Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 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
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.
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 2:16 am) 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?
|
|
|
Replying to: dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) 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". |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dewey (Apr 07, 2007 11:10 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 06, 2007 5:15 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cdnpinhead (Apr 07, 2007 1:22 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: brightness04 (Apr 08, 2007 2:34 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: cdnpinhead (Apr 09, 2007 5:08 am) |
|
Here's a good front profile picture of the upcoming Audi RS8 during a Nürburgring test:  If you cant see the RS8 too well that is because it got burnt by a oil or gasoline leak. Since this Audu RS8 was not owned by a Consumers' Report subscribler I think their positive CR ratings will remain intact for now.  link title |
|
|
Friday night post-red-sox-game, my cuz and I were SUV-ing next to the team owner John Henry - stopped in a traffic jam for a while. So now we know that John Henry drives: a 2007 CL600. n i c e . |
|
|
Mercedes didn't widely release their sales numbers for March. Why? Beside the S-Class taking a Lexus-induced tumble, it was a strong month! http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-03-2007/00- 04559001&EDATE= DrFill
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Audi A8
2010 BMW 7 Series
2008 Jaguar XJ-Series
2010 Lexus LS 460
2010 Mercedes-Benz S-Class
2006 Volkswagen Phaeton
2009 Maserati Quattroporte
2010 Mercedes-Benz CL-Class
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
