You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans

Luxury Performance Sedans

9978 messages,  Last post on Nov 02, 2009 at 1:30 PM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

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

#7672 of 9978 Re: german [calhon] by lexusguy Jul 03, 2006 (7:37 am)
Replying to: calhon (Jul 02, 2006 3:34 pm) The predicted reliability of the S40 is "average"; same as the the A4 Avant (Audi's most reliable model) and the Z4, BMW's best model. Mercedes' most reliable model is the SLK which is rated "below-average".   I really have no interest in what the "predicted" reliability from CR is, or what the brand average is. As you pointed out yourself, the QX56 drags otherwise very reliable Infinitis into the gutter. Volvo's most recent introduction with reliability data on it is the S40. In its first year, 15%+ of owners reported electrical problems. Thats not unusual, the first year S60 in '01 and S80 in '99 were also problem prone cars. It shows that at least as recent as '04, you're taking a risk with a Volvo in its first year of production.   If you're the type of person who could care less about reliability, more power to you. However, if you're thinking of buying a first year Volvo because you're nervous about the Germans, (which will all have been in production quite awhile when the '07 S80 comes on the market), you might want to think about that, as chances are it will be less reliable than an A6 or 5 series.   I think we've already proved around here that JD Power IQS is useless when "I dont like my NAV system" is considered a "defect". No one is going to buy a car that blows up after 3 months, no matter how fantastic the driving experience is. Using IQS data to decide on what car to buy that you may keep for 5 years or more doesn't make a lot of sense. Brand averages in IQS are largely meaningless anyway, just as they are in CR. You're buying a car, not a brand. Replies to this message: calhon (Jul 04, 2006 12:12 pm) lexusguy (Jul 04, 2006 3:11 pm) calhon (Jul 04, 2006 8:23 pm) and 6 more...
#7673 of 9978 Maybe we're not talking about cars by sfcharlie Jul 03, 2006 (1:07 pm)
This is obviously not a discussion that anyone can bring to a conclusive end.   It's not, at its foundation, in my view, about the validity or reliability (two different statistical dimensions) of CR and JDP reports. It is, rather, about what it takes for a potential car buyer to achieve a confident enough state of mind in which to initiate (in the case of this forum) a $50,000 (or $500-$800/month) action -- expecting to have to live with the choice for two to five years, or more.   All the possible positions have appeared here several times: ignore CR and JDP; give CR and JDP some weight in the buying equation; avoid cars that appear to increase probability of trips to service department, according to CR and JDP. Whichever of these positions is felt to have contributed (in the past) or to be contributing (in the midst of a current buying-decision-making situation) to someone getting into a lower-anxiety or higher-confidence state of mind will be a very appealing position for that person and it will be hard to shake them from it.
#7674 of 9978 How about adding another car to the mix? by quemfala Jul 03, 2006 (1:33 pm)
Made it to the local Cad store and found what I was looking for; a 2006 STS, 8-cyl and AWD. (Quite a feat here in South Florida -- like hen's teeth!)Had the 1SF Luxury Perf. Pack & the K59 Adaptive Cruise. Car drove like it was on rails. Quick, responsive, great brakes, quiet and loaded with technology. I loved it; but my wife didn't. Actually, she didn't like anything about it at all, seats not comfortable, didn't like the looks of the car, didn't like the color -- should I go on? Of course she said, "but, if YOU like it, go ahead!" Bottom line, and what saved me making the decision, the store wouldn't "deal". They wanted too much and I wasn't really in the mood to spend the day haggling.   But then I really surprised myself with a trip to the Jag dealer. Wow! I started with the XJ8. Probably not what some of you would call a LPS (no manual tranny, a bit staid in design) but it was really a great ride! Fast, smooth and quiet. Great around the curves (no mountain roads around here to try), and with adequate stopping power. Not as much technology as the Caddy, but I could live with that. This car is a bit larger than the STS, but it's aluminum construction has it at about 700 lbs less. That makes it pretty nimble with great EPA mileage numbers.   But then, (and I shouldn't have done this) I moved into the XJR. Supercharged and 400 H.P. Nearly broke my neck! All of the above, but more! What a pleasure. I didn't realize that one could move down the road that quickly.   This IS a car my wife could like, and she might even drive it.   Lastly, only to look and not to drive, the brand new, 2007 XK coupe and/or convertible. There are a couple of stunning beauties! All I was able to do was sit in them and admire! (I think the test-drive schedule was a bit too long!) Maybe the next time. Again, for some of you the lack of a manual transmission may be a put off, but my left leg is getting too old to drive a standard shift in heavy, city traffic; so a six or seven speed auto is just fine with me.   Anyway, do yourself a favor. Take a look!   And remember -- Life is Better at the Beach! Replies to this message: lexusguy (Jul 03, 2006 9:37 pm)
#7675 of 9978 Re: How about adding another car to the mix? [quemfala] by lexusguy Jul 03, 2006 (9:37 pm)
Replying to: quemfala (Jul 03, 2006 1:33 pm) 2004 XJRs are pretty amazing deals right now. You can get one with <20K miles on it for $45K, or one with 30-35K on it for $40K.
#7676 of 9978 Re: The dead horse beaten again [lansdownemike] by markcincinnati Jul 04, 2006 (5:50 am)
Replying to: lansdownemike (Jul 03, 2006 6:27 am) You are most likely correct -- car enthusiasts often do disrespect CR's auto reliability numbers.   Also likely to be correct -- if you buy your car based on CR's numbers you may not be quite as "enthusiastic" about cars.   And, either position, as far as I am concerned is OK.   But, "can he/she cook?"   In the scheme of things, cars and mates are overwhelmingly chosen for emotional reasons first and practical reasons secondarily (or maybe the practical is tertiary, indeed that may be even more on the mark.)   These are Luxury Performance vehicles that we argue, preen and wax poetic about.   I'd wager a heavy weight (the heaviest?) is given to the styling of the objects of one's desire we discuss here.   CR is, for some, of value -- and if you buy a car that is not the most attractive and fun that you would have bought otherwise because CR said it was in the bottom quartile of reliability. . .good (for you.)   CR is, for others, without value -- and they often buy a car that is the most attractive and fun or most fun and attractive (whatever) without regard to a score bestowed upon it by CR.   It takes all types. There are mail-order brides, there's love at first sight, there's the courtship of Eddie's father too. There's even unrequited love.   Most of us [here at least] are passionate about our cars and buying cars for these folks is mostly a right brain affair.   LPS cars are luxurious and offer at least a nod to performance. Using a ranking to acquire them probably does not occur to those who lust for the luxury and performance in a car that catches their eyes and steals their hearts.   Doing so is perfectly acceptable, however.   When I read posts that rank a car that I would (or wouldn't have) regardless of CR's rankings, it just (for me) decreases my enthusiasm for anything they say.   I know some cars are ranked higher than others -- I want whatever it is that I am driving to be more reliable (don't we all?), but cars, friends and spouses simply cannot be neatly evaluated by circles with black innards, dots or red innards and dots.   One of the folks I work with was in the market -- she was looking at a Cadillac CTS. She asked me to help her pick some other "comparable" cars to consider.   To make a long story short, she wanted the CTS and short of a free car from Audi or BMW or Infiniti, she was going to go for it (in Blue, no less.) She trotted out her CR, and of course the Infiniti was the best of the bunch -- the Cadillac was just OK.   "I really like her," was said about the Cadillac.   I knew it was over right then and there.   Three test drives and a weekend later, she pulled in with her new Cadillac.   It was not logical -- it seldom is.   She is happy.   I submit that most folks buy cars cause they are, to them, "cool."   It's all about the big "L."
#7677 of 9978 Re: german [lexusguy] by calhon Jul 04, 2006 (12:12 pm)
Replying to: lexusguy (Jul 03, 2006 7:37 am) The 2007 S80 is a totally new model none of which have been delivered to customers. Therefore, any reasonable comments regarding it's expected reliability must be based on the brand's history. You are making such predictions while denying any interest in brand reliability. Never mind the fact that you initiated and continue to use comparisons between Volvo, BMW, Audi and Mercedes for that express purpose.   I agree with you that one cannot be sure that the S40 marks a turning point in Volvo's model launches. However, there is more to that than the reliability data, such as changes in processes and dynamics.   There were two points to my previous post. First, you don't get to make up your own "facts". The second and more important point is about the correct use and interpretation of reliability data, and what the current data shows.   I used the IQS data simply to illustrate the dangers of purely relative data such as rankings. I'm not arguing about which, if any, data should be used. The last line of the post refers to the total disconnect between what the reliability data actually shows and what so many people believe. Replies to this message: lexusguy (Jul 04, 2006 3:11 pm) calhon (Jul 04, 2006 8:23 pm) cdnpinhead (Jul 04, 2006 8:48 pm) and 5 more...
#7679 of 9978 Re: german [calhon] by lexusguy Jul 04, 2006 (3:11 pm)
Replying to: calhon (Jul 04, 2006 12:12 pm) The 2007 S80 is a totally new model none of which have been delivered to customers. Therefore, any reasonable comments regarding it's expected reliability must be based on the brand's history. You are making such predictions while denying any interest in brand reliability.   I agree that you need to look at the history of a brand's cars for a totally new model. Using a single number or rank though for an entire brand is not very useful. "Volvo is ranked X, Mercedes is ranked Y" is largely useless information, as is CR's "predicted" score. Despite the "average" predicted rating, owners of '05 S40s reported many more problems in specific areas than owners of '05 A4s and C classes.   If I were going to buy a new S80 for myself, I would not pay any attention to what Volvo's overall rank in IQS is. I would look at other recently introduced Volvos, such as the S40. Cars that have been in production for a long time, such as the S60, will have had the bugs worked out by now. They'll improve Volvo's "average" rank for the year, but the data on an S60 thats been in production since 2001 is not useful unless you're going to buy an S60. What CR is actually useful for is that it shows what areas owners reported problems in. Engine or transmission problems are definitely worse than electrical problems. It would be nice if, rather than "2-5%" of owners equaling a half red dot, CR just said "3.8% of owners reported electical issues", but its still much more useful information than some "PP100" score for an entire brand. Replies to this message: calhon (Jul 04, 2006 8:23 pm) cdnpinhead (Jul 04, 2006 8:48 pm) markcincinnati (Jul 05, 2006 4:23 am) lexusguy (Jul 05, 2006 5:48 am) and 3 more...

You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans