Ask the Car People.SM


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.

Messages Page 647 of 2473

#6461 of 24723 michael_mattox by merc1

Jul 29, 2004 (9:53 pm)

1. Read the responses from everyone else about the Allante on this board. I don't think you'll find any supporting your theory about the Allante being superior. If you find one, please give me the post #. Nobody here has stated anything to support your theory. Nada.
 
2. I can't believe you are so lost on trying to prove the Allante is superior, you won't even check the website (mbusa.com) I provided to check the data yourself. The sales figures I gave you are US sales figures. Period. You asked for proof then when it is given you refuse believe it! You brought up sales figures only to be proved wrong and then say I'm desperate for something? You brought sales into the picture! I didn't use sales as a point of reference for superiority, you did and then when the SL is shown to have outsold the Allante over a shorter period of time, 6 MY years compared to 7 MY for the Allante you can't accept it. No the Allante was not every bit as popular.
 
Here is the link:
 
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/overview/overview_engin- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e.jsp?spec=1&subNav=overview&yearModelCode=88_SL500CR&amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;amp- ;class=88_SL&menu=2_3&rnav=024568
 
These are US sales figures!
 
3. Obviously nobody cared about any of this. The Allante owners missed out on superior build quality, safety engineering, performance, top design and numerous other things the SL humiliated the Allante in.
 
4. Only in your mind was the SL inferior. The market spoke as to who made the superior car by purchasing it in sufficient numbers to keep the same basic design around for 13(!) model years! The Allante was toast in just 7 and had one good (long model year) year at the end. Wow what an accomplishment.
 
5. This only goes to prove what I said before about you not knowing a thing about the SL. The 1990-2002 R129 500SL had anywhere from 315-322 hp Mike. Mercedes didn't debut their car with a anemic 140hp V8, the brand-new for 1990 R129 SL started out with a 5.0L DOHC, 32V, 322hp V8. The Allante with 250hp would still get its wreath and crest handed to it by the 322hp 500SL.
 
The specs: Please notice the years Mike. How can you say the Allante was superior with a 250hp chip when you don't even know what the 500SL had during those years???
 
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/overview/overview_engin- e.jsp&yearModelCode=88_SL500CR&class=88_SL&rnav=02456- - - - - - - - 8&subNav=overview&menu=2_3&spec=1&category=0
 
Read the proof you yourself asked for.
 
Like I said before, this weekend I will dig up the issue that compared the Allante and 300SL with the 500SL being tested in a sidebar.
 
Your asking for a link to a 11 year old roadtest, but won't bother check the ones above?
 
M

#6462 of 24723 by jrock65

Jul 29, 2004 (11:33 pm)

"Mercedes-Benz' new goal is to insure that it sits at top of the quality ratings by 2006..."
 
I guess by "quality" they mean initial quality. 2006 huh... 2006 is 2 years away. I guess it's possible if they are really meticulous about it, but they're quite a bit behind Lexus.
 
"We're doing this with a clear target of coming back to the number-one position in quality..."
 
When's the last time MB was "number-one position in quality"?
 
In any case, what they really have to address is reliability. Their initial quality seems to be okay, better than average. However, they're struggling below average in reliability.

#6463 of 24723 by merc1

Jul 29, 2004 (11:55 pm)

This article will answer both questions:
 
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0407/30/a01-227624.htm
 
They were #1 waaay back in 1990 and a few years in the early nineties.
 
They're talking about being #1 in the IQS survey, they VDS survey will take quite some time if even possible.
 
M

#6464 of 24723 Quality at Mercedes - the old fashioned way by footie

Jul 30, 2004 (3:51 am)

I think its interesting that Mercedes is going to 'give up profits' to improve quality.
 
Profits fell all by themselves in 2nd quarter as Mercedes sales fell in Europe and the strength of the Euro impacted the bottom line.
 
We should take up a collection and send Cordes a copy of 'Quality is Free'. High quality doesn't cost more, it costs less. Why? Because you are doing more things right, you have less work-in-progess needing repair, lower warranty costs, lower labor costs, etc. to build a given vehicle.
 
To get car production to be high quality and low defects you need to implement something pretty close to the TPS that Toyota uses to build Lexus.
 
Cordes talked about doing it the old fashioned way: "work with suppliers to reduce defects, test the cars better". That's not the fix. You can't test quality into a product. It's designed in by engineering in concert with a manufacturing system that can reproduce the design from defect free components.

#6465 of 24723 Footie by merc1

Jul 30, 2004 (4:09 am)

Better quality sure does cost more when you're trying to make changes from a system that doesn't work. They'll have to spend the money upfront to do it "right" or "better" and then and only then will they be able to rake in more profits, once the defects are gone. The less costs happens once you fix the quality problems, this sustaining higher profits down the line. Right now they have to spend the cash up front. High quality does cost less once it is achieved.
 
Why they don't just implement TPS or something similar to it is beyond me at this point.
 
M

#6466 of 24723 How 'bout giving up some profits on this. by designman

Jul 30, 2004 (4:28 am)


I really need to drive this. Low-end torque is unreal. Very hard to get a test drive.

#6467 of 24723 merc1 by ljflx

Jul 30, 2004 (6:58 am)

I should have told you I took a consulting role at your favorite company.
 
Seriously - It's about time. But they should walk before they run. Just turn around the quality issues before thinking about re-claiming any number one spots in such a short time span. That's not going to happen by 2006. But it doesn't need to anyway.
 
What really got them moving is the low resale values. The initial price is unsusutainable in such a situation and would kill the profits anyway. The CFO certainly knows this as they seem to have a sharp one.

#6468 of 24723 Re: michael_mattox [merc1] by michael_mattox

Jul 30, 2004 (8:29 am)

Replying to: merc1 (Jul 29, 2004 9:53 pm)
Merc.
 
When I talked about 250 HP that was for Pre 1993...Since I am sticking to comparing 93 Allante to 93 SL500 in order to try and avoid your dancing around issues by switching between models and year.
 
Support for the Allante...There was a young man who wrote about his fathers Allante and how much he liked it.
 
At to the sales numbers in the US...the Mercedes SL500 sold a little less then 800 and the Allante sold 6700...Your figures made my point...Prior to 93 I don't believe there was an SL500. But with Mercedes funky way of labeling their cars ...Who knows and for this comparison it really doesn't matter.
 
I still haven't been able to determine the performance figures for the 1993 500SL ...Yes I did look at the chart by it doesn't give the year of the car on the chart that shows 0-60 times.
 
AS SHOWN ON THE QUALITY RATINGS FROM EDMONDS BOTH CARS WERE ABOUT THE SAME ON THE LONG TERM RATINGS (THE ONE'S THAT COUNT)
 
THAT COMPARESON THAT YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE VERY HELPFULL.

#6469 of 24723 Re: Must be nice [sapparo] by livinbmw

Jul 30, 2004 (8:40 am)

Replying to: sapparo (Jul 29, 2004 4:15 pm)
I met a previous customer at the BMW dealer that I sold a new M5 to some time ago. He also owns a 2000 NSX that he originally purchased in Greenwich Village. He says that when he flew out there for a chance to buy the car that he had to give them a check before he test drove the car. It's a 2000 model with some cool pricey modifications. It'll do 0-60 in 3.9. Anyway, the guy is wanting to trade the M5 for an M3Cic so, we met at the dealer. They didn't have a M3Cic there so, I arranged for another one of my old customers who has a M3Cic to be there so, he could drive one. It was fun. That Acura is scary fast and looks dynamite.
 
The Z4 outperforms the boxster, the 350Z and the S2000 on the circuit and in the slalom according to speed channel evaluations. The Z has ALOT more torque at much lower RPM and much better HP at low RPM even though the honda has a higher peak horsepower 7800 revs. Plus, the BMW has better fuel economy. Of course, the 'bimmer is more $$$, but it should be. Very cool cars!!! That supra is still tremendous but you wouldn't get 40 grand for one out me.

#6470 of 24723 Ljflx by designman

Jul 30, 2004 (8:41 am)

"I should have told you I took a consulting role at your favorite company."
 
Oh Jeez, does this mean we have to listen to more MB spin? I guess if we see Merc2 popping up around here, we'll know who it is.
 
Kidding

Messages Page 647 of 2473

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement