Ask the Car People.SM


High End Luxury Cars

24723 messages,  Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum.

What is this discussion about? Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan



Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.

A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.

Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.

Messages Page 1257 of 2473

#12557 of 24723 Re: My Prediction = Good News for Mercedes [tagman] by merc1

Jan 07, 2006 (8:15 pm)

Replying to: tagman (Jan 07, 2006 4:51 pm)
Interesting, your enthusiasm for the GL. What I don't get is why MBUSA hasn't mentioned bringing over the GL500 (would be a GL550 here). The new Slade has 403hp and various Land Rovers have 390-400hp so just a GL450 (335hp) seems a little weak to me. Imagine that that 335hp in a SUV as being weak. Clearly a GL550 (382hp) is needed imo.
 
Anyway I think the R-Class stumbled because of the price, though I can certainly see some not liking the look of it too. However the base prices are sorta of high, but then the options are staggering, too much so IMO. Then again the R is attempting new segment in price, if not concept.
 
If Mercedes wants the R-Class to move, thew would make the following changes for the 2007 model. The R350 would get more standard equipment. The R450 (new V8 335hp) would be priced below the current R500 (say around 54K), with a few more standard features. Then the R550 would basically come loaded for a little more than the current R500 (say around 62K). Those would be my suggestions. Ditto for the ML for 2007.
 
Of course there will be diesel version of the R and ML, and supposedly a hybrid version of the ML for 2008.
 
M

#12558 of 24723 Re: My Prediction = Good News for Mercedes [merc1] by tagman

Jan 07, 2006 (8:15 pm)

Replying to: merc1 (Jan 07, 2006 7:59 pm)
Yeah, dress up the R and it's better, no doubt. But I just can't help think that it's the interior that is good , and the exterior, especially the rear, is not very attractive. I don't believe in this vehicle yet.
 
The GL is very similar in appearance to the ML, but more muscle and stretch. Have you seen any good INTERIOR photos of the GL?

#12559 of 24723 Re: My Prediction = Good News for Mercedes [tagman] by hpowders

Jan 07, 2006 (8:26 pm)

Replying to: tagman (Jan 07, 2006 4:51 pm)
They can chase BMW all they want with their styling. That's as far as it will go.
We've been down this road before with the supposed "5 killer" GS-one of the biggest jokes in the automotive industry over the last year.
The somnambulistic LS going after BMW? Puleeze!
 
Lexus just doesn't seem to get what an exciting driving experience is all about.
You can expect more electronic meddling in the LS such as that ridiculous lane departure warning system that the M has-the only difference being in the LS you probably won't be able to disengage it.
 
Hey folks-if you need a lane departure warning system, you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place.

#12560 of 24723 Re: My Prediction = Good News for Mercedes [tagman] by merc1

Jan 07, 2006 (8:27 pm)

Replying to: tagman (Jan 07, 2006 8:15 pm)
The GL's interior:
 

 
While "nice" I find it lacking compared to Benz cars and other SUVs in the price range, IMO. Land Rover has nothing to worry about interior wise thats for sure. IMO for the money MB is going to charge for this thing they should have come up with a bespoke interior, not just a plusher ML.
 
These interiors on the M/R/GL just aren't up to Benz car interior standards IMO. Especially the CLS and new S-Class. I have had some knock-down arguments with some Benz fanatics on GCZ who say these Bama-built Benzes have interiors just as good as any other Benz. I say no way, in neither design or material quality/assembly does it match an E, let alone the CLS or new S. Even the cheaper SLK has a tighter interior to me.
 

 
Though nice looking, it looks like any other SUV until you see the star. Good thing Mercedes listened to the groans all over the world and decided to keep the real "G" in production (with a pending facelift no less) instead of trying to replace it with this model. I'll get to see it in person next weekend so maybe my position will change a little.
 
M

#12561 of 24723 R by syswei

Jan 07, 2006 (8:39 pm)

I agree with tagman, I find the rear to be rather bad looking. In fact I think the Pacifica on the whole looks much better than the R.

#12562 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [merc1] by brightness04

Jan 07, 2006 (8:46 pm)

Replying to: merc1 (Jan 05, 2006 10:22 pm)
"Twist," "spin," "game" and "mumbo jumbo" seem to be the favorite words in your post. How about some substance? and stay away from meaningless personal attacks? What you are obviously missing is that both GS and IS were not Lexus core-competence, and both models competed (and still compete) with extremely successful existing Lexus models. You don't exactly expect MB to sell 50k copies of any specific AMG model, nor should anyone have expected the first generation GS or IS to sell 50k+ units in any model year; the production lines were not even set up to produce that many.
 
One minute the AMG models mean nothing in the total sales picture (your words from a few weeks ago) now they're supposed to set the sales charts on fire,
 
Where did I suggest AMG models are supposed to set the sales charts on fire?? AMG models are MB's extension away from its luxury roots into performance motorsports since the acquisition of AMG mod shop a few years ago. Never did I suggest AMG models should account for the bulk of MB sales, despite their accounting nearly half of MB model line up. Why is it so hard for you to understand that GS and IS were similarly one step removed from Lexus' core competence? My mentioning of AMG's small sales numbers was merely an illustration of the absurdity of your argument that half of Lexus car models did not count for much in the sales . . . nor does more than of MB's in its line up . . . absurdly simple.

#12563 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [brightness04] by merc1

Jan 07, 2006 (8:53 pm)

Replying to: brightness04 (Jan 07, 2006 8:46 pm)
What you are obviously missing is that both GS and IS were not Lexus core-competence, and both models competed (and still compete) with extremely successful existing Lexus models. You don't exactly expect MB to sell 50k copies of any specific AMG model, nor should anyone have expected the first generation GS or IS to sell 50k+ units in any model year; the production lines were not even set up to produce that many.
 
What I didn't miss was this even longer spin and excuse. One minute Lexus is to set the world on fire with sales and then when they don't do it, we get this bull about production being capped and what not. Never mind the Lexus stated that they'd like to sell more of the first generation IS when the sales bottomed out at 12K a year. You mean to tell me Lexus is that dumb to limit production to 12K a year when they were trying to tackle a competitor that sells 100K a year. Yeah sure, continue to spin and come up with excuses all you like, but the truth remains that the first generatoin IS was a flop. Period.
 
Why is it so hard for you to understand that GS and IS were similarly one step removed from Lexus' core competence?
 
Why do you keep coming up with this bs excuse? If they designed the car and sold it then they should have tried their best. Not my fault or BMW's that they didn't and the car flopped. This is the biggest, fatest excuse I have yet seen for the first generation IS and GS. Not their "core competence"? What a crock. None on this fits in with the never ending, all-conquering sales sermon preached here over the years about Lexus.
 
Excuses, and more excuses, with twists to make them half-way interesting.
 
Let me even think about trying to use that "core competence" bs in trying to excuse the R-Class' poor sales and watch the board light up.
 
One minute Toyota is the world's greatest in efficient production and has huge capacity, but when one of their products doesn't fly it was because of production constraints. Man, if that isn't double-faced I don't know what is.
 
Yet when the Prius became a major hit Toyota hiked production not once, but twice without a problem.
 
You're going to sit there and post that a high profit Lexus model wouldn't get the same treatment if it had the sales to warrant a production increase? Yeah ok.
 
The simple fact is that Toyota more so than anyone else could have increased production on the first generation GS and especially IS (since it was a Toyota in the first place) without a problem if the car would have sold better in the first place.
 
M

#12564 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [bdr127] by brightness04

Jan 07, 2006 (8:56 pm)

Replying to: bdr127 (Jan 06, 2006 9:03 am)
So there we have it. BMW isn't in the luxury car business.
 
How about addressing the issue instead of strawman tactics?
Does BMW still have the car sales crown among luxury brands in the US if 325i, which is not exactly a luxury car, is taken out? Otherwise, we may as well conclude that Buick is the top luxury car seller . . . it moves more cars and it's a luxury brand . . . never mind that majority of cars that it moves are not luxury cars. Reducio Absurdom.

#12565 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [merc1] by brightness04

Jan 07, 2006 (9:04 pm)

Replying to: merc1 (Jan 07, 2006 8:53 pm)
More absurd spin. Was 14k units for CLS the first model year or when it bottomed out after half a decade being in production without change? The first model year of Gen1 IS was much higher than 12k.
 
What's so hard to understand about "core competence"? Nobody is expecting MB to outsell BMW on sport-sedans in short order despite the acquisition of AMG division; nor any one expecting BMW to outsell MB on luxo boats. I would strongly suggest you tone down on the ad hominim attacks.
 
As for R-class, I'm actually inclined to excuse MB for lacking experience with what really should be a minivan market, a market segment that has been in existence for much longer in the US than in Europe. It's the same sort of mistake as the Previa and Gen1 Sienna when Toyota was new to the game . . . although MB should have been more humble about taking advantage of its Chrysler division's know-how in this particular market segment.

#12566 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [brightness04] by merc1

Jan 07, 2006 (9:09 pm)

Replying to: brightness04 (Jan 07, 2006 9:04 pm)
More absurd spin. Was 14k units for CLS the first model year or when it bottomed out after half a decade being in production without change? The first model year of Gen1 IS was much higher than 12k.
 
You were the one the compared the two cars so it was your absurdity to begin with. I said a few pages ago that it didn't make sense to compare the CLS with the IS or GS.
 
What's so hard to understand about "core competence"? Nobody is expecting MB to outsell BMW on sport-sedans in short order despite the acquisition of AMG division; nor any one expecting BMW to outsell MB on luxo boats.
 
Tell it to the Lexus fans who regularly predict this and expect it to happen, in the case of Lexus vs the WORLD. Only when it doesn't happen we get the "production capacity" excuse or when a Lexus like the GS doesn't live up to the BMW-beating hype we get how well it sells.
 
As for R-class, I'm actually inclined to excuse MB for lacking experience with what really should be a minivan market, a market segment that has been in existence for much longer in the US than in Europe.
 
Ok, we'll see how long that holds.
 
M

Messages Page 1257 of 2473

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement