You have saved this page | See all saved pages
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.
#5391 of 24723 michael_mattox by merc1
Jun 13, 2004 (10:29 pm)
"Note to mention your constantly changing the years we are reviewing..I provided specs for a 93 SL and a 93 Allante...AS IS YOUR CUSTOM YOU WANT TO MOVE THE BALL TO THE 90 ALLANTE AND NO DOUBT COMPARE IT TO THE 93 SL."You're confused. It doesn't matter which 1990+ SL you use! You can use whatever year SL from 1990 onward and it will be the same outcome since the SL was new for 1990 and had the same specs for 1990 as it had in 1993! You could compare the 1993 Allante to the 1990, 1991, 1992, or 1993 500SL and it will be same specs, showing the Cadillac to be totally outdone. I said 1990 because the car didn't change from 1990 to 1993....with 1993 being the only year the Allante got competitive. If it makes it easier for you the 1993 500SL was superior to the 1993 Allante. This is industry-wide knowledge. The R129 SL ran from the 1990 model year to the 2002 model year. Long outliving the half-baked Allante.
"No the top was not totally unacceptable...I bought one. 6000+ people bought Allante's in 1993."
And this means what? I'm trying to understand how a Lexus owner can constantly come up with such ridiculous excuses for a car like an Allante. People buying the car doesn't mean it was a good car or that the top was acceptable. Cadillac had enough "buy-American" fans (not you obviously since you have a Lexus too) back then to move whatever they produced no matter how crappy it is. People bought Sterlings in the U.S. during the eighties and early nineties also.
"I do not believe the SL traction control was of the quality of the Allante."
Reviews please. Technical details please. What you "believe" doesn't count. I assume you've driven both also right?
"Where the seat belts are Located? Where were the Seatbelts located in the 93 SL....Did the 93 SL even have a shoulder harness?"
You make this too easy. The SL had it's seatbelt assembly and mounting point completely contained in the seat itself. This was done for safety. The seats were their own crash/crush structure and they were made of magnesium. What did GM offer in the Allante? Do you know what "shoulder harness" is? Are you saying the Allante had one of these? I'm dying to hear.
You paid 60K for a car that had a manual top, which is what you'd expect on a Miata-priced car. I wasn't saying the Allante was in the Miata's class.
Would you buy a SC430 if it had a manual top? To even suggest that this omission wasn't a flaw or an underspec'd car is totally absurd for 60K.
My point about the oil system was that any car will tell you if it has lost oil or coolant, hardly something unique on a Allante.
Please don't talk about credibility here. Not even the die-hard GM'ers on the other boards think an Allante was a superior to the 1990-2002 SL and I've managed to find a Lexus owner (Lexus being a perfectionist brand to you) making all sorts of excuses for one of the worst cars to ever enter the luxury roadster segment. Was the Allante superior to the 1993 Lexus SC400 too? After this unbelievable exhcange, what little you had in the way of credibility is completely Allante'd (shot) with me. I always knew you either didn't care or didn't understand some technical aspects that have been discussed here over the years, but this Allante defending is far too surreal and it the most about-face I've ever seen on these boards. You appreciate the LS430 for what is, supreme quality and engineering through and through and, yet you think the Allante is superior the SL. The SL that was made during Mercedes' better quality years at that, when Cadillac was at their absolute worst. Doesn't make sense to me.
cornellpinoy,
The 1993 Allante beat the 300SL in a comparo in 1992, but the sidebar on the 500SL clearly stated which was the better car if the buyer moved up to 500SL. Hint: it wasn't the Cadillac.
lexusguy,
I have nothing against the XJS, but compared to the 1990 SL it was technically 10 years behind the SL. I liked the sportier models of that body, not sure what they were called XJS-R or something like that? They had larger wheels and a subtle body kit. BTW, a wooden steering wheel is a $510 and $860 option on the E and S-Classes, respectively. Wooden steering wheels do not a BMW, MB or Audi make. BMW and Audi don't even offer them.
M
#5392 of 24723 merc by lexusguy
Jun 14, 2004 (5:57 am)
Absolutely. It was more than 10 years though, the XJS foundation dates back to the mid 70s. The saddest thing of all is that the '05 XKR still shares DNA with that car. Thats partially the reason for the high dash line, cramped footwells, and complete absense of any kind of dead pedal. My point wasnt that the XJS was a superior machine, it definitely wasnt. (Though it beat the Allante, despite being 15 years old in 1990). My point was that when it came to the interior of the SL vs. XJS, it was all Jag.#5393 of 24723 by sv7887
Jun 14, 2004 (7:06 am)
Merc,Question about the current SL. Does it suffer from some of the electrical gremlins that have been mentioned on this board? It's cars like the SL that show that MB still has it. I'd buy that car any day, except that the New England weather makes it very unpractical.
I find the stories about the S Class shocking though..If the quality issues were confined to the lower classes (C, ML, etc) I might understand, but this is too much.
Where are all of these issues suddenly coming from? I still recall that MB was way up there in the much debated JDP rankings in the early 90's. BMW too hasn't been immune from it either..Any thoughts?
SV
#5394 of 24723 Re: Sport Suspension [topspin628 #5389] by michael_mattox
Jun 14, 2004 (7:46 am)
Replying to: topspin628 (Jun 13, 2004 6:12 pm)
Topspin The euro tuned Sport Suspension...Uses stiffer springs, more aggressive shock absorb er damping rates, a thicker rear stabilizer bar for reduced understeer and special suspension bushings for a more immediate feel of the road..It is coupled with 17in. wheels.
