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
Coupes & Convertibles Cadillac XLR and XLR-V Cadillac XLR and XLR-V
199 messages, Last post on Jun 06, 2009 at 9:02 PM
You are in the Cadillac XLR and XLR-V Forum. Your Host is claires
|
Replying to: laurasdada (Apr 07, 2006 6:47 pm) Phil |
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 04, 2006 11:12 pm) Reviewers have commented that the XLR-v chassis is sharper handling than the SL. It's true. It is. You only have to drive both the V and the SL500 or 55. When you've actually driven all these cars like I have, come back when you know what you're talking about. I didn't mention anything about Cadillac's customers' ability to leverage a performance car's performance. Cadillac isn't the brand with the hordes of status-seeking Mario-pretenders. As I said before, V-Series is a performance brand. Cadillac's brand is broader. The 18% drop in STS sales is modest when you consider the sales that went to the new DTS. E-class being down 3% is a problem for Mercedes too. It's a competitive market where if you're not growing you have something to attend to. BMW was up. Congratulations to them. They've successfully managed their brand for status-seekers for 30 years. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Apr 08, 2006 5:12 pm) Reviewers have commented that the XLR-v chassis is sharper handling than the SL. It's true. It is. You only have to drive both the V and the SL500 or 55. When you've actually driven all these cars like I have, come back when you know what you're talking about. I haven't read that anywhere, care to give a credible source? Everything I've seen says the opposite, despite all this nonesense about weight and what not. Fine you've driven the cars and you found different, but your opinion is in the minority and I'll take the mags words before I will an obvious GM apologist that has a grand excuse and/or twist for every GM shortfall. I didn't mention anything about Cadillac's customers' ability to leverage a performance car's performance. Cadillac isn't the brand with the hordes of status-seeking Mario-pretenders. As I said before, V-Series is a performance brand. Cadillac's brand is broader. Broader, wider whatever you want to call it, yet they can't catch BMW with a tailwind in either sales or performance. It isn't Mercedes, BMW's or Lexus' fault that Cadillac destroyed their image in the mind of luxury car buyers to the point of not being on the image scale. If Cadillac were still the standard of the world you'd be cheering about how prestigious they are. Another thing has to be said too about this point, Cadillac has made nothing but old folks cars up until now and that group doesn't usually care about image and who not, but for brand who actually make cars that people want drive (instead of riding in) like BMW and Mercedes of course they'll draw more image seekers than a worn-out, tired old brand like Cadillac. The 18% drop in STS sales is modest when you consider the sales that went to the new DTS. E-class being down 3% is a problem for Mercedes too. It's a competitive market where if you're not growing you have something to attend to. BMW was up. Congratulations to them. They've successfully managed their brand for status-seekers for 30 years. An eighteen percent drop in the 2nd model year of a new model is "modest"?! More GM-type spin and excuses. The E-Class is up for a facelift and I'll bet you that they wind up selling more this year than last despite a 3-percent drop for the first few months of the year. Knock BMW and Mercedes because they're hot while trying to play up tired Cadillac as some type of thinking man's alternative because they've finally managed to become merely competitive after 30 years of building people couldn't care less about, yeah I've got it. Oh I get it, the STS' sales tanking in its second year is the result of all the educated buyers having bought one last year so now they've moved on to the even more boatlike DTS. Makes sense to me. Yet these are some type of performance buyers that would compare a STS to a 750i? Absolutely ridiculous. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 10, 2006 9:34 pm) The one thing all these performance sedans have that is universally pertinent is big brakes for stopping power. Excellent! On the other factors, too much "performance" in a sedan begins to compromise its chief function while the form factor precludes the experience that extreme performance bias tries to capture. You end up with a cramped 4000 pound 4-door stuffed with a torque-anemic, V10 having its peak horsepower up in buzz-bomb territory near 8000 rpm. The image and mechanics just don't jibe. Where's the wing on trunk-mounted 3-foot drilled titanium supports? You have to drive the thing like a backwards-ballcap-wearing modified Ricer to extract the spec performance from that thing. You can't maintain any civil dignity in your $80,000+ teutonic, flame-surfaced, humpy box. BUT you can get something larger with more torque and plenty of peak horsepower accessible at 1300 fewer rpms; or something a quarter ton trimmer with more torque and plenty of usable horsepower accessible at 1700 fewer rpms. There, that's how it's done. BMW makes fine cars, really. None that I would own, but good cars nevertheless. They just don't make Cadillac Vs. If I cared about majority opinion at all, I'd have a stupidly-overweight, quarter-ton-too-heavy SL-something, and be sheepishly explaining that I'm just not independent enough to have bought the better car. As for the comment on the XLR-v having a sharper handling chassis than the SL series, Automobile Magazine for one. But as I said, if you actually go drive them, you don't need a reviewer to point out the obvious. Although I am old enough to remember a time when Cadillac made cars that young people aspired to, none of them actually interested me. Older people tended to own them because back then younger people couldn't afford the cars. Young people didn't expect to own prestige cars and if they did buy way beyond their means, they bought sports cars -- Corvettes, Porsches, Healeys and Jags -- or, later, msucle cars. Credit wasn't liberal, leasing was non-existent, and there was a lower incidence of brand status-seeking in the culture. Sure, Cadillac neglected and actively mismanaged their brand since the mid-sixties. But it's really status-seekers who have swelled the sales of BMW, Mercedes and Lexus above any intrinsic core buying population of people who might actually understand the car they've bought. Those companies have done a good marketing job over the last 20 years and until recently, Cadillac has not. I am not trying to open the eyes of status-seekers. They are mindless about product and driven by brand perception alone, and can only be turned around over time. I am only concerned today with car buyers who actually grasp real, meaningful product differences, know how to drive, and are brand-independent enough to be open-minded about better or more interesting product choices from a resurgent brand. I remain mystified how you came to the conclusion that I'm a GM apologist. I am a first-time GM new vehicle customer with no history whatsoever of GM fealty. I've owned at least 10 Ford vehicles. I think Rick Wagoner is latest in a long line of beancounter CEOs whose very mindset has hamhandedly put GM into its current plight. I'm apologizing for nothing about GM. However, when they win on product I'm ready to recognize it. A CTS-v is more usable than an M3 and more emotional and fun than an M5. Mercedes has nothing equivalent. An XLR-v is sharper, lighter and more fun than an SL-55, and more modern in its form. And these attributes are true even before considering Cadillac's price advantage. You continue to miss the point about the drop in STS sales and the intro of the new DTS -- the new DTS picked up some of the prior year's STS volume. Some new customers for Cadillac 4 doors prefer a larger car. They are not performance-oriented, not size-constrained, and for them the DTS works better, just as some BMW customers prefer the porky 7 to the more nimble 5. The DTS also picks up some customers in northern climates who have come to prefer the snow traction of front-wheel drive, irrespective of the fact that FWD isn't appealing to you and me. I don't know where you are, M, so if you're outside the US, what I'm about to say is not relevant. But if you are in the US, then you have a direct interest in seeing Cadillac specifically and GM in general succeed. The reversal of fortune there will not happen overnight. And it will be uneven, product-by-product. The turnaround task is gargantuan. If brand prevents you or others from recognizing, appreciating and supporting with your cash the instances of GM fielding world-class competitors, then you can't expect those efforts to continue. There are many car models where a GM buyer is effectively looking past meaningful product deficiencies to buy American, get Onstar, support a local dealer, or whatever. But the Cadillac V-series cars are not among them. Phil |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Apr 11, 2006 10:48 am) Then what in the world is all the talk about the CTS-V being better than the M5 when it is about the same size and not nearly as luxurious in addition to being trounced by the M5 on performance? None of what you're saying makes any sense. You're still trying to give these Cadillacs a free-pass on being not up to par as sports sedans because they're slightly bigger depending on which angle you use to put the Cadillac in the best light possible. It won't work because the whole point of a car like the CTS-V is to be a sports sedan, the regular versions can carry people if that is what people are looking for. M5 scorches the CTS-V in any performance contest you can come up with...I'm not sure what about that fact is difficult to understand. The STS-V may be a more appeal package to you, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone else outside of the GM camp that agrees with this. You're clearly in the minority on that one. You can go on forever and a day about the BMW M5 and its V10 and how it develops its power but at the end of the day it will smoke any Cadillac build. End of story. You're right BMW doesn't make Cadillac "V"s they make something entirely different and according to most, better. The bottom line is that the M5 outperforms the CTS-V and there no amount of GM-induced spin that can change that. I remain mystified how you came to the conclusion that I'm a GM apologist. I am a first-time GM new vehicle customer with no history whatsoever of GM fealty. I've owned at least 10 Ford vehicles. I think Rick Wagoner is latest in a long line of beancounter CEOs whose very mindset has hamhandedly put GM into its current plight. I'm apologizing for nothing about GM. However, when they win on product I'm ready to recognize it. I don't see how you could be. You come up with an excuse for GM at every single turn and you seem to think Cadillac has managed to outdo BMW in building a sports/sporty sedan. This whole conversation reeks of excuses for GM left and right and/or a smear of competing brands with points like: 1. Trying to compare Cadillacs to a one-up size BMW - typical specious GM tactic by both supporters and GM corporate alike. 2. Talking about weight in the SL and M5, while at the same time saying that none of these cars should be judged as sports cars. This is the point I made at the start here, the XLR isn't a sports car and most buyers of a 75K roadster aren't going to throw it around like one, yet you went on and on about how the XLR is so tossable and how the SL is so heavy, but now these cars shouldn't be judged on sports car criteria??? Simply does not make sense. 3. Labeling all BMW/MB buyers as mere status seekers like all of them are so clueless, all the while trying to make out Cadillac buyers as this incredibly well informed group of buyers when most of them wouldn't know any more about their cars than buyers of any other brand. In reality they likely know less especially when it comes to competitors cars. The only reason Cadillac is even still around is because there was a group of people so ignorant to the point that they wouldn't buy anything else during the 80's and early 90's when Cadillac heaved more junk on the road than anyone else. This applies to GM as a whole during that time and there is still a large group of GM-only folks around today which have kept the company going until recently. Perfect example of excuse making for Cadillac/GM: You continue to miss the point about the drop in STS sales and the intro of the new DTS -- the new DTS picked up some of the prior year's STS volume. Some new customers for Cadillac 4 doors prefer a larger car. They are not performance-oriented, not size-constrained, and for them the DTS works better, just as some BMW customers prefer the porky 7 to the more nimble 5. The DTS also picks up some customers in northern climates who have come to prefer the snow traction of front-wheel drive, irrespective of the fact that FWD isn't appealing to you and me. This is an excuse. So you're saying that Cadillac is so awful in marketing that they can't sell both the STS and DTS in good numbers at the same time? You've lost Cadillac's (or any car company's) plot if you think the reason for the STS' sales drop is the DTS. The idea is to sell both cars in good numbers to increase market share for the Cadillac brand, not alternate sales between the two. The STS has optional AWD so there goes the excuse about the DTS taking sales because it is FWD. No matter how you slice it, a 21 percent drop for a new model in its second year is a problem no matter what the brand is. Mercedes and BMW are able to sell their medium and large cars side by side without one of them dropping 21 percent when the other one is brand new. How about the truth for once? The STS is dropping like a rock because there are superior cars in its class. Newsflash: STS buyers aren't "performance-oriented" in the least. To even suggest that the STS is too much of a sporty car for the average Cadillac buyer to pass it over for the DTS is just plain absurd. I am not trying to open the eyes of status-seekers. They are mindless about product and driven by brand perception alone, and can only be turned around over time. I am only concerned today with car buyers who actually grasp real, meaningful product differences, know how to drive, and are brand-independent enough to be open-minded about better or more interesting product choices from a resurgent brand. Apparently a lot of buyers have been open minded about Cadillac in the last few years with their sales having risen dramatically in the last 3-4 years. My question for you is how do you know that these buyers are so well informed and so intelligent compared to BMW/MB buyers? Factual evidence please, not a story about someone you know who has an uncle/brother/nice/mother/neighbor/co-worker etc. etc. etc. that knows about cars and what you see on the road because none of that means anything here. Who and what says that Cadillac buyers more techincally astute then BMW/MB buyers??? Where is this written? Where is the proof of this? All BMW/MB buyers are mindless? That fits right in with all Cadillac buyers being geezers right? We both know that neither of those can't be true in every case. I personally don't want GM to fail, but then again if they do its their own fault...though we're talking about Cadillac here not GM. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 13, 2006 3:46 am) CTS-V has a better mix of attributes for a sporting sedan. More usable power that's more accessible in real conditions, in a more straightforward package, with more grip and stopping power than either car's buyers have the ability or courage to use. All at lower cost and less weight. It's not an excuse. Cadillac did not set out to duplicate an overengineered M5, they built a V instead. Moreover, with almost $30K price difference between the cars, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put merely SOME of that difference into tuner modifications to the V to handily outperform the M5 in the areas of advantage you cite. I can easily blow well past the M5's power and meet or exceed its grip and dynamics for much less than $30K, and I'll still have the better-looking, more usable, lighter-weight car. Hell, I can even slather it in more interior leather, too. That the STS-V's appeal over an M5 or a 7 series is a minority conclusion is irrelevant. Why would you even bring it up? If I agreed with the majority there'd be nothing to write about here. Clearly I think a lot of people are just plain wrong or at least willfully ill-informed. There are no excuses being made. Just reasons for differences. I've compared Cadillac V sedans to one-size up and one-size down BMWs. The CTS-V and STS-V sit between the BMW/Mercedes classes, so why not? A CTS-V is a better mix of performance sedan characteristics than an M3 or M5 for most drivers, whether they know it or not. An STS-V is similarly better-configured as a performance sedan than either and M5 or the "sportiest" 7 series. If more people actually drove these cars comparatively with a blind eye to brand, they'd reach the same conclusion. You keep condemning Cadillac for not meeting every spec of an M car. But they are not building M clones. They're building Vs. If Cadillac were to make the CTS-V an M5 clone, there'd be less than $28,000 difference in price between the cars. Less than $45K between an XLR-V and an SL55. Even with the traditional advantage to pragmatic American engineering, it would surely cost more to build 500 more pounds in either car and deliver more inaccessible horsepower. But how could they get there in the CTS in a better way? Let's see....7.0L LS7 from the Z06 for 505 hp and equal grunt in a lighter car. Not to mention that there's a 600+hp version of the small block under development and much more than that is cheaply reached in the aftermarket. Bigger front and rear sway bars. Make a differential cooler standard and bolster the diff case. Meatier bushings and a brace for the IRS. Punch up the spring rates a bit and stiffen the dampers some. Steering from the Z06. Z06 brakes. Bigger footprint tires and offer option of non-EMTs with a goo can. Oh...as a bone to you we'll put leather on the dash and doors and aluminum on the center stack. You're there. The M5 would be in your rear-view mirror. Uh-oh...but I forgot....WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER QUARTER TON to the car to equal BMW's engineering. How would you like your 500 lbs. of useless bulk? Bricks in the trunk? Depleted Uranium body armor in the floorpan? Maybe steel wheels with dogdish caps and cast iron in the exhaust? Geeze, it's hard find sensible ways to add all that weight, other than the upgrades in engine, suspension, brakes, tires. Or is the BMW M customer suddenly in favor of lead sound insulation? Isn't it self-evident by the $28,000 difference that a CTS-V isn't intended to clone an M5? Shall I start on the XLR-V v. SL55 along this line? None of these cars ARE sports cars. They are sporting cars. And weight is enemy to sporting characteristics as well as sensation, which is what sports cars deliver and sports sedans reach for. "Managed" weight might get to the numbers but still erodes the experience. There's no possible advantage to it. An extra quarter ton of useless bulk in a same-purpose, same-function, similar-spec performance car is bad, plain and simple. There's no way to disguise it. It infects everything from the car's economics to the sense of its behavior when changing direction. Just because grip can be engineered in doesn't make 500 pounds extra acceptable. You German car apologists and aficionados can't have it both ways. When Detroit's cars were heavy they were criticized mercilessly for their bulk. Now, the Germans are the ones packing on tubby lard and it's OK? Five-hundred pounds -- CTS-V to M5 and XLR-V to SL55. There is no consideration in which an extra quarter ton in mass is preferable in a similar-performing and same-function car that is already heavy due to luxury features. The XLR-V, based on a box-tube-frame/torque-tube, true sports car structure and chassis, is much more advanced in its vehicle engineering thinking than the tired, old-school, fat unibody SL. Remember when unibodies were supposed to be lighter? Now an aluminum bodied Audi weighs more than a steel body-on-frame Crown Vic and about the same as a Town Car. The STS is certainly sportier and perceived as harsher by Cadillac's legacy customers than a DTS. They will prefer the DTS because it's for them, not me. But the only cars we're discussing as performance cars on Cadillac's side are Vs. Yeah, the intent is to sell both cars and in fact, sales of DTS+STS last year exceeded STS+leftover old DeVille before that. The mix of sales settled into a market-driven STS and DTS proportions that trimmed STS for a year when the larger new car was introduced. So what? Now the task is to grow 2006 over 2005 for both cars. I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those c |
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 13, 2006 3:46 am) CTS-V has a better mix of attributes for a sporting sedan. More usable power that's more accessible in real conditions, in a more straightforward package, with more grip and stopping power than either car's buyers have the ability or courage to use. All at lower cost and less weight. It's not an excuse. Cadillac did not set out to duplicate an overengineered M5, they built a V instead. Moreover, with almost $30K price difference between the cars, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put merely SOME of that difference into tuner modifications to the V to handily outperform the M5 in the areas of advantage you cite. I can easily blow well past the M5's power and meet or exceed its grip and dynamics for much less than $30K, and I'll still have the better-looking, more usable, lighter-weight car. Hell, I can even slather it in more interior leather, too. That the STS-V's appeal over an M5 or a 7 series is a minority conclusion is irrelevant. Why would you even bring it up? If I agreed with the majority there'd be nothing to write about here. Clearly I think a lot of people are just plain wrong or at least willfully ill-informed. There are no excuses being made. Just reasons for differences. I've compared Cadillac V sedans to one-size up and one-size down BMWs. The CTS-V and STS-V sit between the BMW/Mercedes classes, so why not? A CTS-V is a better mix of performance sedan characteristics than an M3 or M5 for most drivers, whether they know it or not. An STS-V is similarly better-configured as a performance sedan than either and M5 or the "sportiest" 7 series. If more people actually drove these cars comparatively with a blind eye to brand, they'd reach the same conclusion. You keep condemning Cadillac for not meeting every spec of an M car. But they are not building M clones. They're building Vs. If Cadillac were to make the CTS-V an M5 clone, there'd be less than $28,000 difference in price between the cars. Less than $45K between an XLR-V and an SL55. Even with the traditional advantage to pragmatic American engineering, it would surely cost more to build 500 more pounds in either car and deliver more inaccessible horsepower. But how could they get there in the CTS in a better way? Let's see....7.0L LS7 from the Z06 for 505 hp and equal grunt in a lighter car. Not to mention that there's a 600+hp version of the small block under development and much more than that is cheaply reached in the aftermarket. Bigger front and rear sway bars. Make a differential cooler standard and bolster the diff case. Meatier bushings and a brace for the IRS. Punch up the spring rates a bit and stiffen the dampers some. Steering from the Z06. Z06 brakes. Bigger footprint tires and offer option of non-EMTs with a goo can. Oh...as a bone to you we'll put leather on the dash and doors and aluminum on the center stack. You're there. The M5 would be in your rear-view mirror. Uh-oh...but I forgot....WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER QUARTER TON to the car to equal BMW's engineering. How would you like your 500 lbs. of useless bulk? Bricks in the trunk? Depleted Uranium body armor in the floorpan? Maybe steel wheels with dogdish caps and cast iron in the exhaust? Geeze, it's hard find sensible ways to add all that weight, other than the upgrades in engine, suspension, brakes, tires. Or is the BMW M customer suddenly in favor of lead sound insulation? Isn't it self-evident by the $28,000 difference that a CTS-V isn't intended to clone an M5? Shall I start on the XLR-V v. SL55 along this line? None of these cars ARE sports cars. They are sporting cars. And weight is enemy to sporting characteristics as well as sensation, which is what sports cars deliver and sports sedans reach for. "Managed" weight might get to the numbers but still erodes the experience. There's no possible advantage to it. An extra quarter ton of useless bulk in a same-purpose, same-function, similar-spec performance car is bad, plain and simple. There's no way to disguise