Last post on Dec 12, 2013 at 7:09 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
#8413 of 16985 Re: J.D. Power IQS 2006 [skinnytony]
Mar 02, 2007 (8:08 pm)
Interesting.... I still have problems considering Lexus a top brand. Maybe in terms of pure quality; but it depends what you want. When I bought last year; I wanted a maneuverable car, tight turning radius, great suspension tuning, a feeling of being fun to drive. I didn't get that out of the Japanese cars; but I did out of BMW & Mercedes.
MB doesn't seem to do well in quality anymore, but after 10 mos. driving a C280, I have to say for the kind of driving I do, the car really shines and has that fun, maneuverable, feeling.
#8414 of 16985 Re: J.D. Power IQS 2006 [dfc3]
Mar 03, 2007 (6:15 am)
MB doesn't seem to do well in quality anymore
IQS is only one aspect of quality. Longer durability is more important if you buy... and how you process your experiences and of those of whom you know.
Since we do not have a long term track record of quality on late model cars, this is the rating you always hear about.
It's about perceived quality in my mind. That's what really guides me.
Mar 03, 2007 (7:47 pm)
It is an easier and cheaper task to build a great performing and handling little car than it is to build a great handling bigger car.
BMW builds a nice little compact car, the 335i. Cadillac builds a nice mid-size car, the CTS (EPA). If the CTS was built to compete with the smaller car in terms of handling and performance, as well as having similar luxury and appealing styling, we should expect the CTS to cost more.
There are always compromises. Just depends what's most important to you...cost, size, luxury, perfomance.
So, no clear winner here.
#8416 of 16985 Re: Be fair [joe131]
Mar 03, 2007 (8:36 pm)
I think it depends on how you define a "bigger car."
Is the Cadillac at a disadvantage because it is longer bumper-to-bumper? Or is it because the wheelbase is longer? Maybe the Cadillac has an advantage because it weighs 100 lbs less than the BMW?
I suspect all have an effect, but ultimately, it comes down to solid engineering and long-term refinement. The BMW handles better because it is purpose built to be (and historically is) better.
An evolutionary vs. revolutionary design is what makes the BMW #1 in ride/handling. Cadillac came up with the brand-new RWD Sigma platform 5 years ago - BMW has 30 years of E21, E30, E36, E46, E90 evolution.
The Sigma platform is very competent (and the 2008 CTS (Sigma II) should be even better), but it won't be a match for BMW for a long, long time.
#8417 of 16985 Re: Be fair [fedlawman]
Mar 03, 2007 (10:16 pm)
For purposes of ELLPS, I'll define bigger in terms of passenger and cargo room. The more of those there is, the harder and more expensive it is to make an excellent handling and performing car.
Usually, if you have more passenger and cargo room, your car will also be heavier and dimensionally larger too. (For example, Bentley, not an ELLPS, is a major exception with its subcompact luxo-cars.)
It is also usually easier and cheaper (less complex engineering) to build a little box stiffer than a bigger box. Try it with cardboard, you'll see. Put wheels on a stiff box and it handles better than a flimsier box.
Porsches are littler than BMWs. And Porsches handle and perform better.
If you build littler cars (BMW), you have an advantage in handling and performance over what the builders of bigger cars (Cadillac) have.
It is about compromises. BMW compromises by making its cars little inside so they can handle and perform better than bigger cars. Cadillac thinks its customers will appreciate the extra room in exchange for compromises in handling.
It's nice to have choices.
#8418 of 16985 Re: Be fair [fedlawman]
Mar 04, 2007 (7:47 am)
Well said. The changes in the strategy of US companies is to re-invent every time. It is a startegy, but is it the best?
Like you said, fed: The Sigma platform is very competent (and the 2008 CTS (Sigma II) should be even better), but it won't be a match for BMW for a long, long time.
There will never be a chance to evolve with this platform. That is a bet I am very, very willing to take.
I can see/feel the evolution of this 3 series in almost every aspect of the performance experience when you get behind the wheel.
That is one reason why even with x-drive, I am literaly and actually amazed at this car's capability. I can't wait to try the 335 xi coming soon.
#8419 of 16985 Re: Be fair [joe131]
Mar 04, 2007 (7:53 am)
It's nice to have choices. My choice would be the 750il over the Caddy DTS.
Not part of ELLPS discussion, just a reference note regarding room in a larger car.
So, let's be fair...the cts is between the 3 and 5 series regarding size and still behind in the performance of both cars, IMO.
#8420 of 16985 Re: Be fair [circlew]
Mar 04, 2007 (11:29 am)
No circlew. Your analysis is lacking.
Size, cost and performance are the issues.
EPA size pass/cargo... price... Horsepower
328i... 93 / 12... 32,400... 230
335i... 93 / 12... 38,700... 300
530i... 99 / 14... 47,700... 255
CTS... 99 / 13... 32,685... 255
750li... 105 / 18... 78,100.. 360
DTS perf... 112 / 19... 48760... 292
See how cost went up to get better performance? See how one trait may compromise the others? See how the small car (335i) has better performance than the bigger ones? See how Cadillacs are cheaper but bigger but not so well performing as the little BMW cars?
#8421 of 16985 Re: Be fair [joe131]
Mar 04, 2007 (12:35 pm)
Yes, I see your point. My choice would be BMW over Cadillac in every one of your categories.
#8422 of 16985 Re: Be fair [circlew]
Mar 04, 2007 (12:40 pm)
I think BMW is the ultimate driving machine. No one else compares in a sedan.
But I've never bought one. My priorities do not encourage it.
The Mini is the new BMW 2002. Both fun cars. And, I hear a more basic Z will come out soon too. Good moves, BMW !