not suited to that high price point) production was basically halved to 12/week.

    There is no shortage of MB SL for sale, but I don't think they are depreciating quite as fast as the XLR.

    As per my posts in this thread, I too, like the style of the XLR. Not as much as the SL, to be honest. But given the $ advantage and relative exclusivity I'm considering it as my mid-life (well into it, by the way. Wife won't let me have a proper one, though!) crisis-mobile.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • exalteddragon1exalteddragon1 Member Posts: 729
    GM quality has been improving for the passed decade, and especially in recent years. Buick is in the top 3 or 4 of JD power and Cadillac in the top 10 I believe.

    Most GM brands get above the industry average, the quality situation is, like you said, perception. If a GM car has issues "OH WELL, THIS IS WHAT I GET FOR BUYING CRAP" if a toyota has issues "I AM SO STUPID, I MUST HAVE BROKE IT". So, in reality this is not an out of topic discussion.

    And you really cannot compare cadillac quality to Jaguar, the only reason they did so good in the last JD power is probably b/c they SOLD SO FEW jaguars that the results did not matter.

    I only new cadillac i notice having problems is the CTS, withwheel aligment issues and a limited but strange case of one of the front suspension components flying off, smacking the whole car on the pavement. These are rare issues but people think its with every car.

    While not a lexus yet in terms of quality, Cadillac is getting there fast.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    0% financing for 60 months + $4000 trunk money + 1 wife who says, "No way, Jose" = continued frustration re: mid-life crisis! :confuse:

    How y'all doing? And, of course, Happy Birthday, USA!

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • ClairesClaires Member Posts: 1,222
    A new Cadillac XLR vs. Mercedes-Benz SL topic has been opened. You may notice that the most recent posts comparing these two vehicles have been moved there.

    MODERATOR

    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    So, back from a week in SoCal: Santa Monica, Westwood, Pacific Pallisades, Malibu and San Diego. I saw 'em all: Bentleys, Aston Martins, Ferraris, Lamborghini, Porsches, Mercedes of all shapes and sizes, BMW-a-gogo, Vipers, Vettes and Prius'! Even a Qvale Mangusta! But not one XLR! Not one!

    What's up with that? Where are y'all?

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,686
    Say hello to the Allante...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • caddilistcaddilist Member Posts: 6
    MOST LOVE IT,few dont i go with those who do its a six star car its a topdog
    anad clubs have spawned up so dont critize a great value$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    GREG BERLIN RENO NV. PROUD OWNER N CHIEF
  • caddilistcaddilist Member Posts: 6
    when i read i or 2 sentences in negitivity on this car it TELLS! me a bored 19yr
    old out of beer saw an xlrv and decided he dont like them! GREAT!!!!!!
    keep ,it that way and rich carbuffs like me will show n go each time i drive it!
    oh you will have too look hard i dont drive it daily!!!99% of all folks who get
    close enough gawk in awww(kind of shock n aww)quote ex president!!!!!!!!!!
    so roll on kids its past your beertime i mean bedtime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    GREG BERLIN RENO NV. :)
  • ccclarkeccclarke Member Posts: 1
    With prices for used XLRs dropping every month, there's never been a better time to own one. Over-priced when new, these awesome vehicles are so unique, most drivers have no clue they're Cadillacs. Mine has started more conversations at gas pumps than every car I've owned combined.

    The '04s had a few bugs, but if repaired with the upgraded parts, will be as reliable as every subsequent year. Things to watch for are bad radiators, (replaced with upgraded "V" parts) problematic roof sensors, and melted DRL headlamp bezels (they're all over eBay.) Having up-to-date software in the car is a must.

    Driving this car is sheer delight. While it handles well, (tweaked on Germany's famed "Ring") it isn't a Corvette, but then it doesn't pretend to be. An easy and inexpensive upgrade for non-V's is a rear-mounted stabilizer bar.

    Top-down driving gives this car a dual personality. It looks great as a coupe or roadster The fast-acting magnetic suspension is never harsh, and the seats comfortable, especially on hot days when the cooling option is enabled. The stereo is excellent, with 10 speakers surrounding the cockpit, including both sides of the headrests. The nav system could be better, but does an adequate job. The car has been a pleasure to drive on the two long-distance trips I've taken in it.

    The voice-command feature eliminates the need to take my eyes of the road to look for the right switch, button or select a destination on the nav system.

    The HUD, radar cruise control and keyless entry are features I wish my other cars had.

    Over the 6 years of its production, there weren't too many upgrades, but then how much more can be added to an already extensive list of standard features?. A heated steering wheel, second gen magnetic suspension, XM antennas in the side mirrors, movable headlights and a leather dash came out later. The last year's model has a different front and rear fascia, with chrome heat extractors on the rear of the front quarter panels. Different colors were available each year. The supercharged "V" series model was available in '06 for those who need more power.

    Ownership has its price. Without a warranty of some kind, these are awfully expensive to repair. Headlights are $1000 each! But for the few who own one, (and only around 15,000 were produced) the experience is worth the price. Are there better vehicles? Sure. But if you want to drive something unique and rare, the XLR might just be for you.

    CC Clarke
This discussion has been closed.