To me the car feels tighter and the steering firmer....The car feels very solid and secure on a winding road. (Even more then normal which is good)
The Power mode changes the shift points and is very noticeable the way it pushes you back in your seat. Lots of acceleration.
When you get a chance to drive one you want to be sure and try both modes in a place where you can really punch it.
#5395 of 24723 sv7887 by lexusguy
Jun 14, 2004 (12:07 pm)
Some have suggested that MB and BMW have rushed a bunch of new models to market to better compete, and thus quality has suffered.#5396 of 24723 lexusguy by merc1
Jun 14, 2004 (10:06 pm)
I had been meaning to ask you what you thought of the facelifted 2005 XK cars? I really like what they've done to the lower body. I've seen a coupe in White and a convertible XKR this very rick looking Blue, absolutely stunning. No arguement about the interior, asthetically it was all Jaguar. The Germans then were just leather appointed board rooms in which to conduct the "business" of driving. I look for the 2007 XK to vault to the head of this class giving the SL much to worry about.sv7887l,
"Any thoughts?"
Yeah plenty. Truthfully no Benz has been immune from problems over the last 4-5 years. The current SL has been less than stellar also, especially the early build 2003 models. Some of the SL owners on the other boards are reporting much better goings with 2004 models. One poster in particular (Shoes) can tell you all about the current SL, I think he's owned 3 of them now! The first one he had was not so great, a 2003 model, but his 2004 SL500 has been very good so far, he also had a SL55 AMG if I'm not mistaken.
The current S-Class (2000) was one of the biggest offenders along with the 2001 C-Class and the omg 1998 ML, which I personally detest. I'll start with the S-Class and the facts: Mercedes doesn't do "cheaper" too well. The 1992-1999 S-Class is the car Mercedes knows how to build and even that car wasn't perfect because they sought to decontent it from 1995 foward, but still it had a build the current S simply doesn't match, it was generally more reliable (read a lot less electronics) than today's S. The problem was that people complained about it being to expensive, big and heavy so Mercredes responded by making the new car cheaper, lighter, and somewhat smaller (outside), but the quality went way down. I got a chance to examine one of the last 1999 S500s next to the 2000 S500s when they first arrived. I was truly startled at the compromised they'd made in order to save a few bucks. Needless to say the body, interior, fittings and finish all went down quite a bit with the 2000 S. They addressed a lot of these things for the 2003 with the facelift, but it's like to retrofit the quality that should have been there in 2000 and it still doesn't match the LS, A8 or Phaeton in certain area where the old S wouldn't have had a problem doing so. Hopefully they've learned their lesson and the 2006 S will be built with the traditional quality in mind and less glitches like the current car. I'll say again though the 2003+ S-Classes are much better in build quality and reliability from the 2000-2002 models.
The ML, and I'll be brief here. Mercedes sold their soul to the devil of volume. Instead of build in a true 50-70K truck like they know they wanted to (and can) they built the ML to a price point to compete with a Ford Exploreres and Jeep Grand Cherokees, at 33K in 1998. The 1998-1999 models were unbelievable cheap inside and out. I remember it like it was yesterday, me and a salesman looked at each other in disbelief at a ML unveiling at the then Loeber Motors on the near-north side of Chicago. This this is so freaking cheap! Needless to say the ML truly showed its colors after the sales boom put them in the hands of traditional MB and new customer alike. One problem after another, and I don't mean electronics. I mean fuel leaks, brakes, radiator leaks, differential failures, you name it. Now 6 years later it places in the top for initial quality. I don't buy it. The basic chassis has proven itself in various motorsport events around the world, but everything Mercedes sub'd out was of dubious quality to say the least. I've never so worried about a new Mercedes in my life as I am the new ML, R and next G, which will all be build in Alabama.
The C-Class is basically the same as the S, much improved with it's facelift (2005) in the area of build quality and features too, but the 2001 model was far less then right.
Industry analysts have theorized about Mercedes' quality decline and come up with many things. I think electronics, Chrysler's finanical drain, and more models all led to their quality fall. Remember in 1990 there were only the 190, 300, S-Class and SL. Today there is the SL, CL, S, E, CLK, C, ML, SLK, G, Maybach and more new models (CLS, R) on the way.
There are signs that things are improving, especially when a Mercedes is redesigned. The CLK and E-Classes are not being knocked about their interiors like before, thought the new E has had a few initial problems. Ditto for the SL. The new SLK and CLS look to have the proper build of a Mercedes. The upmcoming Bama made vehicles worry me the most.
M
#5400 of 24723 merc1 by lexusguy
Jun 15, 2004 (9:10 am)
To be honest, I was curious if Jaguar would do anything with the XK to make it more competitive. Nope. A new front end air intake ooo boy! What about the wollowy suspension, numb steering, mushy brake pedal (and brakes that shouldnt be in any car with a letter "R" on it), manual tonneau cover, and certain substandard interior materials. Still there. I was not even remotely impressed by the '05 XK that I saw at the NYAS. I've been thinking of basically getting rid of my LS and having a single car for myself, and the '05 XK did nothing to sway me from planning to buy an SC430 as my daily driver\weekend car. Plus whats with the J-gate? Every magazine in the world has literally screamed at Jaguar to get rid of that damn J-gate, but they just cover their ears and try and figure out how to make the X-type sellable. Im finished with Jaguar.To POST a message, please
Sign In.
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement