Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
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
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Sep 04, 2007 3:40 pm) Best Regards, Shipo |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Sep 04, 2007 4:25 pm) Any advice is welcome. Thanks
|
|
|
Replying to: topspin628 (Sep 04, 2007 5:27 pm) FWIW, configured apples to apples with the options I would order, there is an $8,800 difference in price. Hmmm, better fuel economy, almost identical acceleration (better at altitude and on hot humid days), less weight to throw around and significant savings. What's not to like? Best Regards, Shipo |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Sep 04, 2007 4:25 pm) I was questioning the sales rep about how one would go about integrating a phone into the system that allowed you to check your voice mail. On*Star, lacking a keypad (and costing an arm and half a leg to use for calling), does not. The fact that the STS has bluetooth and the CTS does not (when a Mazda does) is difficult for me to square in this class. Audi (and BMW) make the integration of the phone, CD, nav, radio and voice command so easy -- and we all know that the Japanese cars can be even better at this. Many things to like about the new CTS (for the money especially), but, for my wife and me this bluetooth (or lack of) issue is a "do don't" -- without some way to use a phone hand and eyes free, well, thanks for playing. The GMC Acadia sales rep says there is a workaround, the Cadillac rep doesn't know anything about it. The back seat is tiny eh? Well, I thought the same of the BMW 5 series and find my A6's rear seats and room to be fine. The rear seat issue, for me, would not deter my acquisition -- BT on the other hand, well -- that's a different issue. I looked at the new (not really new) 2008 A6 3.2. The new wheels look nice. It is hard to tell, otherwise, that much has changed, even though I can find subtle differences. What is not so subtle is the new MSRP -- an essentially base A6 now crosses $50K. My 2005, all optioned, A6 was $53K, the 2008 would be perhaps $58K for essentially the same car (with a backup camera, that mine does not have.) The 5 series could be a contender, as could the new A4 -- the Cadillac seems like GM's best effort ever though and already the MSRP -$2000 is the asking price. Seems, BT notwithstanding, a heck of a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Sep 05, 2007 3:51 am) While it makes absolutely no difference to me, it's clear that many who drive cars in this category consider this a deal breaker. OnStar is an expensive (for both the user & the provider) partial solution to a question that can be answered much more effectively & efficiently elsewhere and that many of us never even ask. I wonder what the over/under is on when OnStar goes bust?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cdnpinhead (Sep 05, 2007 5:30 am)  I got the brochure on the new CTS. Woo woo! Beautiful piece, expensive piece and for the uninitiated, the prose makes it sound like the CTS is just short of the second coming. But the reality is so different. The CTS breaks no or, if any, VERY little new ground beyond its styling evolution. Much time and trouble was spent crafting the wording in the brochure: "More than a car, it's a Cadillac." The brochure makes much ado about the adaptive forward lighting (the lights turn with the steering wheel!), likewise about AWD and ambient interior lighting for pity's sake. The brochure like the car itself is beautiful, the interior especially is literally the best ever I can recall in an American car and as I look at the Bentley coupe that is parked next to the new CTS, I see that same "expensive" look in the CTS's interior as oozes from the Bentley's (and both were black with black interiors, too.) Impressive effort -- actually, for my taste, the new CTS (at least the interior) is more of the LPS genre than is the more expensive STS. The 304HP, AWD and the level of "available" equipment are right up there, mostly, with the Infiniti M's and the Audi A6's -- and the CTS interior darn near should shame BMW's 5 series interiors (although even they are no longer entirely stoic and confining what with their mostly black on black on black "inner sanctum" look.) And, my wife is quick to point out that if one equips a 5 series in an attempt to deck the 5 series out like a $48,000 CTS, that the price will shoot way past $60,000 -- perhaps way way past depending on what you think is "equivalent content." So, the CTS comes to market as a fantastic vehicle, able to stand nose to nose with the Audi's, BMW's and Infiniti's (and Acura and Lexus while we're at it) that could be purchased in the latter half of 2004 and 2005. And perhaps that is "good enough." There is little doubt the CTS what with its already MSRP minus $2,000 selling prices is the undeniable "value" winna and champeen. The mostly adoring press, too, is surely a good sign too. Yet, but, wait! Cadillac should, in some way other than "It's a bargain," LEAD -- in ONE way, ANY way -- even if its claims of "acts like a 5 series, priced like a 3 series" prove to offer the requisite verisimilitude, it needs to be more than a state of the art (2004) piece. It is, perhaps, now "even" in many ways with its (pricier) German and Japanese rivals insofar as content and "HP" are concerned (and compared to the Audi A6 3.2 