Cadillac XLR and XLR-V

laurasdada · February 2006

From Forbes.com:

Lowest seller in '05: XLR convertible (3,730)
Base price: $77,295

Article listing best/worst selling model for each nameplate. This does not necessarily mean it (any of the low selling vehicles) is a bad car. But I believe earlier in the thread there was a debate over XLR sales. This # does seem to reflect the cut in production (from 23 to 12 per day, I believe) that Caddy institued due to low demand.

IMHO, overpriced & lower-rent GM interior helped doom the initial sales forcasts. Lexus sold more than 2x SC430s, the low seller for Lexus:

Lowest seller in '05: SC convertible (8,360)
Base price: $66,050

The XLR did outsell the Jag XK and Audi TT convertibles!

Having said that, I'd still like an XLR!

Tryin' to keep the thread alive...

Any owner comments on their XLRs: Build quality, reliability, ride, handling, mpg, fun???

mpyles1 · March 2006

The roof dumping rainwater into the trunk?

Sounds like my '98 Corvette with Targa top. During a rainstorm, I had to stuff paper towels along the top of the driver's side window to stay dry. And don't get me going on what happened going through a car wash or the other reasons it was in the shop 13 times in the 15 months I owned it.

I now drive a 2004 SL55 . . . hard and fast. Tight as a drum, stellar handling and braking, quiet, comfortable, reliable, and blindingly fast.

GM is smoking dope if they think they can build a sustainable market presence at anything near the $100K price point. Ultimately, engineering has to take the front seat to play there, and all the front seats at GM have long since been scooped up by the marketing guys.

A supercharger bolted onto a Cadillac is just the 2006 version of opera windows and vinyl landau roofs.

213cobra · March 2006

Anyone who thinks the XLR-v is just an XLR with a supercharger bolted on hasn't researched, driven or otherwise experienced the car. The 4.4L blown Northstar is a handbuilt performance engine with a large number of upgraded internals to go with the integrated supercharger. Additionally, brakes, tire/wheels and suspension tuning are substantially upgraded. Plus the V has the new 6 speed auto transmission which is robust, capable, and quite smart in its adaptive capability. The manual shifting mode is better too. The standard XLR is luxurious, straightforward, entertaining and comfortable. The XLR-v is a gloved fist by comparison, pouring on seamless locomotive power that is pushed against the planet through impressive traction.

By comparison, the Mercedes SL55 feels powerful but porky and a generation behind. It's fat and isolating, not a participative experience. The Cadillac is much more flingable and experiential, while still retaining the solid, in-the-road feel expected in this class of car.

The XLR-v is a seriously engineered car, well-assembled and thought-through. It does not attempt to copy anyone else's formula. It brings relatively lightweight construction, rigid frame-based "drivable chassis" architecture, world-class motive power, virtually 50/50 weight distribution and excellent packaging to the luxury sports car/GT convertible class.

I haven't found any XLR owner nor even basher who thinks the standard issue XLR is overpriced in the $75K range. But somehow people question whether there is another $25K of value in the V version. I'm here to say that if you really examine the differences, understand them, and then personally experience the difference in the drive, there is no question. The car could not be offered for $85K in today's market. Period. Is it a worthy alternative to the SL 600/55s? To the Aston V8 Vantage? To the Maserati Grand Sport? To the Jag XKR? To the autostick Porsches? Bet your [non-permissible content removed]. Now, they're all distinctly different takes on what a luxury 2 seat GT should be (yeah, I'm ignoring the Jag/Porsche vestigal rear shelf, uh, "seats". The Mercs have that umistakable nuevo-bloat. The Brits are low on power. The Maser has that gorgeous Ferrari mill and inimitable interior saddled to the clunky Cambiocorsa tranny. The Porsche has 45 years of misallocated engineering overcoming its original design flaw and frankly it's good but tired. There are reasons to like them all. This V series Cadillac is a real, modern, capable alternative. Yeah, I bought one. It wasn't what I expected to do. It won on the merits.

Phil

laurasdada · March 2006

"I haven't found any XLR owner nor even basher who thinks the standard issue XLR is overpriced in the $75K range."

I think that the price is an issue to (past/present) potential XLR buyers. Sure, if the car appeals to you at that price point, you buy. But after (I think) '04 GM cut daily production nearly in half. I think many potential buyers were turned off by the lower rent interior and the higher rent price. More $ and you can buy the well established MB SL. A few $ less, the Lexus SC430 (XLR wins on the exterior there, imo! SC takes the interior honors...). Or, 'Vette, either Targa or convertible.

I agree that both XLR iterations are valid competitiors in their respective classes. The pricing is just a bit presumptuous. That is why I'm watching ebay for '05s...!

mpyles1 · March 2006

Sounds very much like a GM-written marketing release. In fact, the paragraph describing the lightweight construction and chassis architecture sounds very much like the press language I used to pore over as I built up a head of steam to buy my Corvette.

It all comes to naught if the cars are not reliable . . . and GM has a long way to go to convince me they know how to build a reliable high performance car.

The front left steering rod falling off my Corvette when I drove -- slowly -- over a railroad crossing is a hairy experience I never want to repeat in a high-performance car. Nor was getting caught in the far-left lane of I-95 in heavy traffic when the car went into limp mode for the fourth time due to a faulty engine control module. That's the day I parked the car on the roadside, called a tow company and, without ever getting in it again, sold it at a fire-sale price to unload it.

And, by the way, have you ever driven the "porky" SL55 that's "a generation behind"? And just what comprises the list of outdated technology on that car?

mediapusher · March 2006

What is this nonsense? A CADILLAC is a CADILLAC??? You mean like the "wonderful" Cadillac Catera? Cadillac Cimarron? or how about the "excellent" V-8-6-4 DeVille models. Puhleeez, get a reality check dude. I would never be embarrassingly stupid enough to spend this kind of money on a Cadillac when they have time and time again done nothing but embarrass the world with their abhorrent, shoddily crafted, unreliable, overpriced cars. And apparently fat and arrogant GM doesn't give a damn.

213cobra · March 2006

I've seen everything in this class of car. I just don't agree the interior of the $75K XLR or the $100K XLR-v are "low rent." They're functional, undistracting, straightforward, AND made of materials appropriate to an open car -- i.e. the flat plastic buttons won't get hot in the sun. All the data displays are instantly readable. Everything seems tightly attached.

The ONLY interior that stands out as outclassing everything else in the $100K - $140K range is the Maserati Grand Sport. Now there's an interior to embarrass everything else. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac -- they all seem like Mattel products by comparison. But only the Italians do that. In the overall scheme of things, the XLR/XLR-v interiors are fine.

Phil

213cobra · March 2006

Yeah, mpyles1, I have driven the porky SL55. I said it LOOKS a generation behind, and feels it too. The technology in that car is current, but you can't escape it packs over 400 lbs. above the XLR-v, which is easily sensed. And the long overhangs look out of proportion to the rest of the car. The technology isn't outdated on the Merc, it's the design architecture. Plus, did I mention it's a pig?

I haven't ever purchased a new GM vehicle before. I bought two on the same day, a CTS-v and an XLR-v. The aggregate owner data verified by 3rd parties verifies GM's rapid advancements in build quality and design durability. I had a '96 Corvette, which was alleged to be from the era of GM build incompetence. Yeah, on that car the interior suffered the GM bean counter intervention, BUT it is virtually bulletproof. I put 80,000 of its to-date 105,000 miles on it with far less maintenance cost that any other performance car I or anyone I know has owned. So, with my XLR-v, time will tell. I'm optimistic.

Nothing in my prior post was from GM's press release. It was simply a description of what I can observe + what I know about the car. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Corvette platform's design and implementation attributes, so it is not difficult to understand the XLR-v.

But you're right, the cars have to evidence GM's progress in making reliable cars. The market data says they are there, for the most part. Now, people have to give them a chance. I am.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

There have been many things said about the current SL, but I've never seen anyone say that there was something wrong with its looks. That is a first. The jet-fighter look of the XLR doesn't even come close to the elegant styling of the SL, IMO. Neither does its interior. The XLR doesn't feel like a 75-100K product in the least.

M

mpyles1 · March 2006

The only downside of the SL's design is that I almost get tired of looking at it, since there's one coming at me from almost every stoplight in the environs around my home. The only XLR I've seen in the neighborhood belongs to someone who lives in my building and parks in the same garage. The only reaction I've seen to its design was the garage attendants snickering at the "bat ears" sticking up above the windshield header when the top was down. They wondered if the car could go fast enough for the wind to tear them off.

Based on my experience of GM build quality, I would say yes.

Maybe I just like pigs more than bats.

213cobra · March 2006

The current SL has some visual appeal from some perspectives, but the wheelbase is too short for the body. The overhangs are proportionately Camaro-like, making the side view gawky compared to the Cadillac. The sheet metal sculpting is just sexy enough to distract the casual eye from that unfortunate lack of grace.

If you prefer the '90s aesthetic of the SL, I have no argument with that. It's what you like so you should be happy with it. The XLR styling is polarizing and that's good for a brand mounting a comeback. The XLR-V has equal or better street presence to the SL, and is elegant in a sharp-creased Hugo Boss way. I prefer it to the dated aesthetic of the Merc. The interiors are quite dissimilar. The XLR-v's is more functional, unfussy, and clean. 360 degrees of leather, sightlines are excellent for this type of car, and all the touch points feel fine. Textured metal, wood, leather all around, with tactile plastics where appropriate. The SL is "too too...." Overwrought; soft; too obvious about making a statement of personal wealth, IMO.

Now if you don't think the XLR feels like a $75K product, I probably can't change your mind. But understand that the V is a radically upgraded car in every way, from its base sibling. At $100K, the thoroughly revised engine and the new transmission alone fully justify the difference, not to mention the rest of the upgrades in performance, functions and aesthetics. Really, until you drive a V, you can't appreciate how staggering the difference is over the base car. Nor what the SL is contending with.

Sure, a lot of people just buy brand and for them, Mercedes is a default. An SL says "I've made it." Those people cannot be reached by Cadillac for awhile. There wouldn't be enough Vs for them anyway, as it is too exclusive. Drivers buying on the merits however will consider the XLR-v and some will buy.

As for prestige, where I live you may as well drive a T-bird. The SL is so numerous as to be virtually ignored. It doesn't even get you a spot curbside at the valet stand anymore. But the XLR-V does. Last night, there it was right outside the door with a Bentley, a Quattroporte & a Maranello while a steady stream of Mercs and BMWs were fetched from further away.

Phil

laurasdada · March 2006

Phil, I'm with you on the interior of the Maserati. If only my living room were as stylish or luxurious! And, of course, your thoughts on the XLR interior are correct for you.

Still, to me, the Lexus SC430 interior puts the XLR's interior to shame (save for the truly terrible lighter shaded wood/ecru combo in the SC. Must have the darker toned wood!!!). The SC exterior, well, a whole different story there. The XLR, to my eye, is a GM interior. Unfortunately, that is no compliment. It may be clean and functional but one could say the same thing about a Cobalt or a G6. Is Bvlgari's jewelery as plain as the instrument panel it designed? Overall the interior is not terrible, but for a $76k entry fee, I expect more.

Note that I do find the XLR overall a desireable car (although I've not driven one). MB SLs, while not quite as common as a 3 series BMW here in Boston, are certainly not the exception. The Caddy is a rare bird. Which from an owner's perspective may be a good thing. Not from Caddy's though...!

merc1 · March 2006

Stlying is to each his own because there is nothing even remotely ungraceful about the SL's styling. Nothing. I think one of the reasons why the XLR hasn't had an easy time in the market is because of the jet-fighter look. I think most buyers in the 75-100K luxury roadster class want something more elegant and less brutish looking like a SL or Jaguar XK. The Lexus SC sells on a quality reputation and price, being much cheaper than the XLR and its European rivals.

When I said that XLR-V didn't feel like a 100K car I meant from an interior standpoint. A luxury car (which is what these still are) is supposed to have soft materials and make a statement. I don't doubt that the performance is worlds better than the base XLR. Though I seriously doubt the recently refreshed SL55 has a thing to worry about from a the XLR-V.

Lastly, seeing a SL all the time is the price of being the class leader, everyone with money has one or will get one sooner or later. GM supporters seems to always change their tune to fit the car. If it doesn't sell due to not being as popular as GM wanted it to be, then the car is all of sudden "exclusive", yet if it sells well we can't hear enough about the sales numbers. Not that I'm claiming you're saying this, but I've heard it before. Point being, the only reason you don't see the XLR on every street is because Cadillac can't sell that many, not that can't build that many.

M

213cobra · March 2006

In terms of materials and workmanship, the Lexus SC interior is fully credible. It's design choices are a more controversial matter as is the look of the rest of the car. Unfortunately for the SC, it is not a serious car in any other sense. Performance relative to the class is mediocre, the car is unnecessarily soft, and it's styling is indecisively organic, as though the committee that designed it could not choose a signature aesthetic. It sells to the Lexus brand crowd, but neither an XLR, XLR-V, SL, 6 series, nor Maserati buyer considers it a desirable alternative.

Is Bulgari's jewelry as plain as the gauges in the XLR? Not quite, but his designs do tend to be very straightforward with bold fonts on watchfaces. Issue is that a Bulgari watch doesn't have to be instantly readable at a glance at 100+mph. I don't know your age, but $100K+ cars usually sell to people in mid-life and the utter clarity of the XLR/XLR-v instrumentation is an advantage, not a liability, for progressive-lens-wearing 50 year old men. It's just a functional thing. The SL looks fussy by comparison. On the base XLR, the $77K price might seem to justify some more leather on the primary surfaces. The plastics seem fine to me (plastic -- it's all pretty much plastic on any car!). The Caddy has put the money elsewhere and what you can touch is fine in that context, IMO.

Anyway, again, I originally posted about the XLR-v, and the experiential difference from the base car is *very* large.

I lived around Boston for 10 years and get there often since. I see the incidence of SLs. Take what you observe there and 10X it in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Orange County. Cadillac's sales numbers on these cars are fine for a marque making a comeback. I see XLRs every day here in SoCal, but I've only seen my V so far. That will change. Cadillac has a mountain to climb and I see a lot of progress climbing it, since about 2000. Those 4 figures of sales each year since the 2004 debut are coming out of somebody's hide.

Phil

213cobra · March 2006

The XLR-V has been shipping for only about 6 weeks. They plan to make only around 800 this year. It's early. Let's see how it pans out. XLRs are becoming numerous here in southern California. Can't say about elsewhere. But the V is exclusive, just as the Ford SVT Cobra numbers were limited by their hand-wrenched V8s. When you're hand-building engines to semi-racing standards, from limited production parts, production volumes will necessarily be modest. The 4.4L Northstar SC + 6L80 transmission comprises a sensational combination!

I don't know what interior a $100K car should have. Maserati sold fewer than 6000 cars last year and their interiors put *everyone* else's to shame. There is no distant second. The Merc guys look like hackers when it comes to interiors, compared to the Italians. Porsche interiors don't impress me. BMW interiors seem to be more about asserting a brand identity than functionality and user control. Mercedes, to me, isolates and obfuscates functionality while making an impressive superficial impression. Certainly that works in the marketplace where they helped set the tone for what people expect. The XLR-v is another point-of-view from a company learning in the category. As a first effort, the XLR/XLR-v are stunning debuts. I would consider the Maser interior a meaningful upgrade. The rest of the class has no real advantage over the Cadillacs.

I'm a first-time GM customer. The only other GM product I ever owned was a Corvette I bought used, and it was mechanically & electrically bulletproof right into 6 figures of mileage, and dealer service was unconditionally excellent. I was a long-time multi-vehicle new Ford SVT customer, also completely trouble-free for me. I work in a business where the entire community drives luxury cars, so I've been in and driven everything you can name, at one time or another (well, still looking for that chance to drive a Ford GT). I drove all the top contenders before making this purchase. I might have bought a Panoz Esperente if I could fit. The XLR-v won on the merits with me, edging out the Maserati Grand Sport. Anyone judging it without directly experiencing the car and assuming they can extrapolate from an XLR experience is under-informed. The Mercedes wasn't remotely as satisfying as either the XLR-v or the Maser, IMO. But I am not a GM apologist. I want to see XLRs succeed in the category. The XLR-V however only has to sell its modest production. If it doesn't sell competively against the SL, I am certain that it will become a sought-after cult car post-production. Time will tell. In the meantime, I expect to enjoy mine.

Phil

laurasdada · March 2006

My brother lives in LA (Pac Pall) and everytime I visit I just stop and stare at the cars. This past August we were there for a week and I saw 5 different Bentley GTs. I think that's more than I've seen around here in all of '05! He, of course, can also afford any car he wants. But he's just not much of a car guy. Loves his old '72 Buick convertible. The neighbors certainly do not! His wife just leased a Land Rover... I like to say that my brother can buy all the cars I want yet buys only the cars I can afford! :surprise:

Anywho, enjoy the V. My gripe with GM for decades is in knowing that they can build world class cars yet seemed to go out of their way not to (thank you, Roger SMith et. al.). Although most of their offerings, at least stylistically, are not my cup of tea at least Cadillac is beginning to carve out a more distinctive, respectable slice of the pie.

If the evil wife would allow me, or was it even remotely practical, I would be more seriously XLR shopping. To me, had Caddy just paid a little more attention to the interior and priced the XLR closer to (undercut?) the SC4300 I think they may have sold a few more and not had to cut production in half.

It's nice to see this thread pick up a bit!

merc1 · March 2006

Well I don't buy the argument about production being constrained because of hand building engines, Mercedes-AMG does the same thing and they have no issues with selling over 20K AMG cars a year. There is nothing about the SC Northstar that isn't so exotic as to keep it from being built in good numbers, if the demand was there.

AMG does the same thing and their new (equally versed in racing technology if not more so) 6.3L V8 will eventually be stuffed into every AMG model (except the V12 ones) over the next few years. I just think that is an excuse for slow sales, if the XLR-V doesn't meet GM's projections.

That said, I'm impressed with the XLR-V and the STS-V to a degree. They are without a doubt (along with the C6 Vette) the finest cars GM has ever produced and the two Caddies are no doubt the best Cadillacs of the last 30 years, IMO.

I agree about Maser and their interiors. The only German make that comes close to say a Maserati Quattroporte is Audi. Totally disagree that the rest of the class has no advantage over the XLR-V when it comes to its interior. Despite my opinion on how pitiful of a GT car the Lexus SC430 is and its tacky interior color schemes, it easily beats the XLR in the interior department when it comes to quality of materials and how they are constructed. The XLR-V doesn't come close to a 100K car in presentation, design or materials. It has the same lapse in details that all GM cars suffer from. GM got the drivetrain right from everything I've seen, but the interior detals aren't up to less-expensive cars. There are too many obvious parts from lesser GM cars poking through for me.

Your first GM car? What did you drive before?

M

213cobra · March 2006

First new GM car for me. I did have a Corvette I bought used. But that's the only GM product I owned before this. Most recent fleet was: multiple Ford SVT vehicles, a Mercury Marauder, Lincoln M8 LSC -- all specialty (some hand-assembled) aluminum, high-rev, multivalve/DOHC engines. Professional peers mostly drive German or Brit (Aston, Jag) with an occasional Italian, so am familiar with everything else in a first-person sense, aside from what I've test-driven.

Mercedes acquired AMG. It was a fully-fleshed out hot-rod operation before they bought it, and Mercedes capital has expanded it. That's easy to do. Of course they are scaling hand-wrenched production ahead of GM. Ford has been doing it with SVT since 1993, too. But GM Performance is a 3 year old operation. GM has the resources to scale but the experience to scale that kind of operation to consumer standards takes some organizational learning. They have to exceed what a 3rd party shop does. Plus, while the brand is recovering from decades of neglect, it's better to manage to scarcity than surplus. I think they are stepping up in the right way to build custom wrenching capacity a little behind demand. Their objective in the near term is not to outsell Mercedes, but to enter the market, begin biting into their sales and to divert some SL-intenders, which they are doing.

As for the interiors issue, I think this has become the last refuge of criticsm for people who are unwilling to be objective about the quality in design and execution GM has achieved here, and (perhaps not you) the many people in the market that have a perverse desire to see domestic companies fail. The Maserati interiors are untouched by anyone else in the price. Perhaps the Aston V8 Vantage is their closest competitor in that regard. Audi interiors are lauded for design and materials but I have to say I've been in every Audi model sold in North America and driven them all. Their plastics are not higher quality in durability but they are chosen or engineered for a specific feel. It's OK, not really special. Nice design details if you like their aesthetic. Their leather isn't as good as the Brits' and nothing about it that matters in an automobile meaningfully exceeds what's in my XLR-v. It has a specific aesthetic. So does the Cadillac. Which you like is up to you, but aside from the feel of the switchgear, it's not a quality difference that matters. I say that knowing that every auto magazine has made an issue of this, but I think they are largely in a rut over a quality gap that was huge 12 years ago and has since narrowed, though their ability to recognize that has not.

The Lexus interior is irrelevant. No one who appreciates the engineering, driving experience and dynamics of the XLR or XLR-v would consider the bloated, soft, femme Lexus SC a serious alternative. Its interior looks goofy but it's well-assembled. Yawn.

The Mercedes SL55 interior is superficially seductive compared to the XLR-v, and parts of it are more gratifying to touch. It's not enough reason to put up with the car's needless bulk. This difference quickly fades. The XLR-v interior feels good in all the right places, the sight-lines are better, everything is instantly legible, the technology integration is better, and the XLR-v is simply more fun because it feels lighter and never ponderous. The SL55 is heavy, it has Camaro-like overhangs, and its design vocabulary is dated. Some people like that. It's OK. But that buyer isn't really rejecting the XLR-v because of interior materials. Let's face it, such a decision is driven by other things. But to me, if you can't build a high-power two seater with a retractable hardtop under 4000 lbs., you're just not creative enough. I mean, that car is over TWO friggin' TONS!!!! It just crosses a line that makes it hard for me to take seriously in 2006. Engineering only goes so far in disguising that bulk. Drive the XLR-v and the SL55 like a sports car and tell me which one is more tossable and fun. It won't be the Merc.

Obvious parts from lesser GM cars poking through the interior of the Caddy? What, some switches? Air vents? If anything, it's very small items. Everything else is specific to the car. And so what? It works. It is well screwed together. The platform is proven in all respects to be a world-class performance foundation. It leads Mercedes in specific output. It leads Mercedes in lightness with rigidity. It gets better gas mileage, for anyone who cares about that for other than economic reasons. The Cadillac has an order-upending style, and the mechanics to back up its intrusion into the class structure of upper end roadster-coupes. I understand why some people prefer the SL55, but the real reason isn't the XLR-v interior. By the way, have you seen the V interior? It's a different impression from the base XLR.

On Saturday I happened to find myself coming out of a store with an SL55 parking next to me. The owner wanted a look at my car because he hadn't seen an XLR-v before, only an XLR. I was familiar with his car since I had driven one and have friends who own them, too. Sitting in his car I was reminded that I do not envy his interior, though I recognize it is well made. His reaction to the V interior was, "this is getting very close....." After spending almost an hour orienting him around the car, it was clear his curiosity was more than empty.

Automobile Magazine said that the XLR-v is clearly worth its $100K sticker on the performance merits, and then they weaseled out by saying to the effect, "...well it doesn't have the SL's cachet and the cockpit could use some work...so ask us again in a few years." Geeze Louise. I was buying a car, not some piece of jewelry to impress the crusty set. As a car, the XLR-v rocks in every way.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

Well obviously you love the XLR-V because there are lot of claims in there that aren't really correct.

There is no way a GM car is on the same level with an Audi when it comes to their interiors, not even the 100K XLR-V. The Audi A8 puts any GM car to shame interior design and quality. Yes I've been the XLR-V several times now. To say that GM can use lesser parts from their lesser cars in the XLR-V and excuse them because they work is missing the point. A 100K car is supposed to be more bespoke and not an obvious part sharing exercise with cheaper cars. This would be ok if GM cars in general had better interiors, but they don't. All luxury cars have a "specific asthetic". The XLR isn't any different and certainly isn't outstanding in any way regarding its interior.

I agree about the Lexus' desireability, but still it does have a well-crafted interior, that was the point. I personally would take anything else in the class over the SC430 without a thought.

The Mercedes SL55 interior is superficially seductive compared to the XLR-v, and parts of it are more gratifying to touch.

Well yeah and so is the new Jaguar XK, that is the point of having a luxury car. You say that SL doesn't handle as well and I say the XLR-V's interior doesn't meet the 100K standard. We'll have to agree to disagree there. I've seen many say that latter about the XLR-V's interior, far less than any complaints about the SL55's handling. It doesn't pretend to be a s sports car, its a GT car. There is a difference.

The Cadillac may have what it takes to break in the class, but the SL is the class and will continue to be so.

Automobile didn't weasel out they simply stated the obvious.

M

213cobra · March 2006

I enjoy my XLR-v and that doesn't make any statement I made incorrect. We have differences of opinion about what constitutes "better" in a car interior, and how much that means to one's choice.

I didn't say that the XLR-v interior is the equal of Audi's or Mercedes, just that the differences aren't meaningful enough to selecting the car. You're right, the SL is a GT. But a GT that can has sports car dynamics is better than a GT that doesn't. The SL is just silly-heavy and frankly I'd rather have an interior that people nitpick about than over 400 extra pounds that put a two seat GT over 4000 lbs.

All of these cars -- the Lexus, the Cadillac, the Mercedes, pay some price for having automated folding hardtops in compact form. The Lexus gives you a precision-crafted interior (albeit goofy aesthetics), nice paint, reliability and a retractable hardtop at the expense of class-worst performance. The Mercedes gives you everything, at the expense of class-worst bloat & weight, and highest price. The Maserati Spyder gives you class-best interior, good dynamics, a great naturally-aspirated engine and high flavor at the expense of a cloth roof and questionable reliability. The Cadillac gives you lightest weight among the hard-roofs, class-leading specific output, class-leading suspension governance, fully competitive performance, most seamless technology integration, and price advantage, at the expense of a mildly less indulgent (but more functional) interior. For me, that latter mix defines a more desirable $100+K 2-seat luxury GT-roadster than what Mercedes offers.

As for $100K cars being "bespoke," that threshold passed a long time ago. Every $100K car is a production car now or derived from production mechanicals incorporated into a specifically engineered chassis like Panoz and Morgan, and all use parts from "lesser" cars. You may think that Mercedes is skilled at creating and maintaining an illusion otherwise, but it's still an illusion pierced by lapses in execution just like with any other manufacturer.

The XLR-v's interior is excellent in its directness, technology integration and simplicity. It is a better abstraction of technology UI than the SL or anything else in the class I've seen. Maybe the Aston V8 Vantage is its peer in this respect, but with more leather. If the Cadillac's interior were a little "richer" in its materials, would I appreciate it? I suppose, if doing so didn't add more weight or complexity. Hey, I'd like a leather headliner! But I don't see any deficiencies nor any advantage to the interior of any competitor (other than Maserati) that might be enough to prefer a different car. The differences are small relative to the XLR-v's large design and relatively lightweight engineering advantages.

I accept that the SL defines the class, as most of the market thinks of $100K - $140K two-seat GTs. The XLR-v is the upstart intruder in a class that was established by European makers. The XLR-v is a better idea for how this class should be interpreted. Each car has its strengths and appeal. I fully understand why some people might choose a Maserati or an Aston over anything else in the field. I accept that many people prefer the Mercedes. I just don't think that's warranted if you're buying a car rather than merely a statement. Even as a statement, the SL is becoming co-opted by lemming buyers anteing-up the credit to get into one. Watch people, for instance, don't buy Rolexes, nor have much respect for them. Brand buyers do. Mercedes is fast filling that position in cars. Automobile Magazine's view that the XLR-v's performance legitimacy at the price point is somehow devalued by carrying through a more restrained aesthetic inside and by being new to the market, bows to a static, backward-facing, market perception. For anyone seeking a fast, exceedingly competent, comfortable, strong, highly-usable, forward-looking, reliable, six-figure sporting GT-roadster, rather than an overweight, overwrought, overpriced version of the same, the XLR-v is a worthy alternative that will also make a good impression. You can also be sure in coming years it will evolve further. And if you really want a bespoke interior, for far less than the difference in price, every city has a customizer or two who can give you the full Maserati treatment for something truly individual.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

I didn't say that the XLR-v interior is the equal of Audi's or Mercedes, just that the differences aren't meaningful enough to selecting the car. You're right, the SL is a GT. But a GT that can has sports car dynamics is better than a GT that doesn't. The SL is just silly-heavy and frankly I'd rather have an interior that people nitpick about than over 400 extra pounds that put a two seat GT over 4000 lbs.

Well then I don't understand the point of the debate then. I'll take the better interior because again these aren't sports cars and from what I've seen the base SL500 outhandles the XLR anyway. Not sure about the SL55 and XLR-V, I haven't seen them compared. The SL (and others) are better at providing a luxury experience while the XLR seemingly wants to be a better mannered Vette. The SL is designed to hide most of that bulk and from everthing I've seen about the car it does that very well and doesn't suffer nearly as bad from "worst-class bloat" like your saying. You make sound like the car doesn't handle at all the XLR is some type of slot car.

The XLR being a better definition of this class is highly arguable at best because I haven't seen anyone agree with that. The XLR loses everytime. Who buys what and why has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the two cars, it is irrelevant. Just because Cadillac threw away their "brand name" years ago and doesn't have much of a draw as far as prestige goes agains the Germans and Lexus isn't justification for implying that Mercedes buyers are merely "brand" seekers.

M

213cobra · March 2006

The XLR-v interior is close enough to the Germans as to be irrelevant as a selection factor. That's the first point of contention. Both are quite a bit behind the luxury aura that the Italians manage. If interiors were so important -- a 1st-order selection criterion -- Maserati would own the market. Let's not pretend these interior differences you claim are meaningful at this level.

The SL500 & 600 are bulky too, not just the AMG. I'd rather drive a base XLR than a 500, frankly. But it's the XLR-v this discussion is about. The XLR-v really doesn't resemble a Corvette at all, despite sharing structure architecture. The two cars are very different by virtue of engines alone, and are tuned to be much different experiences. If you want a Corvette, you'll be buying a Corvette, not an XLR or Mercedes of any sort.

The luxury experience of the XLR-v is fully competitive, and superior to the Mercedes SL in all the ways that matter to me. Someone else might think of luxury differently, but that's not my problem. The Mercedes IS the most bloated car in the class. It's so heavy it's hard to take seriously, so I don't. Mercedes does manage to mitigate the weight via engineering, but it would be a better & more impressive engineering solution to avoid the weight in the first place. Cadillac does. Reviewers are hypocrites on this issue. They praise the Merc and yet every one of them makes some kind of explicit or veiled comment about how the bloat induces understeer and compromises dynamics. Did I mention the car is excessively heavy?

In any case, you can plainly feel the SL's obesity both in direct feedback and in how the car's systems work to keep the car in line. Just drive one and then drive an XLR-v. It will be plain as your nose on your face. An XLR-v IS "some kind of slot car." The Mercedes SL DOES "handle" but its competence is inelegant because of its bloat and what has to be done to manage it. The XLR-v is straightforward and fun, along with being comfortable, quiet and fast. The Mercedes is merely comfortable, quiet and fast. Lexus is not a factor for drivers.

The largest Mercedes dealer in the world is in southern California, and a few others in the top ten. You don't have to meet many SL owners, even SL-AMG owners, to see ample evidence that most of them are brand seekers and nothing more. They know very little about their cars. And the correlation between Mercedes SL ownership and Rolex wearers further reinforces the point. It's not much different for BMW or Lexus here, either. Groupthink prevails. Well, it helps D/C sell cars. We also see proof of this in Mercedes sales holding up in the face of steady reliability declines. The Italians or Brits or Cadillac would be punished by the market immediately if the same declines were suffered. So let's be honest: it's not a merit-based market. If it were, a lot of people who reflexively buy SLs would instead seriously consider buy and something else, including XLR-v.

Whether or not you've seen anyone agree with me on the XLR-v as the better example of a luxury 2-seat GT/roadster hardtop does nothing to make the point arguable or inarguable. When you have the market rewarding a maker who can't build such a car under two tons, clearly the rest of the army is out of step and I'm happy to be in the minority.

Last, nevertheless enjoy the Mercedes you either own or will eventually buy. But consider indulging your independent streak and going with a V.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

The XLR-v interior is close enough to the Germans as to be irrelevant as a selection factor. That's the first point of contention. Both are quite a bit behind the luxury aura that the Italians manage. If interiors were so important -- a 1st-order selection criterion -- Maserati would own the market. Let's not pretend these interior differences you claim are meaningful at this level.

Disagree totally because everyone who has driven these new "V" Series Cadillacs complains about their interiors not being up to snuff, especially for the prices Caddy is asking for them. At this level the details do matter and GM cars never pass the test even at the lower levels so they haven't a chance at this level. Now for you it might not have been an issue, but I've seen posts here and on other boards about the XLR and XLR-V and nine times out of ten the problem is the interior. About the Cadillac and Germans matching Maserati, they really don't have too. Maseratis are much more exclusive and a much riskier choice and thus they'll never take many sales away from the Germans in this segment.

The SL500 & 600 are bulky too, not just the AMG. I'd rather drive a base XLR than a 500, frankly. But it's the XLR-v this discussion is about. The XLR-v really doesn't resemble a Corvette at all, despite sharing structure architecture. The two cars are very different by virtue of engines alone, and are tuned to be much different experiences.

Ok in your opinion, that isn't supported by any tests I've seen where the SL always beats the XLR except in one R&T test where the SL got knocked on price. I didn't say the XLR resembles a Vette I said that is appear to be more luxurious, better mannered one.

Reviewers are hypocrites on this issue. They praise the Merc and yet every one of them makes some kind of explicit or veiled comment about how the bloat induces understeer and compromises dynamics.

I've read "that for a heavy car it handles well" or something like that. I haven't really seen anything truly negative about the SL's handling other than reviewers wondering what it would be like if the car indeed lighter. Like I said before, not sure about the XLR-V vs. the SL55, but I do seem to remember a recent roadtest by C&D on the XLR-V where they said it was uninvolving (or something like that), but on the SL500 vs. the XLR the SL has won any handling contest I've seen.

The Mercedes SL DOES "handle" but its competence is inelegant because of its bloat and what has to be done to manage it.

Sorry guy but that is an excuse. If the car handles good and they manage to hide its weight well enough for it to be a good handling GT then there is no point to the "bloated" nonsense.

You think that every SL buyer is some type of badge seeker, yet I guess you think every XLR buyer is some type of car nut that knows the guts of this XLR right down to the most minute detail? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. That implication sounds like something the GM defenders would say on the other boards because simply put no one lusts after the Cadillac badge after GM ruined it 30+ years ago. "We don't have any status so we'll knock the brands like MB that do."

Every luxury brand on the market attracts at least some badge seekers, but of course Mercedes still being seen as #1 by a lot of folks, they'll get more than their fair share of badge seekers. What this has to do with the technical aspects of the cars here is beyond me though. Imagewise Cadillac isn't in the same league with Mercedes-Benz, BMW or Lexus to most people. It isn't their fault that GM threw away Cadillac's prestige with 20+ years of heaps.

Whether or not you've seen anyone agree with me on the XLR-v as the better example of a luxury 2-seat GT/roadster hardtop does nothing to make the point arguable or inarguable. When you have the market rewarding a maker who can't build such a car under two tons, clearly the rest of the army is out of step and I'm happy to be in the minority.

Well...uh yeah it does make it pretty inarguable, well at least as it relates to the base XLR vs the base SL as to which is superior, because if the base XLR were so great someone would have said it by now. To be fair the jury is out on the XLR-V because it has yet to face the SL55 or any of its other competiors like the upcoming M6 Cabriolet or the upcoming XLR. Minority on the XLR-V when it comes to its interior, most definitely.

M

213cobra · March 2006

Several reviewers have said that the SL steering is "numb" and went on to criticize the entire category of luxury GT roadsters for this. They've said the same about the V. I've driven all the SLs and the XLR and XLR-v. To my hands, the XLR-v returns much more information about the tire/road interface than any SL and more than the base XLR. Somewhat less than an M3, Z06 or 911.

The SL500/600/55 "handle, for a heavy car." You can put up the numbers on any two cars and if they are the same, the qualitative difference can be markedly dissimilar. The Mercedes wears its weight inelegantly and feels like a pig compared to the XLR-v. Just because it gets around a track or a skidpad doesn't mean the weight it hidden. You feel surplus mass under management. It would be far more impressive an engineering feat if it weren't there in the first place. The XLR compares favorably to an SL500, though it doesn't have the more complete pinned-to-the-planet feel of the V car.

Mercedes has a disproporationate number of badge-seekers among its buyers, which is easily discernible and expected for the brand they built, exacerbated by the company building less involving cars than most of their few competitors. Only Lexus builds less-involving cars in the category and that crowd is crawling with badge-seekers.

All sales quantities in this category are small. Maserati's few thousand coupes and roadsters come from someone's prior market share, just as XLR/XLR-v.

There are people complaining about the Cadillac interiors. I don't dispute the incidence of commentary. I do dispute whether it matters, and the motives of those who complain. I really am not interested in the slightest what any majority sentiment is about any automotive category. It has no bearing on whether there are meaningful differences. Only on the sheep mentality of people in groups seeking social approval. When people are buying prestige rather than product, they generally are reluctant to let new entrants on the field, and are protective of the status they just bought into. Really, get in an XLR-v and live with it. The interior is fine, even in the context of the class.

"...if the base XLR were so great someone would have said it by now..." I have. And even more so for the XLR-v. There are lots of people who agree with me, but they aren't in media and they aren't blogging or tapping out these arguments on forums like we are. But I hear it conversationally. You look around the web and you can find many reviews of the XLR series where the conclusion is that these cars are not quite ready to knock the SL off its perch, mostly due to some knuckleheaded claim about "cachet", "history" or "indescribable refinement." These are very thin reasons hang on to any preference for the SL and typical of what people say when presented with an equally-competent challenger. The Cadillac roadsters are a different flavor of an established recipe and are fully competitive as cars. As brands....well, sure....GM has some work to do in the marketplace. I bought a car, so I am not even remotely concerned about what anyone else thinks about the badge.

The M6 isn't really the same kind of car as either of the cars we are talking about, but some people might include it in their evaluations. If there's a hard top, and it goes down, and it seats 2, and at least 8 cylinders are under the hood, then it's in the class. The Maser and Jag are edged out for their soft tops. The Lexus is by far the poorest performer of the group and irrelevent to people like us. The Aston V8 Vantage and Maser Coupe/Gransport are closed cars so also peripheral but might be considered alternatives by some, so the larger M6 is a little further out.

Drive the cars, ignore the badges, feel the ridiculous weight penalty of the SL. You might have your mind changed and understand why the XLR-v is more entertaining. Anyone concerned about the image perceptions of others is really a brand seeker and not actually buying for the car. If you were, you'd have a much dimmer view of Mercedes bloat, declining reliability and awkward technology integration. Generally the people who pay special respect to Mercedes don't know anything about what you bought anyway. They think you bought it to impress them and accord to you no more insight than that. This is what amazes me about brand-seeking for status -- the intended audience thinks you're as shallow as you think they are for assigning some importance to your choice! Something like Groucho Marx's comment about not wanting to join any club that would have him. That will keep you from enjoying some much more interesting cars.

Phil

laurasdada · March 2006

Hello, Guys:

Fun discussion, good points on both sides. The most important fact is that Phil voted with his wallet and is absolutely right in his opinions. For him, of course.

I've not driven either car, my reaction is purely from a read/research/sit in at delaer or autoshow point of view. There is no doubt that many buyers are brand buyers. For both marques. I still hear people referring to Caddy as "The Standard of the World." Unfortunately, in the absolute, not true for a good 30 to 40 years. Where Caddy/GM goofed was trying to instanly play in the MB league, price-wise. MB has, however, "earned" their price premium. They've been (perceived) to be the standard for quite some time. Whereas Caddy has been hurt by the recent past, MB has receive a pass from the buying public because of the recent past.

Having theorized that, I do buy the car. Not the badge. Heck, my last car was a Chrylser 300M! First model year, domestic, Chrysler! I broke all the rules with that purchase. First domestic I ever bought. And I was thrilled with it. Enjoyed every minute, wonderful car. I just wasn't going to keep it past 70k miles. Current ride, '05 Acura TL. Emotionally I wanted to buy a MB E320 but at the end of the day I just did not feel the E was $20k more car than the TL. And my New England frugality carried the day. No regrets, TL is fab.

Caddy overshot the price mark and under-delivered on the interior. Most people buy the whole package. I mean where do you spend your driving time. In the interior! I think the MB SL wins on both interior and exterior counts here. Much less so on the exterior, though. I'd go for the Caddy , as I did with the 300M, so as not to follow the crowd.

Among other (less $ watches) I wear a Tag Heuer and IWC. With another IWC in my (near? Please, honey. Can I buy it?) future.

Enjoy the v, PHil. Please post your experiences living with it.

213cobra · March 2006

Yep, I spend my time inside the car, so the interior matters. I like the clean straightforwardness of the XLR-v interior, and the thing is I like it more the more time I spend in it, not less. The Maserati does that for you too for entirely different reasons. The Mercedes doesn't for me. In fact, even just while shopping it, I found the Mercedes SL interior progressively more irritating and distracting the more time I spent in it.

There are a few things I'd like to see improved inside the XLR-v. 1/ a hand-brake rather than a foot-controlled e-brake. This is still-too-frequent Detroit miscue. 2/ A leather headliner would be nice, but I can get that done custom. 3/ I'd really like a larger radio volume knob. 4/ The floor mats should be a lot plusher stock rather than forcing an accessory buy to upgrade -- ah, the long arm of GM's finance guys. Knowing the car's architecture precludes stowage space behind the seats, that's about it. The trunk space is generous given the retracting hardtop and other attributes packaged in the car. I have 360 degrees of leather inside, great seats, excellent materials all around. Aesthetically, I would have preferred full leather seats but functionally the perforated ultra-suede inserts are a terrific touch for keeping you in your seat in hard cornering, without excessively restrictive side bolsters. So, I'm fine with it. I've had cars with chromed control stalks, but the flat black ones here don't reflect glare. If GM ever gets to putting a Maserati-grade interior in the car without compromising anything else about it, I'll be the first to applaud it. If I were the XLR-v product manager, I'd put interior refinements on the development plan. But the layout and ergonomics are great today, and the way it is executed does not detract from the appeal of the car.

