Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM
You are in the Sedans
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.
Jul 21, 2004 (11:53 am)
I found the following information on used car values from Autotrader on actual selling prices for 2001 model year A6 4.2 vs. 2001 LS430.
1)44K miles selling for $37K
2)49K miles selling for $36K
2001 A6 4.2 Quattro
40K miles selling for $29K.
So, I have come to 2 conclusions:
1) Audi's do not sell for anywhere near sticker, except for maybe the A8, and specialty products such as the S8, S4, S6.
2) Used car values for LS430's are higher than A6 4.2s.
#6255 of 24726 How come the top lev Lex is being compared to the mid lev Aud
Jul 21, 2004 (12:00 pm)
Why not just compare the A6 and GS cost to own and resale?
Jul 21, 2004 (12:02 pm)
A6 4.2Q 49K MSRP
Edmunds TMV is $47K(I'm shocked, they are to be discounted)
Total 5yr. cost of ownership: $61K
MSRP 51K, TMV is $49.5K
Total 5yr. cost of ownership: $55K.
Jul 21, 2004 (12:13 pm)
Another thing, 2000 LS400s with about 20K to 30K more miles are selling for $1K more than 2000 A6 4.2 Quattros. And remember a 2000 LS400 was cheaper than the average 2001 LS430.
So yes, the A6's resale value is not the best, in fact the BMW 5-series holds it's value better, so does the E-class, and so does the LS.
#6258 of 24726 Re: Footie [mbukukanyau] MB and Taurus lookalikes
Jul 21, 2004 (12:21 pm)
I know, but every time I see the MB / Taurus in traffic, I notice the similarity right away. Except for a few details, the newest E isn't remotely like its predecessors.
To me, the primary things that MB did to differentiate the E from the Taurus was to change the window lines a bit, move the rear door line back to meet the window line, have a straighter, more aggressive window line from the rear to front and of course, add two strips of clear plastic to the tail lights. The gas cap is square and there are some trim differences.
The nose is more different because it had to accomodate the bubble lights and MB grill.
Jul 21, 2004 (12:24 pm)
Here's another example showing the unparalleled resale value of Audi's:
2000 A6 2.8Qs
$26K for one with 40K miles
$22K for one with 38K miles
Both are certified at Audi dealers.
$27K for one with 38K miles
$25K for one with 31K miles
And let's not forget the 2 probably had similar MSRPs when new. And the GS is considered the lame-o car in the Lexus line-up.
#6260 of 24726 Re: Footie [mbukukanyau] MB and Taurus lookalikes [footie]
Jul 21, 2004 (12:25 pm)
YOu know, I really doubt Mercedes-Benz used the Taurus as inspiration for the E-class. If it does look similar, it is probably coincidental.
Besides, there are soo many styling cues on soo many different cars that are similar. Basically every mass market car has one line or a couple that look to similar to another cars.
#6261 of 24726 Car Selection base on pics
Jul 21, 2004 (12:28 pm)
The updated S-class gets my vote, which surprises even me. I simply think it flows very well in that pic, but tellingly I can't quite recall what the car looks like from the back, I just have a recollection it is far more anonymous like that.
The Infiniti looks great, too. It'd be very surprising to find it on my list of final candidates should I be on the market for a car right now, but I ought to point out my Infiniti ownership experience in 96 was rather forgettable.
The Audi looks good except for that damn dark blob of a grille further accentuated by that chrome frame. Very heavy handed stuff, and if I bought one I'd ask a body shop to lose the chrome and paint the lower portion of the grille in body color.
The Merc is too conservative for my taste, but that's always been what Mercs have been about in the end with the occasional exception of their upper rate coupes and convertibles.
I find the new BMW designs utterly unattractive, BMW does not need such desperate attention-getting gimmicks - their cars ought to be more subtle and I think the extrovert design language is not going to benefit them mid-term. The angry insect look is downright infantile, I think. And, as stated before, I think it odd that people tore those light to pieces when they showed up in the Aztec, yet with BMW it's visionary and it'll eventually grow on us. Keep dreaming, Bangle, it's way too busy to age well.
The Caddillac, as stated by others, is way to angular. It's in the BMW school of desperate attention getters that strive too hard to be different, and wind up looking like a middle-aged guy in Dolce&Gabbana teen-wear (if I ever try to pull that off please somebody shoot me).
The Lex and the Acure are way too anonymous middle sized sedans. They're the Banana Republic white shirt blue tie and khakis equivalent.
#6263 of 24726 Re: Car Selection base on pics [pablo_l]
Jul 21, 2004 (12:41 pm)
Cadillac sort of needs distinctive styling attention to get back in the game. So the styling is appropriate, they need to get away from the Towncar/newyorker/deville luxury among ruins, land yacht, retired senior, Detroit iron, luxo boat, Rental limo, Vegas stretch limo, hearse, Senator Bob Dole, US ambassador to the UN, cold war America look to the mainstream international styling