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 442 of 2471: 1; ...; 439; 440; 441; 442; 443; 444; 445; ...; 2471; Prev; Next; Last

#4403 of 24697 by pat HOST Mar 10, 2004 (5:55 pm)
No issue with what you say -- I just think we should aim to "discuss" rather than to fight. I'm sorry to keep saying the same thing, but some of us get too territorial about brands and don't even try to be objective. My point is that there are places in which that line of posting is appropriate and places where it isn't. Given the basis and name of this discussion, I think this is one where that territorial, defensive approach doesn't belong. Now, I'm going back into lurk mode, 'kay?
#4404 of 24697 Pat by carnaught Mar 10, 2004 (6:02 pm)
I'm not sure that our participants are "fighting", rather than having a spirited debate. I nevertheless appreciate your intervening to stifle the same old worn-out debates we hear ad infinitum. (Lately, I'm being in the lurk mode, as well, but am enjoying this forum.)
#4405 of 24697 Wow, 3 posts from Pat on one page. by shipo Mar 10, 2004 (6:15 pm)
Hey Pat, it's good to hear from you that often in a situation where you are not breaking up an all-out feud. Regarding reliability and how much of an impact it makes on prospective buyers. In my case I look for functionality first, reliability second. I just assume that most new cars will have few teething problems out of the gate, that's what warranties are for. Prior to leasing "The best car CR ever tested", I bought or leased a whole string of cars that were poorly thought of by CR. Why? Simply because I liked the car and how it drove. Would I have gotten the 530i if it hadn't gotten such a glowing review from CR? You betcha. Best Regards, Shipo
#4406 of 24697 sv7887 by ljflx Mar 10, 2004 (7:46 pm)
Let's go back to your issue about overkill on technology. It's the same principle that applies to everything as far as I'm concerned. That being that too much of something is just as bad - maybe worse - than too little of something. The money spent on technology should be sub-divided into what is good for the enviroment(hybrid technology, increasing gas mileage, keeping the air cleaner etc), what is bad, downright stupid and wasteful (I-drive, cars that park themselves, electronics created for bragging rights), what is desired (technology that improves handling, ride quality, stability etc) and technology that improves safety, driver comfort/fatigue etc - among others. The spending on electronics should be focused on need not bragging. I-drive is a disaster. Toyota's car that park themselves are disaters in the making. Such a car would would probably need about a 12 hour time frame to complete the job in midtown Manhattan the way taxis and people would interefere with its laser detection equipment. The thing would look like a pin ball bouncing around an energetic pin ball machine. I thought of my Lexus with dual front climate controls (some MB's have 4-zone climate control) - for a space of what - 15 to 30 feet with no boundaries! I have a 750 sq. ft family room and if my builder used the logic of high end auto mfrs. I'd need about 10 different air conditioners and heating units for it. Heck - i might be able to create my own interior cold fronts if he did that. Overkill on certain things - for sure. I'm curious as to what people think can be improved, added to and taken away from cars to make them better than they are today.
#4407 of 24697 VW/Audi by ljflx Mar 10, 2004 (9:12 pm)
Things looking pretty bleak at VW. CR's quality is an issue as is a lack of currency hedging on the Euro and as well what looks like a terrible decision to build the Phaeton. It's also not easy for European companies to get lean and mean given employment rules on the continent. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/business/worldbusiness/10volk.h- - - tml
#4408 of 24697 I like I- drive by ksurg Mar 10, 2004 (9:26 pm)
Wow you guys are over confident, narrow minded and seem to be able to convince yourselves of anything. I-drive may be a marketing disaster but you know what, the '04 addition is easy to use. I can get anywhere with minimal effort without leaning forward and without having to locate a button or screen half way down the dash. It is undoubtedly a better system than offered in most cars today. Too bad many of you made judgments based on limited experience and naively accepted reviews written by people who spent minimal time driving the car. As for the rest of the new BMW 7 series it has an award winning engine and superlative handling. It really doesn't matter to me what others on this page think. I just believe it's too bad that anything that doesn't carry a Lexus or MB badge is dismissed without genuine consideration. As for new technology give all of us a break. It would be absolutely ridiculous not to push ahead. Does anyone actually think that cars will not evolve in many areas... some good and some wasteful. For that matter is there a single vehicle on this thread that isn't wasteful. I get the sense that most of the people on this page are very set in their ways and expectations. What is going on in car market isn't meant for the over 50 crowd. What are the demographics of this thread anyway? The single best tangent I've seen was the discussion of upcoming hybrid technology. Maybe we could branch off on some other such issues.
#4409 of 24697 by merc1 Mar 10, 2004 (9:46 pm)
It's equally amazing that now the Germans are denying quality problems on the same scale as the Americans did back in the 1970's, yet Mercedes-Benz in particular has stated that they intend to get the brand back to the top of the surveys in the next two years. VW has clearly stated that they have a problem and that they are also working on it, yet for this board and the survey clutchers only the articles about the denials a while back matter. Sounds like MB couldn't care less about quality to me. Why else would they say they're doing something about a problem they don't think they have. Drove a Buick Park Avenue Ultra today, I swear it drove better than a S600 or 760Li, it was the Harley Earl edition. It started on the first try, unlike those cars. M
#4410 of 24697 That is true, Merc1 by scott1256 Mar 11, 2004 (5:39 am)
Merc/BMW/Audi are saying the right things about this quality question. They well may well take steps to correct the problem. Remember, though, that this deteriorating quality issue is of at least 5-6 years standing and has not thus far been effectively dealt with. I am at the stage of life that I am a potential Merc/Audi customer - but the current offerings have none of the pull of the MB uber-sedans of the 1980s. Those cars had me thinking every day that I couldn't wait to own one. Scott.
#4411 of 24697 merc1 by syswei Mar 11, 2004 (5:53 am)
Glad to see you liked the Park Ave Ultra. Maybe Buick's marketing tagline should be: "Rides like a Lexus, and more reliable than a Mercedes" Of course, the latter isn't exactly something to brag about these days. Let's see if MB lives up to its promises re improving reliability. I'm sure you know better than me...did MB start talking about improving reliability something like 5 years ago, after the ML's problems?
#4412 of 24697 by merc1 Mar 11, 2004 (5:56 am)
Don't forget that a Buick is more technically advanced and has controls that are much easier to operate than all of that German junk. Buicks rule. M