Last post on Dec 04, 2013 at 8:41 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, Infiniti G37, Acura TL, Lexus IS 350, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac CTS, Volvo S60, Audi A4, Acura TSX, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#10573 of 16982 Re: Stop Bellyaching on Pricing [ivan_99]
Nov 28, 2007 (12:58 pm)
As a 2003 530SP owner (Titanium Silver/Black), this is one beautiful M5! All mine lacks is the punch from the new TT motor, but I'd seriously give a clean, low-mileage '03 M5 a close look.
It only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, but agree tht it is priced at least 5-7K too high. Owner is adding a low miles premium and it does appear to be in fantastic condition.
As much as I love some of the new cars on the market from BMW, Audi, Infiniti, etc.; I still maintain an attachment to my car. After any test drive of another vehicle, I drive my car home and understand what a great ride it is all over again!
Will say that the new Audi S5 intrigues me. Very nice car. 6-sp only at this time, with Tiptronic on the way around April '08. Drives beautifully as a high performance touring coupe. Would not even consider a MB CLK after driving the S5. 335 Coupe is still strong, IMO, due to being such a great performer. Have had a fantastic ownership experience with my BMW... unsure about the S5 prospects at this time.
#10574 of 16982 Re: Stop Bellyaching on Pricing [blueguydotcom]
Nov 29, 2007 (3:42 am)
Whether you bought that 2003 car in January of 2004 or September of 02, a 2003 car is viewed as 5 years old.
I agree, but apparantly another posted has figured out that because 6 is in the "vacinity" (sic) of 5, it's really a 6 year old car.
Fortunately, my 12 year old is a little more precise with her math skills and hasn't suggested that, since shes in the "vicinity" of 16, she should start learning to drive the 911. Which would put me in the vicinity of a heart attack.
P.S. Since when is even a 6 year old M5 a "entry level" luxury performance sedan. I suspect this digression will soon be terminated by the Host.
#10575 of 16982 Re: Stop Bellyaching on Pricing [habitat1]
Nov 29, 2007 (11:55 am)
Sure will, especially since someone's too childish to be able to avoid personal insults. The maturity level must be in the "vicinity" of the 12 year old girl's.
#10576 of 16982 Re: Stop Bellyaching on Pricing [habitat1]
Dec 05, 2007 (6:04 pm)
You need to take into account that the 1987 Accord was also a compact while the 2007 model falls on the large end of the mid-size market (with the 2008 officially jumping to a full-size). Likewise 1987 was the last year the Corolla was produced as a subcompact. Even discounting the huge shift in brand perception over the past decades, you can't make apples to apples comparisons when the vehicles aren't even in the same class anymore.
#10577 of 16982 More Confusiaon at Cadillac?
Dec 13, 2007 (10:48 am)
Here is some news. I could not tell if some of the models will be applicable and perhaps some of the future names could be part of the ELLPS category. It just goes to show the continued muddied direction that boggles the mind!
If you liked alphabet soup as a kid, make an appointment at your Cadillac dealer for three to five years from now. That's because GM has recently trademarked several new nameplates for Cadillac, and so far we're worried and a bit confused.
At present, these names are trademarked in Europe and Canada. However, companies often register their trademarks in foreign markets first, and later in the United States.
This potential new naming system is undoubtedly complicated, but we will try and lay it out in the simplest way possible. So far, GM has trademarked:
We suspect the numbers in each name signifies each vehicle's overall size.
The "DT7" might be the eventual DTS replacement, for example. This large, luxury sedan may end up riding on the Zeta chassis in a few years time.
The CT6 and CT5 would be some kind of variants of the car we currently know as the CTS. One possibility is the numbers indicate two possible wheelbase lengths. On the other hand, we can't rule out the "5" and "6" being the current CTS sedan and forthcoming CTS coupe.
The BT3 could represent the next-generation BLS. This vehicle would probably be on the Epsilon II chassis, however, with GM's plans on the new Alpha chassis being unclear, there is always a possibility BT3 could be an Alpha car.
The AT1 is still a bit of a mystery. That said, it's a safe bet that this would be a small car that is definitely based on the Alpha chassis GM is currently developing. Could it be a competitor to the BMW 1-Series?
The "X" cars will more than likely denote crossover or wagon vehicles. However we'd also leave open the option that the "X" indicates all-wheel-drive models.
If the crossover assumption is true, the DTX is probably the vehicle currently known as the BRX. The CTX could be the forthcoming CTS wagon, and the BTX remains a mystery.
Of course, the all-wheel-drive option is also a strong possibility. The CTX could be an AWD CT6 or CT5, while the DTX would be an AWD DT7, and so on.
Obviously there is one glaring part of Cadillac's lineup not mentioned here — the Escalades. Some might suggest that the "X" vehicles we just talked about are in fact the trucks. However, given what our sources say, we don't think that's the case.
That leaves a few options. One being that GM just hasn't gotten around to coming up with new names. Another being that the true Cadillac trucks will not be part of this new scheme and continue on with regular names. With the marketing power the Escalade name carries, we think the latter is more likely.
#10578 of 16982 Re: More Confusiaon at Cadillac? [circlew]
Dec 14, 2007 (7:01 am)
Am I the only one who thinks this new branding (Cadillac is not alone) is just a stupid gimmick? I miss Coupe de Ville, Sedan de Ville, Park Avenue, Bonneville, to name a few..... GM probably hired a consultant to come up the new designations, paid six figures or more. I'm sure there were better places to spend the money....
#10579 of 16982 Re: More Confusiaon at Cadillac? [vic10]
Dec 14, 2007 (8:47 am)
No, those names link back to cars most associate with low quality and poor performance. Those names would hurt the brands more than help them.
#10580 of 16982 Re: More Confusiaon at Cadillac? [blueguydotcom]
Dec 14, 2007 (4:53 pm)
Good point but even the Japanese brands were junk in the '60's. At least the name Camaro, Bonneville, Grand Prix meant something back then. After that era, the US traded with Japan on quality and became junk.
I will keep an open mind for the future but for me, there is still bitter reminders of pain associated with Cadillac. The CTS is progressing but I just can't like the looks.
#10581 of 16982 Re: More Confusiaon at Cadillac? [blueguydotcom]
Dec 14, 2007 (4:54 pm)
I agree 100%, those were bad cars for years.
#10582 of 16982 Re: More Confusiaon at Cadillac? [frisconick]
Dec 14, 2007 (6:56 pm)
Nick! Welcome back!