Cadillac, remember, did not clamber all the way up MB's price tree. The sticker is an even $100K. I've been to MB's web site and car configurator, and equipping an SL55 as closely as possible to the XLR-V puts you past $135K. The Cadillac is still playing well under the perceived market leader. I've read posts where people say the V should be $85K. Sorry. If you accept what companies can deliver in the $70,000s, there is no way the V gets delivered in the $80s, especially with that hand-wrenched beauty of an engine. Psychologically, would there be advantage to put the car at, say, 94,499.00 instead? Sure. But it wouldn't have the same "announcement" impact of breaking 6 figures with a small-production flagship. The market will work out the actual selling prices.

Experiences with the car: Let's get off the car for a moment and talk about the tires. The V comes equipped with Pirelli Eufori run-flats. Now, I haven't been keen on earlier generations of run-flats. The Goodyear F1s on my wife's CTS-v seem much improved too, but I don't have definitive experience with them yet. No question that the run-flats impose a specific ride / handling characteristic to any car they're on. One of the Maserati Gransports I drove had run-flats too and they made the car feel almost familial to the XLR-v, and vice-versa. Transmittal of road grain into the car is heightened, but less than earlier generation run-flats. NVH goes up over an inflated tire. But the handling, grip, gradual slip and wet performance of these Euforis are all 1st-rate -- at least at this stage of tire life (1150 miles). Corvette Z06-scale rubber would certainly make the car more tenacious but then it wouldn't be a luxury GT roadster either. These Euforis definitely put an edge on the car, that very much net-positive. I am really impressed by how far run-flat tires have evolved during the past few years, and now can appreciate knowing wherever I am, I can keep rolling.

Another thing: The XLR-v has the excellent new GM 6L80 shiftable automatic transmission. Manual shifts are timely, especially when compared to normal sequence of clutching/shifting yourself (as opposed to comparing the shift to flipping a light switch). Auto shifts are smooth and seamless in normal mode. The car sounds almost turbine-like when driven mildly. However, the car has multiple modes. In full auto mode, ride is most compliance and shifts are well-mannered and barely perceptible. Very fluid. Slap the shifter left into the manual shiftgate, but don't shift -- this puts you in Sport Automatic mode where the transmission computer evaluates your driving style and manages shifts according to how aggressively you are driving. In this mode, the tranny holds gear longer up the sequence and upshifts are firm & crisp. Also, the Dynamic Ride Control is recalibrated for flatter cornering and a more aggressive "set." When you start shifting, the heads-up display keeps you informed of your gear, and aside from where the manual outlines how you might be second-guessed, for practical purposes your shifts are responsively effected.

In conjunction with choosing full Auto, Sport Auto or Driver Shift modes at the transmission, you can turn Traction Control (GM's excellent Stabilitrak) on, off or to Performance Mode, which allows quite a bit of horseplay before pulling you back in line. The combinations possible between these two separate controls allow you to configure the car quite precisely to mood, environment and attention span. By comparison, while the Maserati's Cambiocorsa "F1" paddle-controlled electro-mechanical transmission is snappy at speed, for most driving I actually find this GM 6L80, as programmed in the XLR-v, to be more involving and unclunky. I say this as a lifetime shift-it-yourself driver. We still have the CTS-v for that.

If you're a Tag Heuer guy, it sounds like instead of an IWC next, you need a Monaco V4 (13 drive belts and a linear oscillator) to go with the spirit of that TL. Or perhaps a GP Ferrari.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

Several reviewers have said that the SL steering is "numb" and went on to criticize the entire category of luxury GT roadsters for this. They've said the same about the V. I've driven all the SLs and the XLR and XLR-v.

If that is the case then????? None of these cars are sports cars.

Mercedes has a disproporationate number of badge-seekers among its buyers, which is easily discernible and expected for the brand they built, exacerbated by the company building less involving cars than most of their few competitors. Only Lexus builds less-involving cars in the category and that crowd is crawling with badge-seekers.

Sorry, but this reeks of what I said earlier. Since GM ruined Cadillac's standing in the world it is easy to knock other brands that have the image factor. Secondly, Cadillac building more involving cars is just pure fantasy. If Cadillac still had their standing they'd have more badge seekers too. Instead they've chasing MB/BMW in a never ending race that they can't even keep up in.

Three "V" models don't make up for all the soggily suspended DeVilles and now DTS' they put on the road. Nor do they transform Cadillac into some overall builder of "involving" cars. The truth is that Cadillacs are no more involving than anything else and they aren't up to BMW levels or certain AMG Mercedes models either. Mercedes has more than the SL. This about what MB has built is just the opposite of what Cadillac has destroyed, their brand name. Cadillac ain't no BMW or Infiniti by a long shot so please spare me this nonsense about MB building "less involving cars" and how they have more badge seekers because of it. That is total nonsense. If someone seeks a Lexus for its badge they need help IMO. Lexus is the ultimate in wannabe wares.

Been over that about the XLR's interior before, XLR, XLR-V been in both, their interiors are not much and certainly not up to their prices IMO, so we'll have to agree to disagree there.

This about people who typcially buy a Mercedes not knowing anything about them is based on what? An experience at one dealership? True of lot of badge seekers pics MB, but they also pick other brands especially with all the ways to get into one of these cars now. The same can be said about any buyer of any car, Mercedes is no different and besides there is no way to prove the Mercedes has more ignorant buyers than any other brand out there.

You've seen evidence of that about MB and you can find those right here on Edmunds who are in the same think about Cadillac.

This about the SL having such a "weight penalty" is nonsense. The car sets the standard in the class by nearly all accounts and if it's weight were that much of a problem there is no way the car would own the segment like it does.

M

laurasdada · March 2006

Nice write up. It's always great to read a review from someone who continues to evaluate and enjoy their ride so much! And a somewhat positive review of run flats!

IWC Ingenieur AMG edition is what has caught my latest fancy. I almost bought my father a TAG Targa Florio for his birthday, but decided a Quartz movement and a larger/bolder face would be better (poor eyesight and having to reset the automatic if he didn't wear it regularly would be a bit of a pain for him). So, a Concord Saratoga fit the bill. Maybe the Targa for me? Or a GP as you mention, Omega Seamaster, Breitling Chronomat, Ulysse Nardin... Just like cars, so many choices. I should probably wear my almost 30 year old Seiko automatic chronograph when driving the TL...!

213cobra · March 2006

I dismiss the interior concerns, you dismiss the weight. But they aren't equal liabilities. The XLR-v interior is functionally excellent and our disagreement is on a matter of cosmetics and feel, related to materials and workmanship. But weight is another matter. That is takes Mercedes over 400 more pounds to put the same car on the road is laughable. It's the epitome of the current German excess in automobile engineering and design, which is squared at Mercedes. The car "owns the segment" because of status buyers, not because most of its owners actually understand or care about driving dynamics.

Now, I accept that the segment, as currently considered by its buying public, is largely defined by MB's product in the segment. The majority's willingness to reward those product decisions doesn't make it better, merely more financially successful. We know this world does not operate correlating sense with success, and vice-versa. So let's not pretend that a porker at the top of the category makes a porker the right car to build. It's clientele largely knowns little about what it's buying. My experience with this isn't confined to one dealership, it's multi-decades of observation. And sure, there was a time when Cadillac had more brand-seekers than not. But today is today, and Mercedes has an overweight car for which engineering and materials must be directed to managing the unnecessary bulk, and GM has engineered a platform with more advanced thinking instanced in its very structure and the architecture that informs it.

We agreed earlier that none of these luxury GT/hardtop-roadsters are pure sports cars. But they have sporting characters. The Mercedes just less so, because sports cars were never defined by the ultimate numbers they put up, but more by their balance of characteristics and their communicative traits in motion. On this, the XLR-v exceeds all the SLs. Putting up stout numbers but feeling ponderous when doing so isn't impressive. At least not to me.

It's true that the DTS is not an involving driver's car. It isn't meant to be, nor is that claim made for it. The STS-v might be, but I haven't driven one so can't say. Automobile and others say it "isn't a track car," but that it is highly competent and very desirable as an "executive express." That's a legitimate portfolio for a car to have. Everyone agrees it's fast and agile for its size. But let's be honest -- a 7 series, A8 or an S class isn't a track car either. They're competent expresses and their passengers do not want to be tossed around the cabin at 140mph, even if the driver does. But for that, the Quattroporte Sport is the definitive large 4 door. The M5 and CTS-v are *just* small enough for that idea to begin to make sense, and both are entertaining. The MB equivalent is again the least involving car of the three. It's what Mercedes does now, with the possible exception of the SLK-AMG, which people my size do not fit in.

The XLR-v is a better-idea implementation of the SL idea, which by definition makes it disruptive and ensures it will meet some mainstream resistance. That's fully expected when a company is campaigning with product to rebuild a brand proposition. Mercedes is the incumbent bound by the vector of its segment success -- for which the logical conclusion is ridiculously weighty cars overwrought with cosmetics, and its principle design flaw is patched over by technology band-aids to mitigate the needless bulk.

Cadillac has taken a different approach to "add lightness" and make sane engineering intrinsic to the car by virtue of its platform. It's body materials also allow a more visionary design vocabulary. And the general attitude in favor of elemental rightness and simplicity is carried through in the straightforward interior design.

Cadillac's brand image lags behind product right now, so while there are people who consider Infiniti and Lexus more desirable, neither has anything as interesting as the CTS-v, the STS-v or the XLR-v. BMW has capable and interesting cars with other liabilities, but that's a different discussion. Audi is irrelevant to me. Mercedes is on a high-fat jag, so hard to take seriously.

Bottom line is that if Mercedes had built a car as good as the XLR-v, I'd have bought it. I certainly can afford it. However, the SL55 just wasn't quite good enough, for all the reasons I outlined.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

We're going in circles here. You'll forever go on and on about the SL's fictional weight problem and I'll continue to say that the SL has a better interior as does every other car in this class. Where is it written that one is a more serious issue than the other? I say it is common sense that a proper interior on a 100K car is more important to the average buyer than how well the car can be flung around. The average fat-cat buyer that looks at a XK, SL, XLR isn't looking for a sports car. I'd say they're looking for a stylish, luxurious, powerful car that provides a good driving experience.

I'm not dismissing the XLR/XLR-V by a long shot, my point is it needs more polish to be a real player in this league because it ain't cutting it in the marketplace by being lighter. The Jaguar XK will be just as light or possibly lighter with a much better look inside and out. Then where does that leave the XLR? This about the XLR's body materials isn't a plus either with early complaints about the car smelling like plastic and glue. I hope GM has fixed that because no one wants a 76-100K car that smells like plastic!

Reading this about the SL's weight, one would think the SL is so heavy as to actually make some type of dramatic difference to the average person that buys an SL (or any other car in this segment). These are GT cars, not Lotus Elises. While Cadillac was busy adapting a Corvette chassis for luxury duty they should have done more with the interior. You mentioned electronics intergration before, yet the XLR has something as simple as doors locks all done up (electronically) to impress that same group of clueless buyers you claim buy Mercedes-Benzes. Nothing more than a useless gimmickly "feature".

BMW, another discussion? Yes indeed, BMWs will trounce every single Cadillac that has the notion of even trying to compete.

This about who buys what (really ridiculous IMO) has nothing to do with the cars themselves. Now if you trying to make a case for the Cadillac brand being on the same level as MB or BMW that would be a waste of time. Only the "GM-only" or "buy-American-only" crowds would agree with that and they seem to be as unknowledgeable about cars as you claim MB buyers are. Most of them still think that most American cars are still built in Detroit!

It seems to me you're just making excuses for Cadillac at this point. For instance the STS-V doesn't compete with the S-Class, A8 or 7-Series. It competes with the M5,S6 and E55/CLS55. GM didn't design anything close to a "platform" for the XLR. They took as sports-car platform (i.e. it was already light) and added some luxury touches and some different engines.

All this about Mercedes' being less involving is really interesting, yet Cadillac made some of the worst handling, overpowered FWD heaps for years and years. Now since they have a valid tuner car you're making them out to be some type of sporting brand when you can go to any Cadillac dealer in the U.S. and find a DTS, STS or even a CTS with a cloth top and some with Vouge tires. Cadillac hasn't shed their tired old image yet so I find all this talk about Mercedes' image and who buys them hilarious.

Bottom line you may have found the XLR-V to be more to your liking (can't really argue with that), but you're in the minority, regardless of all these far-reaching theories about who buys a Benz and why.

You really sound like the typical GM apologist, lots of round-n-round talk only to come to the same conclusion as before, in this case that Cadillacs aren't superior, but merely competitive. Your whole position of superiority on the part of the XLR-V is based on it being lighter nothing more, something that isn't near being the top priority for most buyers in this segment. There are way too many other issues with the XLR in general for less weight to be able to overcome them.

M

213xlrv · March 2006

I've never bought a new GM vehicle before in 30 years of buying new cars, so the charge of being a GM apologist doesn't stick. I have no history of consumer loyalty to that company. In fact, I've steadily rejected their products in favor of others my entire auto-buying life.

I've only seen one review (Automobile) where someone commented on smelling the scent of hot resin from the XLR's body. It was, by the way, a pre-production sample, as noted in the review. I've been in several of these cars and many, many Corvettes, and have never detected this in the slightest. Moreoever, the scent of plasticizers from new interior materials not to mention petrochemically-dreived materials in new drivetrains, in even ultra-luxury cars and including Mercedes, is a fact of life. You can also smell the glues used to bond leather, in luxury interiors when new. That comment by an Automobile reviewer was nonsense.

My points about the sports car handling of the XLR-v are about the car, not Cadillac as a brand. However, in the CTS, CTS-v, XLR and XLR-v they have proven that they can design and manufacture cars to sporting tastes when they care to. The prior heavy FWD cars are irrelevant to this. Cadillac has moved to rear-drive in most models and improved dramatically across the board. What's past is past.

I acknowledged from the beginning that I am in the minority in preferring the XLR-v to the SL55. That's the nature of seeing superiority in a disruptive entry in an established niche market. The rest of the army really is out of step, IMO. I also plainly wrote in a prior message that Cadillac's brand image lags the quality of its cars now. Lots of work to do there.

Cadillac is splitting some of the Euro/BMW class sizes, so the STS-v is a contender to both a 7-series intender and a 5 series intender, and in fact I know several people who have come to that same conclusion in their cross-shopping without any prompting from me. This has been true of the SIgma-based STS since it debuted.

GM designed the platform on which the C6 and the X cars are built. It was designed to support both cars, and derived from the work done to advance the Corvette in the C5. In fact, the platform made its first product appearance on the market in the XLR, not the C6 Corvette. The platform, being developed to meet Corvette objectives for handling and sports car competitiveness, has its DNA shifted to a softer buyer in the XLR and then the sports car attributes are surfaced more directly in the tuning of the XLR-v.

You say the average buyer cares more about the interior than the handling. You reinforce my point about the nature of this customer. Thinking buyers will progressively find the XLR-v more sophisticated and interesting.

The electronic door latches are certainly an example of good technical integration. They are lighter than the normal mechanical assembly but this is a small point, since an also-lightweight mechanical override has to be available. Some things are put in this class of cars for effect only. I'd be just as happy if the electronic actuation wasn't there.

The Jag XK, by the way, is not exactly the same car. It is a direct price competitor to the XLR (not the V -- we'll have to wait for the XKR for that). It's a *little* lighter still in coupe form, but the convertible has no weight advantage despite being aluminum, and the convertible is a soft top. The XK has a 20hp fewer ponies than the XLR. It should be sharper handling than the prior XK8 and it will have a nice British interior that doesn't quite match the XLR for ergonomics. Cadillac, in the XLR, delivers a retractable hardtop at no weight penalty to the ne XK in convertible form, and weight penalty is very slight compared to the fixed-roof coupe. I want to like the Jag and it surely outclasses the old car in every way but from some angles, especially front 3/4ths view, it just looks too generic. I haven't driven one yet.

I think my conclusion was plainly stated in my prior post. The Cadillac XLR-v is a superior car in its class, to any version of the MB SL. Not merely competitive -- better. That's why I bought it. Not just for weight, but the Mercedes weight penalty does pervade and mar the experience with the car. You cannot escape the deleterious effects of it being more than 10% heavier than the XLR-v with no overriding advantage to all that extra mass.

I guess it would be pouring gasoline on a fire to say that on the same day I bought our XLR-v, we also got a new CTS-v. We preferred that to either a 3-series or 5-series BMW, too. It's just a better sporting 4 door in enough respects to win that evaluation too. Nothing Mercedes was even worth considering.

Weight penalty "fictional"??? Here are the facts. Mercedes SL55 AMG 4285 lbs. Cadillac XLR-v 3810 lbs. 475 pounds in favor of the Caddy. Almost a quarter ton more of needless bulk for Mercedes to deliver the same functionality! Case closed. The XLR-v is the more advanced car.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

Cadillac is splitting some of the Euro/BMW class sizes, so the STS-v is a contender to both a 7-series intender and a 5 series intender, and in fact I know several people who have come to that same conclusion in their cross-shopping without any prompting from me. This has been true of the SIgma-based STS since it debuted.

Well these people are deluding themselves if they think a STS competes with a 7-Series or S-Class, thats nonsense. The CTS for all its size over the 3-Series can't even begin to compete with the 5-Series or the smaller 3-Series for that matter.

The electronic door latches are certainly an example of good technical integration. They are lighter than the normal mechanical assembly but this is a small point, since an also-lightweight mechanical override has to be available. Some things are put in this class of cars for effect only. I'd be just as happy if the electronic actuation wasn't there.

So in other words its a waste and a gimmick. I can't believe that one who said something about "electronic intergration" would come up with such an excuse for such a needless gimmick as electronic door latches when the cost and complexity are far beyond what is needed to do the job. What does this feature add to the car? Nothing.

I think my conclusion was plainly stated in my prior post. The Cadillac XLR-v is a superior car in its class, to any version of the MB SL. Not merely competitive -- better. That's why I bought it. Not just for weight, but the Mercedes weight penalty does pervade and mar the experience with the car. You cannot escape the deleterious effects of it being more than 10% heavier than the XLR-v with no overriding advantage to all that extra mass.

To you maybe, market and industry says otherwise.

I guess it would be pouring gasoline on a fire to say that on the same day I bought our XLR-v, we also got a new CTS-v. We preferred that to either a 3-series or 5-series BMW, too. It's just a better sporting 4 door in enough respects to win that evaluation too. Nothing Mercedes was even worth considering.

Now it would tell me that you most likely looked at regular 3 and 5-Series cars and not their M versions. The M5 in particular is on another level from anything Cadillac makes, including the STS-V. The CTS-V is fast for sure, but in my experience is very cheaply made (like all CTSs) and crude.

Weight penalty "fictional"??? Here are the facts. Mercedes SL55 AMG 4285 lbs. Cadillac XLR-v 3810 lbs. 475 pounds in favor of the Caddy. Almost a quarter ton more of needless bulk for Mercedes to deliver the same functionality! Case closed. The XLR-v is the more advanced car.

Yeah it is just that for the average buyer of these cars. I didn't say that it didn't actually exist on paper like your figures have shown, I'm saying that the average buyer in this segment isn't going to be flinging around these cars enough to really notice a oh-so-dramatic difference like you've harped about here.

I didn't say you were a GM apologist, but your posts read like one for sure. Can't admit any faults with a GM vehicle and world is just flat wrong when they slam or don't praise a GM vehicle.

M

laurasdada · March 2006

I think the salient point here is that Phil did his research, test drove the contenders and bought the car(s) that best suited his needs, wants and desires. He has posted his thoughts here, which I appreciate. They are no less right or wrong than anybody else's opinions.

I'm no fan of GM, but the XLR intrigues me (the CTS does not in the least. Mostly due to its exterior and just terrible interior. Although I think its been upgraded a bit?).

Any car can be compared, and compete, with any car. The measures and results of that comparison/competition are up to the individual to determine/interpret/apply to their situation. C & D recently did a (mostly favorable) write up of the XLRv and in the bar chart comparisons used the SL500 (and Vette Z06, Lexus SC430 if I remember). Just from the charts, the Vette was the clear winner/value. The SL500 matched up nicely with the XLRv, I assume they compared the v and SL500 due to price?

Anyway, XLR owners, please keep posting your experience. '05 prices continue to fall and my mid-life crisis begin many, many years ago!

213xlrv · March 2006

It's interesting to compare the Corvette and Z06 to the XLR-v, but despite leveraging the same platform, they are very different cars. For pure unadulterated performance, you'll want the Bowtie. The Corvette is a sports car that has become progressively more comfortable and modern, but it is biased to sports car dynamics. Hence, among other things, it weighs about 600 pounds less than the luxury GT hardtop convertible that is the XLR-v. So just as you will feel the extra quarter ton in the SL55 vs the XLR-v, you can't excape the extra ~quarter ton in the XLR-v vs. the Corvette or Z06. The SL500 matches to the XLR-v on price, but the SL55 matches up to it in configuration, performance and equipment. But overall, the magazines have been backhandedly complimentary to fully endorsing of the Caddy, generally conceding at worst that Cadillac exceeded expectations and you won't be embarrassed choosing to own one over the alleged no-brainer brand choice.

You brought up the CTS-v. We bought one on the same day as the XLR-v. It is unconditionally a rockin' car! But it isn't what a lot of people think of as a $50K luxury car. That Corvette LS2 is a genuinely meaty engine and the 6 speed manual puts you to work. The driver must drive -- there's no option to delegate the pilothouse duties to software and machinery. It sounds like a wide-open small block when you hit the spurs, and otherwise is voiced to announce its presence in a manner that is more reticent than a muscle car, but not retiring like a Lexus or Merc. Handling is everything reputed for it -- very tenacious with controllable slip, with beautiful steering, great sightlines out of the car, excellent brake modulation and plenty of throttle steer on tap when you slip the Stabilitrack into performance mode.

As for the CTS-v interior, it is techie and modern. Ergonomics are quite good with the singular exception of the floor-pedal e-brake rather than a console hand-brake. Serious old-school lapse there. Seats are terrific and it is easy to find a great driving position. Technology integration is pretty seamless and well-thought-out. The touch surfaces are largely plastic, but plastics are good quality. Some people think it looks cheap. I think it is an alternate aesthetic with perfectly good materials. Essentially, the polarizing exterior properties have been brought inside. You might not like it, but you can't accuse it of not representing a point-of-view. The brushed metal door grab handles and the door latch handles are a very nice touch, where the designers really nailed a detail on touch.

For its size the CTS-v has gobs of trunk space in an efficient wheels-at-the-corners package. I am 6'3" and I can just sit behind myself in the back seat. The structure of the car is torsionally stiff and feels strong. Really, unless you just can't live with the design cues, the CTS-v is a whale of a bargain, if you're judging on capabilities first. Anyway, we really, REALLY like our CTS-v and didn't see anything else in the category that was compelling as an alternative. If we had included front drive cars, perhaps there'd be some contenders, but among the rear-drive brigade, nothing matches it in that bracket. The 3 series is too small inside to function as a true 4 door, and the 5 series doesn't feel worth its premium when the CTS-v exists. Mercedes has nothing in the class with a manual tranny or an engine with that much charcter. The Chrysler 300 and variants feels porky by comparison and while its interior has more design glitz, it is all facade and we felt the Caddy interior is executed with more attention to detail. Lincoln has nothing in the class. Every Lexus is comparatively too soft and the rest of GM can't match the car. So we know lots of people will contest the idea of preferring a Cadillac CTS-v over a BMW, Mercedes or Audi performance model, we stand by our choice. Especially in V form, the CTS is highly distinctive and the chassis is ultra-competent. And yes, let's ignore the people complaining about wheel hop when they drop the clutch at 3500 rpm in an independent rear suspension 4-door with nearly 400 lb/ft of torque!! Sheesh -- get a solid back axle Mustang GT already and bolt a supercharger in it, fer cryin' out loud.

I expect the next version of the CTS-v to get an interior upgrade to look and feel a little richer. OK. But I have to say that when you drive the CTS-v, you quickly get engaged by the emotion intrinsic to the car, fully imbued in it by its Corvette heart, and you understand there isn't another car like it with its particular emotional profile. IF that clicks with you when you drive it, everything else competing fades to grey.

Phil

213xlrv · March 2006

Uh....I think I said that the electronic door actuators are unnecessary. I'd be just as happy without them. But they are lighter.

The STS definitely competes with a 7 series, and the STSv certainly. The big Germans, again, feel ponderous and unnecessarily porky, though they are well-sprung. The STS is a different take on the same theme, more comfortable but a little less incisive. The STSv addresses that. Someone might like the German take, someone else might not. They're all big 4-door sedans to move people around in civilized fashion.

I've driven the M versions of the 3 and 5 series. The M3 is too small inside to function as a 4-passenger, and the M5 has poor interior space utilization for its exterior size. It performs well, to be sure. The older V8 powered car wasn't worth the premium over the CTS-v as a performance 4-door, and the new V10 powered car is aesthetically challenged and aurally disturbing. Really, a V10. What's the point? The older V8 powered car was more in balance. These are all overpowered 4 doors, which is a vehicle type in which you can't really use sports car performance but some of us buy them anyway. The CTS-v is enough and if I want to put more power in it, there are myriad ways to get that done and further tune the handling and grip. I just didn't think an M5 is worth the additional money; it's less distinctive visually than the CTS-v; and the brand has too much arrogance associated with it. An M5 is a little embarrassing because of that. Would rather leapfrog it for a Quattroporte Sport and get something genuinely beautiful (which a current BMW or Mercedes ain't), rather than something generic and obvious like the M or AMG.

The vast majority of buying of luxury goods is imitative. It's not that a Cadillac is perfect. It isn't. Whatever you think of them now, I can guarantee the next ones will be better still. I do think the new Caddies get criticized for perceived deficiencies that are not meaningful to the purchase outside of herd-mentality brand seeking. It's that it is different, distinctive, and fully credible on the engineering & performance. Personally, I'd rather be associated with a comeback effort built on product advances, than with the elitist arrogance and the worsening product aesthetics associated with BMW and Mercedes.

And, a quarter ton of needless bulk is evident to anyone paying attention, even at school-zone speeds. I would have to hide in shame.

I was driving home from work today. 18 miles through L.A. traffic. I saw 5 SL55s and I counted 13 SL500/600. Funny thing was, in all cases they were maneuvering to get a look at my XLR-v. I looked at those funny Camaro overhangs front and rear, and half expected to see those SL drivers in mullet haircuts. Man, that thing's proporations just look old and dorky next to the Cadillac.

Phil

anthonyp · March 2006

I was wondering if you have taken it on a road trip say of four hundred miles or so?? Nice to read your and Merc`s comments, and as a long time supporter of Merc--you are holding your own....Tony

213xlrv · March 2006

Yes and no. I've had the XLR-v out on a trip 200 miles each way. I'll be taking a longer trip in a few weeks, 500 miles each way, and then a 1000 miles each way trip later in the spring.

The car is stable at speed. Compared to the vast majority of even V8s on the road, driving this with my toes can put me up someone's tail pretty quickly. In terms of gas mileage, with the drivetrain not even run in yet, I am getting 15 mpg in daily stop-and-go LA traffic, and 22+ on open freeway at 80+ mph. And that's with the auto trans in "Sport Auto Mode" with some manual shift actuation mixed in.

No question the XLR-v is more sports-car tuned than the SLs. It is quick and the suspension isn't really luxury oriented in the settings I use for the car. It can be made softer in the mainstream setting for transmission/suspension behavior. The Pirelli Eurfori run-flat tires definitely transmit more road grain and pavement shock than regular inflated tires would, and they are noisier than what's normally on a luxury-oriented car. I don't mind it. These are 3rd gen run-flats and I'm impressed with their grip and progressive slip near limit. And the limits are quite high.

The cabin is comfortable on a long trip, but of course it doesn't have the stretch-out room of a large sedan, nor the sedateness of a large sedan's long wheelbase and isolation. But then if I wanted that most of the time I'd have bought an STS-v. I can swap with my wife's CTS-v when I need that.

I'm about as tall as a person can be and still sit in the XLR/XLR-v comfortably. I have no idea how Michael Jordan fits in his. But then I fit in this and I can't drive a P-911 more than 20 minutes.

I know the interior continues to be a controversial point, but the longer I live with what's in the XLR-v the more I appreciate the straightforwardness of its design, layout and materials. The much-maligned gauge cluster is very clean and at night its clarity is exceptional, not to mention the HUD.

It seems like a gimmick on paper, but the steering-sync headlights are phenomenal, and reduce fatigue in lengthy night driving. You're just not peering around curves, straining to see wildlife, kids or other obstacles. And you get a fantastic fan of horizontally dispersed but vertically limited brilliant white light. To me, the headlight pattern is much more useful and better planned than on the Maserati or the SLs.

There is no cowl shake on this car at all, and the steering column stays steady in your hands, again proving responsive while reducing the fatigue factors.

The fan for the climate control seems a little noisier than expected when the center vents are wide open. Small point. The nav system seems to have a very robust database of locations and it occasionally puts an address 50 yards away from its actual location, but that doesn't seem peculiar to Cadillac.

I like a car to have sounds, and this XLR-v is aurally distinctive. Hushed in town at low speeds, with just enough low thrum to telegraph its meaty motor. Then if you put your foot into it, the pipes valves flip open for some supercar wail as the 4 cammer spins up. Everyone knows when you're rocketing in this mode. The cool thing for long trips is the near turbine-like whirl of the supercharger under moderate acceleration. It's a future sound, not retro, that goes well with the exterior design theme of the car.

Uh.....going into triple digits of velocity proves the car's solidity, stability and aerodynamic equilibrium. Brakes are strong, linear and effective with excellent pedal feel to me. I have no doubt that to some, the SL will feel more sybaritic and plush inside in motion. It also feels less incisive, less sharp, and wears its mass on its sleeve.

Also, top down with no windblocker, the cabin is calm enough with the windows down, and quite conversational with the windows up.

The car should have nicer carpet for its price. So far, seats are firm and supportive. The suede inserts do their job of holding you in place, in lieu to deep tight bolstering.

One thing I didn't mention before. I was really surprised how strongly Onstar resonated with my wife when we were looking for cars for both of us. She was all-but-willing to limit her vehicle selections to Onstar-equipped models.

I am hoping XM Radio debuts Dylan's new weekly DJ show before my comp 90 days sub runs out, so I can see whether this service is worth buying!

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

The STS definitely competes with a 7 series, and the STSv certainly. The big Germans, again, feel ponderous and unnecessarily porky, though they are well-sprung. The STS is a different take on the same theme, more comfortable but a little less incisive. The STSv addresses that. Someone might like the German take, someone else might not. They're all big 4-door sedans to move people around in civilized fashion.

No the STS/STS-V doesn't compete with the 7-Series. That is typcial GM overeaching in order to avoid the real competition. The M5 is the competitor to the STS-V not the more luxury-biased 7-Series and the same goes for the STS V8 and the 550i. Why is it that GM supporters always try to put the STS up against the 7-Series and pretend like the 5-Series/M5 doesn't exists? Is it because they know the 5-Series/M5 will easily put the STS/STS-V on the trailer? Of course it is.

I'm not going to even going into the many excuses I'm reading about why the M5 didn't make the cut when everyone knows it is superior car to anything GM makes. You found the M5 to be inferior because of the image associated with it? Ok. You may find the CTS-V to your liking, and thats ok, but that car isn't even in the same league with the M5 neither is the STS-V when it comes to performance. Not going to debate which looks better, brand associated arrogance and what not, but the numbers don't lie...the M5 roasts anything in the "V" stable. I can't believe you would actually mention the word "balance" to knock the M5 while at the same time while trying to make a point about the STS-V a car that is even less "balanced". That is a very specious argument to say the least.

It is amazing how you seem to be able to knock BMW and Mercedes for the things they have compared to what GM doesn't have. Now a V10 is pointless? Yet that V10 is an engineering masterpiece and allows BMW's M5 to blow the doors off of any GM sedan made today, including both "V" series Cadillacs.

You also seem to think that Cadillac is now some type of performance brand when you can go to any Cadillac dealer and find regular STSs on the lot with carriage roofs. I mean really all this talk about weight, image (when Cadillac's still isn't nearly on the same plane as MB/BMW) and how Cadillacs are different takes on the same thing I just find to be some of most ridiculous things I've read on the site in quite some time. They have 3 impressive performance tuned cars one of them crude and hell (CTS-V) and the other two are impressive, but lack the build, refinement and in most cases the performance (handling isn't the only performance criteria) to compete with the class leaders head on. This sentiment has been echoed by everyone who has experienced these cars so where you get this about a "different asthetic" and different take from I'll never know because looking at their interiors/performance it reeks of grand excuse making IMO. I'll give you that Cadillac's image is on the mend. Why that is so is kinda funny to me when I look at how unnattractive their cars are, but that is just me because I grew up around Cadillacs and even when they were at their junkiest they were still "pretty" unlike now. The truth of the matter is Cadillac has built a very good alternative to the usual suspects from BMW/Mercedes, not a superior vehicle. This is typical GM practice and the latest and greatest Cadillacs are no different. Now you can juggle the classes around like saying the STS-V competes with the 7-Series while ignoring the M5, but most know better than to fall for that nonesense. You really expect a car like a 750i/Li to keep pace on a track with a STS-V and then when it doesn't you knock the BMW for being some type of inferior vehicle? Its absurd.

And, a quarter ton of needless bulk is evident to anyone paying attention, even at school-zone speeds. I would have to hide in shame.

Ridiculous over-dramatization. If that is the case then certainly a cheaply made interior in a Cadillac is apparent to anyone paying attention just by sitting in one. A "different asthetic" isn't cheap. A Maser has a "different asthetic", but the materials aren't cheap.

M

213xlrv · March 2006

First, this issue of the STS vs 5 series or 7 series is easily explained. The BMW 5 Series interiors are small. They feel cramped compared to the STS. The Cadillac splits the size class just as they do with the CTS being between the 3 series and the 5 series. If I wanted a 5 Series car, I'd restrict myself to the CTS-v or the 3.6L V6 CTS. In my opinion, Cadillac doesn't make anything directly comparable to the 3 Series. That's where the BLS is going to play in Europe, for better or worse. So while from price and exterior you might want to put the STS up against the 5, it is in fact shopped against the 7, and everyone I know considering the STS or STS-v is only shopping it against a 7 Series size car.

Against the 7, the STS makes perfect sense. Against the 5, less so, though the V can play. The M5 is capable, no question. I said so. But the V10 is a misstep on BMW's part. It's unnecessarily heavy, it doesn't sound good for a car of that expense and class, and they haven't exhausted what they can do with a V8. Sure, it's an advanced engine. But so what? Most manufacturers have advanced engines that can go toe-to-toe with one another. Certainly GM is no slacker there. Neither is BMW. But the V10 doesn't do anything positive for the balance of the car.

So, I am not pretending that the 5-series doesn't exist. I just see the CTS as the car that is closest to it functionally, and the CTS-v is what Cadillac has presently against the M5. By the way, the magazines seem to agree since THAT'S the pairing they've nearly all elected to review since the CTS debuted. Put another way, the 5 series is a car sharply skewed to drivers at the expense of passengers in transit. The STS and STS-v strike different balances between driver and travel. Most people, if you blindfolded them, would rather travel in the STS or STS-v. A lot of people buying M5s really belong in sports cars or GTs, but they are prioritizing driver thrill over passenger experience. The STS turns that dial a little bit in the other direction.

I didn't say the M5 was inferior to the CTS-v. I said I wasn't willing to be part of the negative brand associations. That's not a function of the car itself as physical object.

It's true that the STS-v is less balanced than the M5. I admitted as much in pointing out that the car is a different take on performance-oriented luxury. Again, the STS-v is the better car to travel in. The M5 is a little sharper to the driver and now even more aggressive. Ho-hum. You could almost buy a Z06 + a CTS 6 and get better optimization on both planes.

The Cadillac V Series is a performance sub-brand. Cadillac in general is once again a quality and luxury brand and all their cars, including the DTS, are now highly competent handlers in their class, with strong drivetrains now that the 3.6L V6 is in place for the CTS, SRX and STS, and good brakes. Let's face it, not every BMW is a performance car and certainly many Mercedes models are far from it. Plus, I look at the gold-badging / gold + chrome wheels crowd in the BMW/Mercedes/Lexus camp as being just as tasteless as any Cadillac customer who salivates for a padded vinyl roof. Everybody is paying their price in brand dilution for volume and ubiquity to satisfy Wall Street.

You don't like Cadillac's current "Art & Science" edges design theme? Ok, can't argue with that. I like it and so do the people buying them. Sales are sharply up so it is appealing to somebody. To me, the Chris Bangle cars at BMW are hideous to the point where I couldn't remotely consider "wearing" any of them. But plenty of people prefer them for reasons of their own. Mercedes has lost a sense of design discipline for how to become expressive in design. But this is to be expected from a marque that made slab-sided expressionless cars (though competently engineered) for about 30 years and is trying to recapture a formerly-dormant sense of style. Everyone is in transition coping with globalization and an aggressive Toyota.

The same reason you want to give the 750i a pass against the STS-v is why you should be forgiving of the 10/10ths margin between the STS-v and the M5. And I didn't say the 750 is inferior to the STS-v, just that it FEELS comparatively ponderous, though it is well sprung to mitigate the problem. They both have great drivetrains for their class.

The Cadillacs ARE a different aesthetic. Frankly, I don't want an overwrought and understyled Mercedes interior. I like the Cadillac cabin better. A little more leather here and there would be great. But the only cheap material I see in both our Cadillacs is the carpet. There, GM's finance knuckleheads are front-and-center. Otherwise, the plastics are fine, the leathers are satisfying. And in my V cars, there's no fake wood, plus the instruments are clean, crisp, well-presented and legible at the slightest glance. Maserati has special skill and competence in their interior sensibilities and craft, which Cadillac, MB, BMW & Lexus don't match. No one is going to duplicate it. However, some of the switchgear in the Maser is cheap and feels it. But the overall effect is to completely distract you from that. Frankly, for the most part, the XLR-v has better switchgear than does the Maser. The CTS-v isn't expected to be at the same level, being only a $50K car. The Maser has more and richer leather, in beautiful colors. But, you know, there's just no retractable hardtop and the Cambiocorsa is clunky when you're at any speed other than high. Every one of these cars involves some trade-offs to get their strengths.

You've chosen to ignore that an extra QUARTER TON of dead weight is a disadvantage in a relatively small, 2 seat GT. To me, that's a failure of imagination and conviction on the part of engineers and product planners, which I'd be embarrassed to reinforce with a purchase. That doesn't mean they aren't competent cars in other ways. But we're in a dialog about comparatives between 6 figure cars -- an esoteric exchange is there ever was one. I've just been outlining for you why MB failed to win my sale, and why I think the brand-lemming market's criteria for product selection between the XLR-v and the SL55 is dated or even wrong.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

Well you and everyone you know have fallen for the oldest GM trick in the book. The STS may split the size difference between the 5-Series and 7-Series, but it isn't as good a sports sedan as the 5-Series and isn't as good a luxury sedan as the 7-Series. Same thing goes for the CTS trying to split the difference between the 3 and 5-Series cars. It can't compete with either with what they do best; again its just another GM product that is merely competitive, not anywhere near the head of either class. To compare a STS-V to a 7-Series is I guess a natural for some who look at price only, but they're missing the whole point of the STS-V if they are doing such cross-shopping. The STS-V is supposed to be a sports sedan, not a 750Li competitor which while sporty for the segment that it competes in, is still a luxury car. This thinking spares the STS-V from having to face (and be humiliated) by its true competition from BMW.

The M5 is capable, no question. I said so. But the V10 is a misstep on BMW's part. It's unnecessarily heavy, it doesn't sound good for a car of that expense and class, and they haven't exhausted what they can do with a V8. Sure, it's an advanced engine. But so what? Most manufacturers have advanced engines that can go toe-to-toe with one another. Certainly GM is no slacker there. Neither is BMW. But the V10 doesn't do anything positive for the balance of the car.

Says who? The V10 is a mistake when this car has literally inhaled the entire segment in every performance category possible? Just say you don't like the M5 because your argument has no credibility here. Who says BMW has to stick with a V8? They were at 5L already so maybe they don't want to go the Mercedes route with a 6.2L V8 to get more power so they added more cylinders. If the STS-V isn't as balanced as the M5 then what is the point of mentioning "balance" in the first place when the M5 is still better in that regard? You say the V10 hasn't done anything to help the balance of the M5, but it hasn't done anything to hurt it either.

I just see the CTS as the car that is closest to it functionally, and the CTS-v is what Cadillac has presently against the M5. By the way, the magazines seem to agree since THAT'S the pairing they've nearly all elected to review since the CTS debuted.

Well if that is the case it is a no-contest. The M5 will smoke the CTS-V quite easily. I'm only aware of one mag (C&D) that compared the old M5 with the CTS-V after the old M5 was out of production. What I have seen is the CTS-V get beaten by the Audi S4 and this has happened more than once, but that is another conversation.

Put another way, the 5 series is a car sharply skewed to drivers at the expense of passengers in transit.

Yeah sure.

Let's face it, not every BMW is a performance car and certainly many Mercedes models are far from it. Plus, I look at the gold-badging / gold + chrome wheels crowd in the BMW/Mercedes/Lexus camp as being just as tasteless as any Cadillac customer who salivates for a padded vinyl roof. Everybody is paying their price in brand dilution for volume and ubiquity to satisfy Wall Street.

And every Cadillac is? Mercedes and BMW don't make a fwd barge like the DTS and they're cars are more driver orientated than your average Cadillac is, especially the STS and DTS. I haven't seen a gold-badged Mercedes since the mid-nineties. Ditto for BMW. Don't care about Lexus, that group tends to be tacky anyway, pint-stripes and what not, but what I do see is Cadillac DTS and STS models being sold today with carriage roofs and gold badging. This is tradition with some Cadillac dealers so this mesg you have about them being on par with MB/BMW hasn't reached them yet obviously.

The same reason you want to give the 750i a pass against the STS-v is why you should be forgiving of the 10/10ths margin between the STS-v and the M5. And I didn't say the 750 is inferior to the STS-v, just that it FEELS comparatively ponderous, though it is well sprung to mitigate the problem. They both have great drivetrains for their class.

The problem with this is that the STS-V and 750i aren't competitors. The STS-V competes with the M5 to anyone that hasn't fallen for GM's line. If BMW made an M7 you'd have a point, but they don't. The 750i isn't a tuner car like the STS-V, I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. You just stated that the "V" cars are sub-brand within Cadillac right? So why compare specialized tuner products to "regular" BMW models when BMW has tuner models also? The 750i doesn't need a pass from me, it sets the dynamic standards (or did) in its class of cars which are the S-Class, A8, LS430, and XJ.

Me ignoring (not) the weight difference of the SL compared to you ignoring or making excuses for Cadillac having cheaped out on the interiors on the 77K STS-V or 100K XLR-V is the same thing. Difference is that I see far more complaints about the Cadillacs having a "K-Mart" (Motor Trend on the XLR-V) interior than I see people complaining about not being able to toss around a SL like a Lotus. This about a "different aesthetic" is just an excuse IMO and if this about a "different aesthetic" were really true reviewers wouldn't complain about these interiors as loudly as they do. They would be able to recognize a "different aesthetic" like they do in a car like a Maser, Jag or Aston. Having a "different aesthetic" doesn't mean cheap no matter how you word it. You can have a "different aesthetic" while using quality materials.

The base SL500 and XLR have been compared and in all but one contest the SL500 beat the XLR, so I'm really anxious to see someone compare the SL55 to the XLR-V. Can't wait to see what they have to say about the handling of each.

I've just been outlining for you why MB failed to win my sale...

I understand that but you're passing certain things off as facts (while ridiculously over exaggerating things about the competition) while making these Cadillacs (and the Cadillac brand) out to be superior when every source possible has stated that they aren't. They're merely competitive or at best a decent alternative, but superior not.

M

213xlrv · March 2006

You're not paying attention. But for the record on cadillac.com the vehicle comparator for the STS lists the 5 series, not the 7 series. What I actually *see* people doing in the market is shopping STS against 7, not 5. And having driven all of them, the splitting of the size classes encourages comparison with the next size up, not down. The STS/STS-v splits the characteristics too. It is a better luxury car than a 5 series, and a better performaner than a 7. The Cadillac has not been designed to be a full-on assault against the M5 as an M5 clone. It is a car with a different mix. Its difference in balance isn't a matter of weight distribution as much as it is in choices for dynamics. It might be a price issue for some. But for many, a little time in all three cars leads to the conclusion that the STS and 7 seemed paired more than the STS and 5, just as the CTS feels much more like a 5 than a 3.

And by the way, the STS-v is positioned as a performance sedan, not a sports sedan. That's the CTS-v's role.

That DTS Cadillac makes isn't a barge anymore, but it does have FWD. Not appealing to me. But for its market, it's sharp, capable, comfortable, and more so compared to anything else offered to them. The Germans blew their brand purity when they added SUVs, so let's admit that no thoroughbreds are left here. If you haven't seen a gold-badged Merc or BMW since the 1990s, you haven't been to Southern California for awhile. I see a new one every day. I put that and faux roadster roofs in the same bin.

I don't really care about the ultimate numbers a 4 door sedan can put up. Several competitors getting close puts them in a practical category, and then the characters of the cars can come through as differentiators. If I want a hard-edge car for hard-core performance, I'll buy a powerful balanced sports car like a Z06 or a Ford GT. A sedan that skews too far to that objective is a silly object. I think Cadillac has that balance about right with the CTS-v. I can also tell you from experience that if, in the rare situation you have 3 passengers who want to feel a driver really exercise his M5, the extra mass of those bodies also degrades the precision claimed for the car. I don't evaluate 4 door sedans as sports cars. I evaluate them as sedans. And on that count, the Cadillacs are fully legitimate contenders albeit different in their design brief. The magazine quant results are interesting, entertaining, and given the number of good cars contending -- esoteric.

Nothing says BMW has to stick with a V8 in the M5. I'm saying it would be preferable if they had. The V10 adds unnecessary complexity, mass and dimension, which has to be managed through additional engineering. There are a lot of ways to get the horsepower up. I think BMW chose the least desirable path available to them, and certainly the least impressive, from a standpoint of projecting engineering wisdom. But, the path they chose they did execute well. I doubt you will see that V10 get long-term development and it will prove to be an anomlie in BMW's engine roster.

We've already been over the STS/7 issue. But again, GM doesn't make the claim. Market behavior is my reference. It's also fully legit to compare an STS with a 7. STS to 750 and STS-v to 760. BMW's entire brand is performance, not luxury -- "The Ultimate Driving Machine." It doesn't take an M badge for BMW to claim performance advantage. On power, torque and dimensions, a 760 is the closest match BMW has to an STS-v.

A quarter ton of needless bulk outweighs needling concerns about interior materials. We're just not going to get any closer than we are on that issue. The only "cheap" material in my XLR-v interior is the carpet. Mercedes interiors aren't paragons of reference quality these days, so what's the big deal? The interior issues loom large in the minds of many buyers, but the differences are badly exaggerated by reviewers. But that surplus quarter ton? It ain't going anywhere. You can't send your SL out to have it excised like I can have an upholsterer put some added leather in my interior. No matter how much engineering cleverness Mercedes applies to manage that extra quarter ton, it announces itself in every dynamic change and makes the car less fun.

The mass is a fact. My view that the SL interior is overwrought is opinion. Mercedes not being the defining standard of the world in interiors is pretty much shared fact for the past decade or more. OK, you can still prefer the SL. No problem. I'm here to say for all who have heard and read that the Caddy has a K-mart interior, that in fact it doesn't. It's better than you've been led to believe and the rest of the car has real advantages making it worth consideration against MB. I sure hope, however, that some kind of advantage is revealed for an SL55, because I priced one recently equipped to parallel an XLR-v and it stickered only a few thousand shy of $150K. This SL has a bunch more torque from over a litre more displacement. 50 more hp than the XLR-v -- that shouldn't be too hard to find with a little tuning and configuring. The SL55's additional 94 lb/ft probably can't be found without a real project. Can't easily make all of that deficit up, but some. So you'll be able to pummel your IRS a little harder on hard launches. Snooze. If we wanted real racers, we'd abandon this class of car and you'd save 1200 lbs. with a Z06, and I'd trim 700 myself going that route. For the additional $40K+, I'd be a lot more impressed to see that extra mass avoided.

I don't care about other sources. I've stated I think the rest of the army is out of step on this comparison. I've already said that I think the XLR-v is unfairly criticized for its interior and price, by people who don't grasp its mission as an alternative to an established order. If I were valuing interior above all else, I'd buy neither the Mercedes nor the Cadillac. XLR-v a different prioritization for the same design brief and every difference I've outlined will be plainly evident to anyone who drives both. What remains is for people to decide whether the alternative view represented by GM is meaningful to them. I don't know whether an STS-v is superior to a 750 or 760, yet. I know it is a competitive alternative. But I do know my XLR-v is a superior object of its type compared to an SL anything for reasons amply outlined here. And relative to a 5 series I definitely enjoy a CTS-v more.

Phil

merc1 · March 2006

Obviously you're confused. Saying the STS is a better luxury sedan than the 5-Series when the 5-Series' is billed as a sports sedan first is just plain bass-ackwards. Saying the STS is a better performer than the 7-Series when the 7-Series is in truth too large to be a true performance sedan and is a luxury car first is equally ridiculous. Talk about turning and twisting and taking excuse making to another level! So what are you saying that the STS is superior to both the 5 and 7-Series? Nonesense.

The Cadillac has not been designed to be a full-on assault against the M5 as an M5 clone. It is a car with a different mix. Its difference in balance isn't a matter of weight distribution as much as it is in choices for dynamics. It might be a price issue for some. But for many, a little time in all three cars leads to the conclusion that the STS and 7 seemed paired more than the STS and 5, just as the CTS feels much more like a 5 than a 3.

More excuses. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you try to get around it, the M5 ranks over anything from Cadillac, STS-V or CTS-V. You can go on forever spinning the reasons as to which "V" model competes with the M5 and how/why, but it really doesn't matter because the M5 will take them both out in a heartbeat. Cadillac's intention was to compete with the M5, period. Doesn't matter which V car you choose because they both get spanked. End of story.

And by the way, the STS-v is positioned as a performance sedan, not a sports sedan. That's the CTS-v's role.

Oh, and it gets trounced in that role by the M5.

That DTS Cadillac makes isn't a barge anymore, but it does have FWD. Not appealing to me. But for its market, it's sharp, capable, comfortable, and more so compared to anything else offered to them. The Germans blew their brand purity when they added SUVs, so let's admit that no thoroughbreds are left here. If you haven't seen a gold-badged Merc or BMW since the 1990s, you haven't been to Southern California for awhile. I see a new one every day. I put that and faux roadster roofs in the same bin.

It is so a barge with wrong-wheel-drive. It doesn't compete with modern rwd luxury cars of it size so why mention it. It is a throwback in a class of one. The DTS is nothing more than a remodeled DeVille. The comment about the Germans blowing their "brand purity" by introducing SUVs is silly too. What should they have done ingnore a booming market segment for sake of purity in the eyes of buyers who wouldn't buy a German car in the first place? I seriously doubt you're seeing late model/brand new MBs and BMWs with gold kits everyday. That sounds like something from the land of make believe to me.

I can also tell you from experience that if, in the rare situation you have 3 passengers who want to feel a driver really exercise his M5, the extra mass of those bodies also degrades the precision claimed for the car. I don't evaluate 4 door sedans as sports cars. I evaluate them as sedans. And on that count, the Cadillacs are fully legitimate contenders albeit different in their design brief. The magazine quant results are interesting, entertaining, and given the number of good cars contending -- esoteric.

This happens in any car on the market. No car is going to handle the same with a full load of people. Again what is the point of this statement? You're right the Cadillacs are "contenders" but they aren't superior like you stated in your previous claims. A BMW M5 will mop up the track with the CTS-V any day of the week. There is no amount of excuse making possible to escape this fact.

Nothing says BMW has to stick with a V8 in the M5. I'm saying it would be preferable if they had. The V10 adds unnecessary complexity, mass and dimension, which has to be managed through additional engineering. There are a lot of ways to get the horsepower up. I think BMW chose the least desirable path available to them, and certainly the least impressive, from a standpoint of projecting engineering wisdom. But, the path they chose they did execute well. I doubt you will see that V10 get long-term development and it will prove to be an anomlie in BMW's engine roster.

Yet at the end of all of this the M5 is the superior sports/performance (whatever you want to call it) sedan by a mile. What a wasted effort to try and disregard this with nonesense like what they should have done when the end results are so stunning. What the heck is " projecting engineering wisdom"? BMW didn't develop the previous V8 any further from its introduction in the 2000 M5. So again your point is?

Like I said before, just admit you just plain don't like the M5 because it kills your V-Series Cadillacs and because you're not making any sense here.

We've already been over the STS/7 issue. But again, GM doesn't make the claim. Market behavior is my reference. It's also fully legit to compare an STS with a 7. STS to 750 and STS-v to 760.

Yeah we have, but you don't seem to get it. Buyers can compare whatever they like, doesn't mean they're right. Who is going to look at 77K Cadillac, which is a rare buyer to start with, and then turn around and look at a 115K BMW 760i and think they're direct competitors? A one in a million buyer.

Who goes out and has to have a 100K car fitted for better leather or materials? That is absurd. I have driven the SL and didn't find it to be anywhere near as "heavy" as you over hype it to be, and secondly I've been in the XLR-V (not driven) twice and I found the interior to be as cheap as GM cars that cost half as much so I haven't been "led" to believe anything.

It amazes me how this mass issue is hardly ever mentioned yet these Cadillacs having cheapo interiors for their prices is constantly mentioned, but on the rare occasion in which the press does mention the SL's bulk they are right on the money, but when they say that the XLR has a "K-Mart" interior they're wrong.

You keep saying that the SL's mass is a fact. I never said that the SL wasn't heavier. What I said (for the umpteenth time) is that the extra weight isn't as obvious to the average buyer for this type of car, being a GT not a sports car. Secondly that weight has been hidden and is carried well enough for the base SL to outhandle the base XLR. This is why I said that I want to see a comparo between the SL55 and XLR-V because I find your constant harping about the SL's weight to be just as much of none-issue as you find the press' (and most here that have sat in the car) issues with Cadillac's interiors.

M

213xlrv · March 2006

At no point in this exchange have I said that the STS-v outperforms an M5. What I have said is that the STS-v is a more multi-dimensional formula that puts the compromise between driver & passenger interests on a slightly different point on a continuum. The STS has a longer body and longer wheelbase than a 5 series. That alone makes a difference in handling feel. So, yes, the STS platform is a better luxury platform than a 5 and a better performance platform than a 7. It isn't directly aimed at either car but splits the differences. Which is a good way to elbow back into a market. Obviously it's working. Cadillac sales are up sharply after many years of decline. You don't get this.

You somehow have come to the conclusion that explanations are excuses. Cadillac may elect to aim a vehicle directly at a single BMW model and if/when they do that we can measure the numbers they put up. But that's not what's going on. Mercedes doesn't match BMW on a strict performance basis either. BMW has developed a very specific formula for car engineering that gives their products a specific feel. This is true for Porsche, Mercedes, Corvette, Viper, Ferrari, Lambo, Maserati, Audi, Aston, Jaguar, Subaru and others, and now Cadillac. If I wanted a BMW I'd buy a BMW. No one else needs to duplicate it. Cadillac's take is different, as is Mercedes' on these matters. Even when they put up similar numbers, the feel is much different, brand to brand, model to model. I'm advocating that the reflexive brand buyer should consider alternatives, including the new Cadillacs. They might find a mix of factors that's better for them.

The CTS-v is outperformed by the new M5, a vehicle that didn't exist on the market when the CTS-v debuted. And the difference in price is large. Obviously, GM can put 500hp into the CTS-v and perhaps they will. But frankly, the sales numbers for the entire category are small and there's no hurry. Nearly every driver of this class of sedan is absent the skills to make proper use of 400hp, let alone more. Besides, that M5......wait for it.....weighs A QUARTER TON more than the CTS-v. 500 pounds. And that pointless V10 musters 12 fewer lb/ft while generating another hundred hp. Plus I don't have to put up with the annoying SMG transmission. The performance difference between the two cars in practical use isn't nearly as large as the numbers suggest. On the full tour of senses, the CTS-v is at least as much fun. Hell, for a little more than $81K I could buy a Z06 and get proper sports car performance + a 3.6L CTS for when I need room for passengers. The M5 is a nice halo sedan for BMW. But given how close the $53K CTS-v gets to it, don't you think Cadillac could field a car that outperforms it if they built a car for $81K too? It still won't feel exactly the same. Put another way, BMW doesn't know how to duplicate the emotional cues and feel of a CTS-v. They shouldn't be expected to. Again, if I wanted ultimate performance parameters, I'd buy a Z06 or pony up for a Ford GT. If I wanted a distinctive Euro sedan, I'd leapfrog the common-as-beans Germans and buy a Quattroporte. The M5 is an interesting artifact in which the BMW sedan vision is executed well, but it's not a desirable automobile to me when all factors are considered. It's not even aesthetically attractive. For me at its price, it would be an STS-v or I'd pay more for a Maser.

On the STS v 7 v 5 issue, it's only natural to compare a class-splitting car with the next car up, not the next car down in size. This is why market behavior is what it is. And it's a good re-entry strategy for Cadillac.

You're right, some 760 shoppers will want a V12 just for the sake of having a V12. Some will shop a Quattroporte against a 760 and they'll complain that it doesn't feel like a BMW, whereas the complaint should be that the BMW doesn't feel like the Maserati. And some will look at the size, weight, power and feel and conclude that the Cadillac is an alternative. I saw someone buy an STS-v at my dealership yesterday, after making exactly this comparo. It's not wrong just because it violates your sense of car class propriety.

By the way, here in L.A., it's surprisingly common for people to have six figure cars further customized by interior crafters -- well, any cars. I see it across the board in luxury brands, except the Italians. Everybody respects art when they see it so you never see it there. Similarly, the Mercedes/BMW/Lexus gold badging is still going on every day, on brand spanking new 2006 models. That little bit of tasteless excess isn't dead by a long shot.

The mass issue with the SL permeates the entire experience with the car. It's evident as soon as the car is rolling and is the singular defining element of the car to me. There's needless mass evident in every change of direction. It just feels porky compared to the V. I can't help it if reviewers who are less discerning or too brand-blinded don't report it. That's what I'm doing here. That mass shouldn't be there in the first place and hiding it through engineering only is barely sufficient. Even if you put enough tire on the car to keep it on track, the mass feels ponderous. I suppose Mercedes must be taking to heart the 1950s Detroit marketing for "Road-hugging Weight!" Except now it's 2006 and there are better ways. As for the Cadillac V interior, I like it fine and the next version will be better still. It has no more nor less than it needs and the rest of the car matters so much more.

Phil

213xlrv · March 2006

And let's look at this CTS-v vs. M5 issue a little deeper.

Putting aside that the M5 looks like an overfed catfish and is a cosmetic blight to the roadscape, whereas the CTS-v cuts a sharp-creased dashing figure to enhance the landscape, what do we have?

Both seat 4 in leather, have muscle motors, big brakes, communicative steering, agile chassis/suspension, and 0-60 times under 5 seconds.

Sure, BMW has a new version of their car with a 500hp V10. Cadillac has adopted the Corvette LS2 for 400hp. Looks like a slam, doesn't it? But wait.

The BMW V10 develops its rated 500 hp @ 7750rpm. The Cadillac V8 develops its rated 400 hp @ 6000rpm. Looks like the BWM has the Honda S2000 problem in circumstances prevailing in North America.

The BMW V10 develops its rated torque of 383 lb./ft. @ 6100rpm. The Cadillac V8 develops its rated torque of 395 lb./ft. @ 4400rpm. The big 6 litre Caddy has a redline at 6600rpm so it's not reluctant to spin. Then, the quarter-ton heavier M5 saddles each pony with 8.024 lbs. While the lighter CTA-v puts 8.7725 lbs. on each horse. The torque ratio is in favor of the Cadillac.

In the hands of competent drivers, the two cars aren't so far from each other, especially given the $28,000 difference in price. In fact, a difference in driver competence can make all the difference. Put the better driver in the CTS-v and he or she can beat the less skillfully driven M5. And vice-versa is true too, of course.

In America, you drive torque even though you bought horsepower. Those 395 lb/ft are a lot more accessible at 4400rpm than the heavier BMW's are at 6100rpm. And 400 hp isn't light.

Now, to be sure, the M5 is well-engineered, which isn't the same as sensibly-engineered. The V10 is a dead end. They either need a better 8 or a 12, but the latter probably won't fit and it's even worse for weight distribution. Like Mercedes on the SL55, the engineers did their job of managing the baffling extra quarter ton of useless mass, rather than figure out how to avoid it in the first place. But hey, it's what they do. They've made a competent high performance 4 door car, bizarre as that category is. But of course we like and buy such things. The thing is, so has Cadillac.

The CTS-v won't feel like a BMW M car to be sure. The BMW is sterile and precise. But the BMW won't feel like the CTS-v either, which means it's missing the emotional engagement of the LS2, the stick action of the traditional 6 speed manual, the better sightlines out of the car, and of course it won't have that set-apart visual impact of the V's edgy presence. The interior of a $28,000 cheaper car is quite acceptable to get that. The ergonomics, with the exception of Cadillac's silly foot-depressed e-brake, are better anyway. The M5 is a highly competent performer, unfortunately it's just not all that desirable in current form. All left brain, no right. A million dollar head and a ten-cent heart.

The CTS-v by contrast is the more attractive, more emotional, more fun ride. It's more comfortable too. I'd rather have it. I do have it, in fact, along with my XLR-v.

Phil

anthonyp · March 2006

It`s nice to read your passion about your car, and I for one hope that continues...You and Merc both are top notch writers, and both very passionate....Tony

merc1 · March 2006

At no point in this exchange have I said that the STS-v outperforms an M5. What I have said is that the STS-v is a more multi-dimensional formula that puts the compromise between driver & passenger interests on a slightly different point on a continuum. The STS has a longer body and longer wheelbase than a 5 series. That alone makes a difference in handling feel. So, yes, the STS platform is a better luxury platform than a 5 and a better performance platform than a 7. It isn't directly aimed at either car but splits the differences. Which is a good way to elbow back into a market. Obviously it's working. Cadillac sales are up sharply after many years of decline. You don't get this.

The problem is that you don't get that the 5-Series isn't trying to be a luxury car first and the 7-Series isn't trying to be a performance car first. The 7-Series is a luxury car first, its size and weight dictate this and comparing the STS to it from a performance standpoint very disingenuous. Ditto for the 5-Series. Of course the 5-Series isn't going to function as luxury sedan on par with a larger car for those looking for a roomier/larger car with ride-comfort being the priority. To compare the STS to the 5-Series and say it is a better luxury car is equally nonsense because Cadillac is the one doing the chasing and they intended the STS to be the 5-Series competitor, not the other way around. You're making excuses for Cadillac by changing around the criteria and purpose of the 5 and 7-Series cars to make the STS out to be some kind car that competes so well with both. Its specious.

You say that Cadillac "may" decide to put a car directly up against BMW. Uh...they have, its called the CTS-V or STS-V. Take you're pick. You think the CTS/CTS-V competes with the 5-Series/M5 right? If that is the case the Cadillac gets beaten badly. End of story. All the theories (excuses) about how Cadillac is going a different route doesn't cut it. True all makes have their own take on how a car should look, ride, feel, perform, but all I'm reading here is that these "V" Cadillacs are superior one minute, yet when called out on performance against Motorsport BMWs, all I get is how Cadillac isn't competing directly. It can't be both, the STS/CTS-V either compete with the M5 or they don't. If they don't then they can't be superior, and if they compete with the M5 it is a lost cause for them to say the least.

The CTS-v is outperformed by the new M5, a vehicle that didn't exist on the market when the CTS-v debuted.

Ok a bow to the reality of the situation followed by an attempt to give Cadillac a pass. FYI the CTS-V didn't outperform the old M5.

On the STS v 7 v 5 issue, it's only natural to compare a class-splitting car with the next car up, not the next car down in size. This is why market behavior is what it is. And it's a good re-entry strategy for Cadillac.

Yeah and it makes them a jack of all trades, master of none. The last time I looked sales of the new STS had fallen dramatically in only its second model year.

By the way, here in L.A., it's surprisingly common for people to have six figure cars further customized by interior crafters -- well, any cars. I see it across the board in luxury brands, except the Italians. Everybody respects art when they see it so you never see it there. Similarly, the Mercedes/BMW/Lexus gold badging is still going on every day, on brand spanking new 2006 models. That little bit of tasteless excess isn't dead by a long shot.

Yeah they're called tuners, but people don't run to them because the base car has a cheap interior. Quite a difference. I don't believe you're seeing brand new Mercedes and BMW models with gold badging "everyday" or even at all. Thats nonsense.

The mass issue with the SL permeates the entire experience with the car. It's evident as soon as the car is rolling and is the singular defining element of the car to me.

Bingo! For you yes, but for most buyers not! Reviewers are reporting on the cars in the SL's class as GT cars hence them not complaining about this trumped up weight issue you're eternally stuck on. As a GT car the SL is the class leader has been for years and years and a Cadillac with a typically cheap GM interior and less weight is going to change this.

M

merc1 · March 2006

Yet at the end of all that the M5 will outperform the CTS-V in any contest you can name. You won't find any reviewer anywhere that will agree with your far-fetched points about the M5...which is really a silly attempt to come with some imaginary M5 deficiencies.

Like I said a few posts back you not liking the car is fine, but to try and say the CTS-V is someone equal to the M5 or superior is ridiculous and a pointless exercise to say the least.

There are cars I don't like either, but to do that much reaching in a wasted attempt to down a car like the M5 is really telling. Just say you hate the car because none of what you've said (some of which I can't believe you actually think) about the M5 has any merit or substance.

M

213xlrv · March 2006

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. This is a very good way for Cadillac to have reasserted its brand in both markets, splitting the difference between the classes as BMW defines them, for the customer who isn't satisfied by the Munich formula. Lots of people buy a 5 series thinking it is a luxury car, because all they bought is a badge. Most 5 series owners wouldn't know what to do with performance in a car if the instructions were written on the windshield.

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.

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.

By the way, a sedan by definition is a jack of all trades. I don't expect a sedan to be anything but and the M5's "master of one thing" design is precisely what makes it flawed as a sedan. If I want a single-purpose master in the performance category, a Z06 sounds about right.

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.

There are tuners for 6 figure cars, sure, but that's not what I referred to. There are a gazillion upholsterers who do nothing but repair or upgrade interiors. You can see instances of their work in everthing but Italian cars, where they can't make an improvement.

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.

You'll love this: Today, between 7:35am and 8:30am Pacific Time, I saw 3 new (not even tags yet) Mercedes and 2 new BMWs with GOLD PLATED BADGING. Not enought? 10:07am, eastbound I-10 near 20th Street exit in Santa Monica. What do I see up ahead (and quickly behind)? Plain as day, a new, no-tags, greyish SL55 with GOLD PLATED BADGING and a gold-plated license plate frame. Tasteful.

You just don't get around much, huh?

Phil

213xlrv · March 2006

You must have mistakenly come to the conclusion that I assign credibility to automobile reviewers. Do you think it is in any way persuasive to me that I "....won't find a reviewer anywhere that will agree with [my] far-fetched points about the M5...."? A pointless V10 (we couldn't fit a 12 and don't believe in superchargers and needed a gimmick to one-up our last mill), another case of a surplus quarter ton of extraneous bulk which is what requires the power in the first place, a fussy 7 speed SMG, an interior cramped for the clientele, and new catfish styling -- if reviewers don't notice these warts, it isn't my fault.

I don't hate the car, actually. I just think it's kind of useless. A sedan doesn't put your [non-permissible content removed] close enough to the driving wheels or get the mass optimized to give you a sporting experience, and it terrorizes the passengers if used as a performance machine. Brakes and handling? Fine. But, you know, an extra quarter ton does nothing to improve those either. What is it about the Germans lately and surplus quarter tons of useless mass??

If the M5 were $30,000 and aimed at the guy who can only afford one car, then OK. But it's $81,000. That buyer can afford variety and in a multi-car scenario, the M5 is just silly. The CTS-v is a better mix, especially in North America. Now the silliness of the M5 won't keep them from being sold, but you can be sure that far fewer than 20% of the people who buy an M5 understand the slightest whit of what they've bought.

I don't find a couple of tenths or hundredths interesting or convincing if the central aesthetic (all of it -- appearance, sensation, driving feel, packaging) is alienating. Great, I can spend $81,000 or more but to extract the performance I allegedly bought, I have to spin the thing up like a crazed ricer. It's just one of those things. Remember, nobody sees a Maranello and concludes the driver is an [non-permissible content removed], but nearly everybody has that first reaction to seeing a Ferrari 360/430. The M5 has that rep.

BMW, on basis of their own communications, apparently perceives the M5 as the purest expression of their idea. It's all the more reason not to desire the car, and it's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way from the friendly, competent, charm of the then-competent 2002.

Phil

laurasdada · March 2006

Yup, spirited discussion.

My .02 and strictly my theory from 20,000 feet. I have driven neither XLR or SL, but am familiar with both and wish either one would fall from the sky into my driveay bought and paid for.

At this price point and type of car, for the majority of buyers, I think deciding factors in a purchase include:

Prestige: A lifestyle statement. I've made it, this is my toy/reward. (or I'm leveraged to the hilt!

)

Style/design, both interior and exterior. A two seat convertible is a fashion statement, an accessory, a toy.

Ride: For cruising the boulevard or blasting down the interstate.

Handling: Just looking for the car to be able to reasonably negotiate the back roads for when you're trying to avoid the paparazzi...

If the buyer simply wanted a fun, great handling two seat convertible: Miata (and now, maybe Solstice/Sky?). But that would'nt satisfy the "Prestige" factor.

So, in the grand scheme, at this point in history, imho Mercedes beats Caddy in prestige and styling (not by much on the exterior, quite a bit on the interior). I can't comment on ride/handling.

I have to line up more with Merc on the "weight" vs. "interior" shortcomings issue. Yes, extra tonnage is undesireable (in both car and myself

), but I think to the buyers here that if the pleasantly plump SL500 has the smooth, quiet ride to go with the styling and prestige perceived with MB, it wins. The weight will never be an issue (as weight would be an issue to the handling maven's, but again they could go Miata, Z4...). To the buyer, the somewhat "downscale" XLR interior design is a bigger issue. When paying ~$70k + for a car, certain overall expectations must be met and a luxurious, well appointed interior (as well as a corresponding exterior) is a minimum daily requirement.

And therein lies the rub with GM. They can't generally seem to put a full package on the road. To me, the XLR is a player, but at the wrong price point given the entire package. Cool exterior style, hard top convertible, great Northstar engine, lots of toys BUT the interior for the price of admission they're asking...? It is not a terrible interior, just shy of the $76k in look and feel. I think they improved it a bit with the '06 though.

Cadillac XLR and XLR-V

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles