Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
Mar 22, 2005 (1:43 am)
I think the coupe market is what the automakers make of it. The G35 does fine, as does the CLK, and the even the Mustang. Ford's Thunderbird, and countless GM coupes just went bust from the start and I don't know why in every case. I think a coupe, done right will sell.
A lot coupe failures are due to automakers letting they go too long unchanged as was the case with the first generation Lexus SC, a car that I thought was truly something to behold back in its day. The previous Mercedes CLK had the shortest model run of any modern day Mercedes, just 5 model years. Then you have cars like the GTO which on paper should sell out but is a sales dud. The theories abound - styling, no nav, no heated seats, poor trunk space and so forth. Is their any mystery why the last Buick Rivera died? Older folks can't get in and out of Coupes to good. I know the older folks I know hate cars that require them to bend and what not to get in. I think Coupes like the Acura CL died because it actually looked worse than the sedan it was based on. Bass ackwards. It surely didn't die due to poor handling.
The Coupe market is a very fickle market segment, but despite what GM thinks the market does exist. I find it truly amazing they blame the market for the F-Body's demise, yet the Mustang has been a hit every since its last redesign in 1994 and now again for 2005.
Mar 22, 2005 (3:37 am)
I was talking more about the $40K+ lux coupes than necessarily a mustang or Z or whatnot. The Japanese performance coupes also died out in the late '90s due to rediculous price explosions, but they are all coming back. Nobody is chomping at the bit to make a new luxury coupe. I think price is largely what determines wether a coupe will live or die in that class. If people dont think the car is worth the money (Crossfire, GTO) see ya.
The luxury coupe is a different animal. The CL was too big and heavy to be particularly agile, and it was ugly as sin, so its death is no real surprise. Volvo's C70 sales were almost all convertibles, and they dumped the coupe competely years ago. I'm not sure if an actual redesign in '97 instead of just a little grill would've helped the SC at the time or not. I know by the time '98 rolled around, everybody in my neighborhood had an ML320. I think the market just dried up.
The F-body twins died out because they were just bad cars. The styling was terrible, the interiors were terrible, and the handling was terrible. Nobody is interested in that anymore.
#1273 of 10348 Lexusguy
Mar 22, 2005 (5:05 am)
"The F-body twins died out because they were just bad cars. The styling was terrible, the interiors were terrible, and the handling was terrible. Nobody is interested in that anymore.
Very true. GM let the cars go on forever with very little changes. GM, BTW has just killed or frozen their new rwd platform that could have given hope to replacement for these and a new generation of RWD Buicks and a proper GTO.
I think to make it in the luxury coupe market the maker has to keep the car fresh either with updates or costly redesigns every 5 years. Not easy for every automaker to do obviously.
Mar 22, 2005 (6:36 am)
Not a surprise there. They problably feel that the... Epsilon I think, platform thats under the 9-3, Malibu, etc, is good for another 20 years of service, thats GM think for you.
#1275 of 10348 Re: jjacura [virtualbmw]
Mar 22, 2005 (6:44 am)
"Well, it's not just straight speed that you get with the larger engine. It's quietness, decreased vibration, smooth effortless power. It's not all about speed. It's luxury and comfort that's afforded with the better motor, too."
You missed the point totally. Did I talk about luxury, NVH? Merc1 said the RX400h doesn't improve handling over the RX330 but only improves straight line performance and that makes paying additional for the RX400h pointless. I said it's basically the same story with a number of other products on the market such as the: E430/E500 vs. E320. GS430 vs. GS300. A6 4.2 vs. A6 3.2, 530i vs. 525i, or 540i vs 530i. Correct? Last time I checked these cars basically handle the same with the bigger engine or the smaller engine so all you really get is more straight line power.
Yet for some reason it's worth it to spend $10K more for a E500 over a E320 while it's not to pay $5K more for a RX400h over a RX330 even though the more powerful RX400h will also give you better gas mileage. Will a E500 do that over the E320? or a 530i over the 525i?
About the RX330 being a sloppy handler. Yes, compared to a X5, I would say it's a sloppy handler. But compared to most other competitors, it's far from sloppy and in fact it is competitive with it's competition overall like the Acura MDX, Mercedes ML.
Mar 22, 2005 (7:49 am)
I have to agree with max. Nothing decreases vibration and noise like running on ELECTRIC power. Is that worth a few grand?
I think what merc was getting at is that the RX's handling isnt good enough for the 400's additional muscle, which I dont think its true. Its faster yes, but a Cayenne Turbo, no. I would argue that an S65 AMG is a lot more dangerous than any RX400h. An S class at 200mph and an Enzo at 200mph is a little different.
#1277 of 10348 Re: maxhonda99 [00boxsters]
Mar 22, 2005 (10:45 am)
It's foolish to imply that I don't know anything about the three vehicles.
Clearly the X5 or X3 is a superior chasis with better body rigidity and therefore increased handling benefits lending to better safety. As far as seating and cargo room, the X3 or X5 will have plenty of room for 4 passengers and by that logic you may want to opt for an excursion or a trailways. Triple the cargo room? Not hardly...the X3 has virtually the same interior space as the RX but has longer wheel base even though the RX is a longer vehicle. That means "tippy". More length and a shorter wheelbase means poor cornering and overall road manners. The X3 also has better ground clearance than the RX. They are both all-wheel drive.
Is the RX more comfortable and quiet, yes. Does it drive better, absolutely not. Does the RX provide better active safety, certainly not.
So, if you prefer the RX, that's good for you. It's just your preference.
#1278 of 10348 Re: mikestevens [lexusguy]
Mar 22, 2005 (10:53 am)
looks can be deceiving.....
a vehicle is first and foremost for driving, right? The lexus would make a great living room but I wouldn't want to have to make a panic stop or an emergency lane change in one.
Mar 22, 2005 (12:19 pm)
"The lexus would make a great living room but I wouldn't want to have to make a panic stop or an emergency lane change in one."
I wouldnt want to be on the phone with AAA in a parking lot somewhere because my X5 wont start