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.
#6445 of 24726 michael_mattox
Jul 29, 2004 (5:03 pm)
It is painfully obvious that you don't have a clue about the Mercedes SL. You seem to be the only one that is "confused" here. Everyone else has pretty much agreed that the SL was the superior car. The question is whether or not the Allante is so lame that its sole supporter is reduced to harping about trunk space over a decent top design, you know something that most people ctually expect in a 60K luxury convertible as opposed to trunk space. A 290hp V8 in a fwd roadster, surely the only such bass-ackwards configuration ever sold in modern times.
You stated the Allante sold about 20K during its entire production run, which was 7 model years, then I gave you the exact numbers that the SL sold during just 6 model years and it was more than the Allante's. This is fact. Period. Look at mbusa.com to check it yourself if you don't believe me.
Secondly, it is also obvious that you're confused about model years. Ok let me make is simpler for you. The 1993 500SL and 1993 600SL outperformed the 1993 Cadillac Allante. Period. Just for you I will dig up the exact times and the particular issue of Car and Driver that proves this.
I can see where the confusion sets in because in order for the Allante to have a let to stand on, only the 1993 model can be used because the 1987-1992 models were beyond pathetic.
Comparing sales figures for one model year is where you'll point to some type of Allante superiority becasue the 1993 Allante went on sale in spring of 1992 and the 1993 Model Year for the Allante was considerably longer than 12 months and the car probably sold into the first few months of 1994. Are you really going to sit here and try and act like the elongated 1993 model year the Allante had is the same as the regular MY the 1993 500SL had and then try to compare sales figures saying the Allante was better?
The 500SL sales figures:
1993 1,721 <-- way less than the Cadddy's long MY 1993 total.
(mbusa.com 16 year model review)
---> 23,806 units in just 6 model years compared to 20K (your figure) for the Allante's entire run of 7 years. This number doesn't even count the 300SL and 600SL models. Mercedes did this at much higher prices too. Fact!
You stated that Lexus took BMW's suspenion and refined it and made it more reliable. Did you or did you not state that in a earlier post? I'm still waiting to find out what reliability has to do with suspension design, if the Allante has a shoulder harness and most the most bogus one of them all...those innovations (now including BMW's suspension that Lexus improved upon) that Lexus perfected after MB debuted them....and answers to numerous other bogus claims. Talk about a lot of "unsubstantuated" stuff.
Jul 29, 2004 (5:19 pm)
The MT comparo is very interstinig. The XJ8 and 745i are last and the 2004 (C&D tested a 2003 model) S430 was 4th. The 2004 S430 was marginally quicker than the Phaeton and A8L and only 4 tenths of a second behind the LS430, hardly the underpowered car some here would like you to believe. The transmission the 2004 S430 MT tested clearly made a difference over the 2003 model Car and Driver tested.
Where is audibob? He should have stuck around a little longer because:
"Very quickly, our thesaurus round out of synonyms for "splendiferious!". From exterior styling to handling, fit and finish, comfort and technology the A8L earned top marks in our voting. In overal scoring, it wasn't even close: The big Audi was way ahead of an otherwise tightly packed field" (Motor Trend, Sept 04)
Just what I said about Audis a few days ago to audibob. Audi may not match Lexus' reliability and for some the sheer smoothness or ride, but in design and styling they make Lexuses look like overgrown Toyotas (in this case a Avalon on roids) and they match them in fit and finish and materials too. A much more exciting car imo and MT's. I can't wait to read about how will this comparo be "spun" or discredited by Oac and Lexusguy who touted the C&D comparo as the total demise of the German luxury car makers in this segment.
I wonder if Road and Track is next?
BMW is only one embarrased in this test due to the 7 being a newer design. The S is the oldest car here and it beat a brand new Jag and a 2 year old BMW. Couldn't be.
#6451 of 24726 Merc/Mattox: What's the point? Who cares?
Jul 29, 2004 (5:34 pm)
Can someone explain why you're using bandwidth to discuss the relative merits of 12-16 year-old automobiles? Maybe this discussion should be sent over to the "Classic Autos" board, if there is one.
Jul 29, 2004 (6:23 pm)
"True, but both the 7 and LS are mass market cars, with global sales of the 7 trailing slightly to the LS."
Are you sure about this? If so, that is surprising. The 7 is sold all over the world, and as far as I know, the LS doesn't sell a lot outside of the US. Even if you include the Japanese Celsior as an LS, I would still think that the 7 outsells the LS/Celsior on a global scale.
I'm sure the S trumps both combined in global sales though. Lots of S280s and S320s running around in Asia.