High End Luxury Cars

24700 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 12:24 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 2443 of 2471: 1; ...; 2440; 2441; 2442; 2443; 2444; 2445; 2446; ...; 2471; Prev; Next; Last

#24419 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [tagman] by brightness04 Apr 06, 2007 (9:11 pm)
Replying to: tagman (Apr 06, 2007 6:32 pm) one of the very first reviews said that "Driving the '08 MDX is as though the hand of God is holding the vehicle to the road" Call me cynical, but that's a classic cop-out line when the scribe has nothing good to say. "The hand of God" holds the vehicle to the road _via gravity_, just like it holds a UPS delivery truck to the road. It reminds me of the joke about the 2.8 MB V6, when it was introduced, was proclaimed the best V6 from MB . . . well, dah, it was the only V6 from MB at the time. While I have not tried the new MDX first-hand yet, the previous-generation MDX drove very "ponderously." Replies to this message: lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 2:16 am) dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 11:25 am) cdnpinhead (Apr 07, 2007 1:22 pm) and 3 more...
#24420 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [brightness04] by lexusguy Apr 07, 2007 (2:16 am)
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 06, 2007 9:11 pm) While I have not tried the new MDX first-hand yet, the previous-generation MDX drove very "ponderously." Well if you buy any SUV for driving dynamics you're an idiot, but I still say the Infiniti FX is "the best of the worst" as it were, with perhaps the X5 as number two. The Cayenne didn't do anything for me, sure if you stuff enough V8 in the front its fast, but the Porsche of SUVs? If it didn't have all that off-road gear perhaps it could've been, but what on earth would Cayenne owners do if they couldn't take their babies rock crawling? It will be interesting to see if sales pick up post-refresh after they dropped off the face of the earth last year. The RR is by far the most attractive full size lux-ute, but its also the one I'm least likely to buy. A friend had his out of commission sitting at the dealer for a month. No thanks. Replies to this message: dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 11:25 am) cdnpinhead (Apr 07, 2007 1:22 pm) brightness04 (Apr 08, 2007 2:34 pm) and 2 more...
#24421 of 24700 Re: Lexus gets it right [brightness04] by syswei Apr 07, 2007 (3:19 am)
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 06, 2007 5:15 pm) Did anyone notice, the new LX is classified as midsize SUV now. Is that a typo? What's thereal size of this new beastie? I can't find any spec anywhere. The LX570 is larger in every dimension than the 470...something like 4 inches longer, 1 inch wider, 1.5 taller. "Midsize" has to be somebody's mistake.
#24422 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [lexusguy] by dewey Apr 07, 2007 (11:10 am)
Replying to: lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 2:16 am) Well if you buy any SUV for driving dynamics you're an idiot So who is the idiot that made up the acronym "SUV". Why should such an acronym include the initial "S' for sport then? If I want a good heavy duty UV for some serious offroading I will stick to the durable trucks made by GM or Ford. If I want luxury I will stick to one of those oversized bulbous sedans that are the topic of our forum here. If I want driving dynamics I will seek the sportiest car that will suit my practical needs.(in my case practicality excludes roadsters). The Cayenne didn't do anything for me, sure if you stuff enough V8 in the front its fast, but the Porsche of SUVs? Did nothing for me too not even a V8 version. IMO this vehicle is not worthy of a Porsche logo. A few decades ago a Porsche 928 was considered taboo by many fans. It amazes me how complacent Porsche fans are today with that monstorisity called the Cayenne? Replies to this message: lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 11:25 am) cdnpinhead (Apr 07, 2007 1:22 pm) brightness04 (Apr 08, 2007 2:34 pm) cdnpinhead (Apr 09, 2007 5:08 am) and 1 more...
#24423 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [dewey] by lexusguy Apr 07, 2007 (11:25 am)
Replying to: dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) So who is the genius that made up the acronym "SUV". Why should such an acronym include the initial "S' for sport then? Good question, especially considering that beginnings of the SUV were the absolute least sporty of the genre. I suppose its no worse than GM calling their last gasps at the minivan market "crossover sport vans".
#24424 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [dewey] by cdnpinhead Apr 07, 2007 (1:22 pm)
Replying to: dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) ". . . that (sic) made up the acronym "SUV". Why should such an acronym include the initial "S' for sport . . ." Because, since the suburbanites decided that minivans were evil & SUV's sent a more proper (macho, or the female equivalent) message, SUV's have been in favour. Sport, as opposed to Suburban (which is far, far (far) more accurate) was more palatable to the "keep up with the whomever" classes. A few years ago, the "I Hate SUV's, Why Don't You" board, or some such, provided considerable entertainment here on Edmunds. The nut of that discussion had to do with people who actually used four-wheel-drive and/or towing capability or high clearance, as opposed to poseurs and/or suburbanites who wanted a vehicle that sat somewhat higher and/or wanted to be perceived as something other than the drones that they most assuredly were. AWD vehicles, like Audi or Subaru, which provide all the foul-weather advantages, were rarely part of the discussion. It had to do with mass and height, almost never with actual practical use of the vehicle. If AWD wasn't the issue, then room was, which led to the dreaded minivan. Entertaining then, and entertaining now. Replies to this message: brightness04 (Apr 08, 2007 2:34 pm) cdnpinhead (Apr 09, 2007 5:08 am) houdini1 (Apr 09, 2007 5:25 am)
#24425 of 24700 Re: Lexus gets it right [brightness04] by houdini1 Apr 08, 2007 (5:34 am)
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 06, 2007 5:15 pm) Well, the old and the new LX is smaller than the Sequoia, Expedition, Yukon XL, or Suburban. So maybe Mid-size is the correct designation. It has always been very close in size to the Tahoe.
#24426 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [cdnpinhead] by brightness04 Apr 08, 2007 (2:34 pm)
Replying to: cdnpinhead (Apr 07, 2007 1:22 pm) No one really _need_ a car that is more sporty or more luxurious than a Civic or Accord. People want cars that are more sporty and more luxurious, even if most of the time it's just a car sitting in jammed traffic. That's plenty good enough reason to get a car that the person _wants_ instead what the person _needs_. Subaru's were pretty small in cargo capacity until the Subaru SUV came around. Audi A4 wagons were tiny for the price they charged, and A6 for a long term were woefully underpowerd with the 2.8L trying to move a 4000lb car. Ground clearance is very important after heavy snow. Low riding AWD vehicles designed for "sportiness" is much more of a "want" than a "need" than AWD SUV's. The truth of the matter is that cars used to be the height of today's cross-overs until GM pushed the longer-wider-lower design philosophy in the late 1950's, as an image thing. All those low-riding sportscars or sporty looking aspects of cars are products of "desire"/"want" not "need." It took 40 years for the detour to come back around to what are essentially the most versatile vehicles: a two-box crossover with seat bottom at the level of an average person's butt . . . the size and shape of the original station wagons of the 1920's through early 50's . . . in the lingo's of the 90's, it would have been called an "SUV," before the term cross-over came around. Frankly, those original station wagons were SUV's because they had ladder frames. Replies to this message: cdnpinhead (Apr 09, 2007 5:08 am) houdini1 (Apr 09, 2007 5:25 am)
#24427 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [brightness04] by cdnpinhead Apr 09, 2007 (5:08 am)
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 08, 2007 2:34 pm) Fair enough. I was railing against what appears to me to be yet another triumph of marketing over common sense. Yeah, I know -- what's new? I maintain that either a minivan (some come with AWD) or a Subaru-type station wagon addresses the vast majority of the functions performed by today's SUV's. High clearance, towing anything that weighs over 2000 pounds, true 4WD w/ LSD &/or lockers -- sure, that's SUV territory. Replies to this message: houdini1 (Apr 09, 2007 5:25 am)
#24428 of 24700 Re: If you look at the vehicles with fold-flat 3rd rows, [cdnpinhead] by houdini1 Apr 09, 2007 (5:25 am)
Replying to: cdnpinhead (Apr 09, 2007 5:08 am) Yes, and you could also maintain that a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla addresses the vast majority of our basic transportation needs. However, it appears that our relationships with our cars are just not that simple!