it. It infects everything from the car's economics to the sense of its behavior when changing direction. Just because grip can be engineered in doesn't make 500 pounds extra acceptable. You German car apologists and aficionados can't have it both ways. When Detroit's cars were heavy they were criticized mercilessly for their bulk. Now, the Germans are the ones packing on tubby lard and it's OK? Five-hundred pounds -- CTS-V to M5 and XLR-V to SL55. There is no consideration in which an extra quarter ton in mass is preferable in a similar-performing and same-function car that is already heavy due to luxury features. The XLR-V, based on a box-tube-frame/torque-tube, true sports car structure and chassis, is much more advanced in its vehicle engineering thinking than the tired, old-school, fat unibody SL. Remember when unibodies were supposed to be lighter? Now an aluminum bodied Audi weighs more than a steel body-on-frame Crown Vic and about the same as a Town Car. The STS is certainly sportier and perceived as harsher by Cadillac's legacy customers than a DTS. They will prefer the DTS because it's for them, not me. But the only cars we're discussing as performance cars on Cadillac's side are Vs. Yeah, the intent is to sell both cars and in fact, sales of DTS+STS last year exceeded STS+leftover old DeVille before that. The mix of sales settled into a market-driven STS and DTS proportions that trimmed STS for a year when the larger new car was introduced. So what? Now the task is to grow 2006 over 2005 for both cars. I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those c
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 13, 2006 3:46 am) I don't think I have ever said in any of this exchange that Cadillac buyers are in general better informed than others. You've said I said it, but I didn't. I did point out that most MB/BMW buyers are brand seekers who know little about their cars, and that's true. If they knew more about the products themselves and ignored brand, fewer would be sold. Now from a marketing standpoint, people buying on brand alone is exactly what you want, so no quarrel with what those companies have achieved as marketers. You could argue I've implied that *I'm* better informed and that some people reflexively buying BMWs and MBs would actually be happier in Cadillacs if they took the time to learn the comparatives on an objective and experiential basis. I've said brand-seeking buyers are mindless about product, and this is true across the board. I've also said this is true for MB and BMW buyers OUTSIDE of their much smaller core aficionado constituency that actually does know about their cars. This latter is a small group and I am not concerned with them. They bought BMWs specifically for BMW's mix of attributes and they consciously don't care about the downsides. No issue there. I haven't said at any time that Cadillac buyers are more technically astute. You've injected that claim. I perhaps only implied that I am and more people should be. Phil
|
|
| Let's get back on track, please -- this is the XLR/XLR-V discussion. If you want to talk about the STS, DTS, or CTS, we have topics for each of them in the Sedans Forum. Thanks. | |
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 13, 2006 3:46 am) My other associates experience with BMW is on a similar parallel, some with even worse experiences on the 7 series. The horror stories on the 5 (since it is relatively new) have only recently begin to hit with similar impact. You have consistently defended the inexorable and inexcusable engineering excess (primarily read that as obesity)of the SL(the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over with the expectation that something will change). I would like you to turn your attention to the latest Business Week, and to the report on how Boeing is (my term,"kicking Airbus's ass") by demonstrating the superiority of design utilizing the advantages of light weight provided by using composites in the design. The design wins are overwhelming, and it must be noted that Cadillac has chosen similar design goals. As an chemist and engineer myself, I found it very enlightening when I compared (with test drives) the SL500, XK, 650 and XLR. All are competent cars, but I found the XLR (coincidentally the lightest in the group) to be the the best car when it came to handling AND comfort. I did not know at the time that I test drove the XLR that it was a re-bodied, re-suspensioned, re-comforted Corvette, but it becsme obvious thirty minutes after exploring the car. Cadillac has spent a huge amount of capital in reversing their earlier ills, but I, for one, think that if they can get their product into a previous MB or BMW hands, believe that the "perception will no longer be the reality", and Cadillac will reverse the trend they started.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Cadillac XLR and XLR-V Cadillac XLR and XLR-V
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Cadillac XLR-V
2009 Cadillac XLR
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