which can easily be $58,000 and still have 255HP, the CTS is arguably somewhat more than even) but with all the chest pounding going on, it is, upon scrutiny, "barely even" and that parity is most accurate when the CTS is stacked up against MY 2005 versions of the cars it claims to emulate. Now, at age 56, I have another perspective -- this CTS is, despite it's "been there done that" features, a remarkable step forward. I'd even go so far as to say it is several steps forward when price is factored in. The Germans and the Japanese in many areas had (past tense) commanding leads over the CTS and a less commanding lead over the STS, but make no mistake the Americans were and ARE still playing catch up. What is most redeeming is the apparent gap closing Cadillac has accomplished (and we must keep this in perspective, "for the money.") I looked at a "one option" [sunroof and leather] Audi A6 3.2 [255HP] and it had a sticker NORTH of $50,000 -- an "all options" Cadillac CTS 3.6DI [304HP] was $48,000. With the exception of Bluetooth and rear backup camera (that the Audi did NOT have for THAT PRICE), the content of the Cadillac was higher and the apparent interior fit and finish was on-par with the Audis. So, Cadillac has managed to produce, as a 2008 MY, a car that has more motivation and "about the same" content as a car that began production in July 2004. Maybe this is the way "the species" evolve -- and maybe as I wind down my lease on Audi #28, getting a 2008 version of my Audi for perhaps $10,000 less is sufficient after all. At first I thought the Germans and Japanese had something to be concerned with -- now, I'm thinking that the only way this will prove true is if Cadillac (to name one) takes the STS to the next level and, indeed, takes its entire lineup to the next level. Lead in ONE way, ANY way, not just in value is what I think; and, I remain, VERY often wrong, but NEVER uncertain! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Sep 02, 2007 10:33 am) Infiniti also offers the V8 with AWD, something you can't get from ... BMW My impression is the 535Xi is more of a competitior to the forthcoming M-45x than the current M-35x. The fact that BMW uses 6 cylinders rather than 8 should not be an issue if the performance is competitive. I recently bought a 535Xi. I looked at the M-35x but had two concerns. One was the lack of a higher gear, or gears, in the transmission to cut down engine revs on the highway. The other was the engine in the M-35x is a generation behind what Infiniti is now putting in the G-35x. I would have compared the M-45x to the 535Xi, but when I made my purchase decision in late May, the M-45x was still a rumor. At some point in the future, when the M-45x becomes available, I would be interested in seeing a driving / performance comparison between it and the 535Xi. Thanks Bruce
|
|
|
Replying to: bruceomega (Sep 05, 2007 6:48 am) Easy now. It has been argued here for a couple of years (not necessarily by you) that the Acura RL is not competitive because there's no V8. This treads fairly closely to that argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tayl0rd (Sep 05, 2007 7:46 am) Good point. To clarify, my comment was intended to apply to the 535Xi in comparison to the M-45x, assuming the engine in the M-45x is the same as in the current M-45. Thanks Bruce |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tayl0rd (Sep 05, 2007 7:46 am) The conclusion? Who needs a V8 with a V6 THAT good. Ditto, I say, for the BMW with the 300HP turbo i6. I wouldn't think the lack of a V8 is the reason for the Acura's lackluster sales. If "magically" an Acura RL V8 would be brought out otherwise identical to the current 6 cylinder version, I seriously doubt there would be anything more than a temporary bump in sales. A V8 ALONE is not the street cred needed -- at least not anymore methinks. Sure, having the REPUTATION that goes with offering your cars with V8's or V10's or V12's doesn't hurt. But, MOST of the Audi A6's (90%) sold are V6's, the 535 + the lesser non blown 6 account for virtually all the sales of the BMW 5's too -- there are reasons, beyond offering a V8 that Acura can't give 'em away. My assumption is it is the product, the marketing, the sales organization, the price or the terms. And, while it could be argued that the product is lacking the option of a V8, I just don't buy that as the dominant reason for the Acura's lackluster sales. They've really cut the prices around here on the RL, and it is a very nice car. No one asked me, but if you did, I would say it is because the Acura RL is able to be mistaken for an Accord, er, make that EASILY mistaken. No V8 would fix that. So, it is the product that is at "fault." In this case, not the propulsion, but the style. Back in the day, when it was easy to call GM cars, Oldsmobuicks there were issues of differentiation too. Now, the issue of the M V6 being a last gen engine when compared to the G's, that, too, IMHO is a valid concern, not tied to the sheer number of cylinders. I have driven the BMW with the "35" engine -- WOW; who needs a V8 (and almost $10,000 more in cost)? |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2007 Lexus GS 430
2011 Acura RL
2011 BMW 5 Series
2010 Volvo S80
2010 Audi A6
2010 Infiniti M35
2010 Infiniti M45
2011 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2010 Cadillac STS
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
