High End Luxury Cars

24697 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

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.

Outline

Messages Page 2171 of 2470: 1; ...; 2168; 2169; 2170; 2171; 2172; 2173; 2174; ...; 2470; Prev; Next; Last

#21701 of 24697 Re: and on safety... [syswei] by syswei Dec 01, 2006 (10:47 am)
Replying to: syswei (Dec 01, 2006 10:43 am) It appears to me from the IIHS data that being "first" with a safety innovation (Volvo, MB) does not necessarily equate to having the safest vehicles in the world, once that innovation has been widely adopted. Replies to this message: tagman (Dec 01, 2006 11:46 am)
#21702 of 24697 Re: IIHS, Reuters, Bloomberg [brightness04] by tagman Dec 01, 2006 (11:44 am)
Replying to: brightness04 (Dec 01, 2006 10:05 am) You are just desperately trying to cover up a very badly orchestrated snide attack on Toyota/Lexus. Cover-up? Attack? Sounds like words from the Pentagon and not from this forum. BTW, I always referred to the bottom line as being relative to itself. Someone else, perhaps you, thought about it being relative to other makes. So..the bottom line still can not change, no matter what anyone ever says, including you. Just because you now finally understand the true meaning of the bottom line doesn't entitle you to use words like "desperate, snide, cover-up or attack" in reference to me. That is WAY too personal my friend and has no place on this forum. You need to let up on the Starbucks or something. Way too serious and insulting I might add... and I suggest that you do not go down that road again, or the HOST won't take too kindly to it either, and you will ruin this forum for all of us. To disagree is OK, but do it without the personal insults! Got it? TagMan Replies to this message: jcoby (Dec 01, 2006 12:32 pm) tagman (Dec 01, 2006 1:03 pm) syswei (Dec 01, 2006 1:21 pm) and 3 more...
#21703 of 24697 Re: and on safety... [syswei] by tagman Dec 01, 2006 (11:46 am)
Replying to: syswei (Dec 01, 2006 10:47 am) It appears to me from the IIHS data that being "first" with a safety innovation (Volvo, MB) does not necessarily equate to having the safest vehicles in the world, once that innovation has been widely adopted. Absolutely true. Volvo was once almost exclusive in its quest for building the safest vehicles. That is certainly not the case any more. Good point. TagMan
#21704 of 24697 Re: and on safety... [clarencehollow] by tagman Dec 01, 2006 (12:03 pm)
Replying to: clarencehollow (Dec 01, 2006 10:44 am) Transport Canada's Registrar of Imported Vehicles (RIV) program ensures that qualifying vehicles are modified, inspected and certified to meet Canadian safety standards. Clarence, Curious... What are the safety standards in Canada that we don't have here in the States? TagMan
#21705 of 24697 Re: For the record [dhamilton] by hpowders Dec 01, 2006 (12:06 pm)
Replying to: dhamilton (Dec 01, 2006 7:32 am) And it's all in good fun! I believe everybody here has been a good sport. No need to get carried away here. It's only cars! Replies to this message: tagman (Dec 01, 2006 12:08 pm) hpowders (Dec 01, 2006 12:11 pm)
#21706 of 24697 Re: For the record [hpowders] by tagman Dec 01, 2006 (12:08 pm)
Replying to: hpowders (Dec 01, 2006 12:06 pm) And it's all in good fun! you bet it is. TagMan Replies to this message: hpowders (Dec 01, 2006 12:11 pm)
#21707 of 24697 Re: And...continuing to stay on topic [2001gs430] by hpowders Dec 01, 2006 (12:09 pm)
Replying to: 2001gs430 (Dec 01, 2006 8:00 am) "Except for the breaking distance." How did they manage to test that? Drive each car into a 20 inch thick steel wall from 70 mph? I didn't read the article. So which car broke first? Replies to this message: 2001gs430 (Dec 01, 2006 12:25 pm)
#21708 of 24697 Re: For the record [tagman] by hpowders Dec 01, 2006 (12:11 pm)
Replying to: tagman (Dec 01, 2006 12:08 pm) This is really and truly a great group of folks and now it has been expanded by adding a couple of first round draft picks who have already been elevated to starting posters.
#21709 of 24697 Re: And...continuing to stay on topic [hpowders] by 2001gs430 Dec 01, 2006 (12:25 pm)
Replying to: hpowders (Dec 01, 2006 12:09 pm) Ha ha funny... the spell checker didn't tell me about the grammar error. At least it was spelled correctly.
#21710 of 24697 Re: IIHS, Reuters, Bloomberg [tagman] by jcoby Dec 01, 2006 (12:32 pm)
Replying to: tagman (Dec 01, 2006 11:44 am) Interesting dialogue between the two of you. I must kindly note, however, that the way that you phrased your rant does not appear to allude to the "bottom line as being relative to itself." I have highlighted the words that you previously stated that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that you are comparing Toyota Motor Co. (and its Lexus brand) to other manufacturers and not solely to itself. "Toyota Motor Co. practically owns the list for the worst vehicles when it comes to safety. They have more unsafe vehicles at the top of the least-safe category than any other manufacturer in the world. How many people know THAT? Funny how Toyota/Lexus has fooled so many for so long." Since I do not reside in Tagman's head, I cannot fully discredit your assertion that you were comparing Toyota to itself and not to other makes. However, if this is true, your sentence should have been more carefully structured to make your personal interpretation clearer to other forum members. Your statement seems to clearly imply that Toyota has more of the least safe (or lowest rated; to be interpreted as a "Poor" rating) vehicles than any other manufacturer on planet Earth - which of course is patently false according to the IIHS itself. Replies to this message: tagman (Dec 01, 2006 1:03 pm) syswei (Dec 01, 2006 1:21 pm) tagman (Dec 01, 2006 1:23 pm) and 2 more...