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: 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Apr 13, 2006 8:41 am) I have never seem so much written in order to spin/cover up the obvious superiority of the BMW M5, yet in the end the CTS-V is on the trailer. Feel free to speculate about Cadillac putting a 1000000hp engine in the CTS-V, but until they do all that is just that, speculation. 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. No way, driven the STS and previous Devilles, uncles had Cadillacs for years and I've driven the new STS a few times. That is nothing but an excuse there unless the DTS got softer from previous generations, which I doubt since they're calling it a DTS now. Fact is that the STS is dropping in only its second year on the market, don't care who thinks it rides which way or whatever, sales are sales at the end of the day and Cadillac needs them in order to prop up a dying GM. The fact that they can't sell both cars without one having so much effect on the other (per your excuse) says a lot about Cadillac. If Cadillac was serious about becoming something agin the FWD DTS needs to go or be redesign to bring it up to date with other large luxury cars. 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. The contradictions here are amazing. One minute these are not sports cars yet weight is a problem. You're right they aren't sports cars which is they the Cadillac's being lighter doesn't help them when they're trimmed in cheapo materials which is something that luxury car buyers care more about than flinging around a 100K car. 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. Your comparision doesn't have any basis because these German cars you're trying to say are to heavy can easily outperform the Cadillacs you're trying to compare them with and secondly that American junk you're talking about couldn't get out of its own way and had the build of a boxcar. Big difference compared to today's cars. I'll give you that the A8 should be lighter considering its construction, but compared to Lincoln Town Car? Don't be ridiculous. The Audi's interior furnishings alone embarrase anything from any American car company and it also has AWD which adds weight not to mention it is just a superior car. M |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Apr 13, 2006 8:42 am) And I'm saying that you don't have any way of knowing this beyond your own experience with them so you don't know what the percentage is and that more importantly you have know way of knowing that Cadillac buyers are any more intelligent. 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. Ok, I'll go with this but you still don't know how large that group of MB/BMW buyers are that know about their products. Since there is no way to measure this why bring it up? It's pointless. M |
|
|
Replying to: xlrguy (Apr 15, 2006 5:49 pm) I will not dwell on this point any more, but I would like you to note that MB is now far behind the latest upstarts (given that MB likes to state that they are the oldest car manufacturer in the world) from Korea when it comes to quality, warranty, value, and customer loyalty. I won't dwell on it either, but Korean cars don't even come close to MB in other areas. A better warranty is needed because everyone remember the junk they've built in the past and the driving experience isn't even up to Japanese levels let alone anything from Germany. Don't get into an accident in a Korean car either, nothing but tins cans designed to get 5-stars in government and nothing more. The only thing "quality" about a Korean car is the fine way they have in working plastiwood and placing well in relibility surveys...while they deliver a sup-par driving experience and tin-can build intergrity. 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. And others have defended similar flaws in the XLR and even have gone so far to completely disregard them when everyone else seems them. Thats the definition of insanity, you know the "they're all making it up" condition. There is nothing "inexorable and inexcusable" about the SL's engineering. That is absurd and really a baseless claim unless you know the complete interworkings of the car. You seem to have also forgotten that the SL isn't a sports car its a GT cars as is the XLR. Now if you found the XLR to be more competent (as at least one other here) then good for you. Problem is that the things you call "inexorable and inexcusable" are what make the SL the class leader and until cars like the XLR become more well rounded they'll forever play second fiddle. I hardly think the average buyer in this class cares about the weight of the car compared to the interior, features, comfort and overall experience (not just handling) and besides it isn't like the SL can't handle. Others here will argue that XLR can outhandle the SL500, but that isn't what the professionals say. Can't comment on the SL55 vs the XLR-V, haven't driven either. Seems like you're willing to excuse anything Cadillac does for whatever reason when I find the interior of the XLR to be "inexorable and inexcusable" for its price as well as its looks, IMO. M |
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 16, 2006 9:49 pm)  108.5, top speed is 155 MPH, 60-0 is 116 feet, 100-0 is 203 feet, the slalom was 66.4 MPH, and the observed gas mileage was 18.2 MPG. The CTS-V has the following stats to compare:5.0, 11.4, 13.4109, 163, 115, 202, 66.0, and 17.1. I simply do not see the huge performance disparity that you quote. The cars seem very well matched to me, performance wise. The comment about the "truck engine" is one of the most false statements I have ever heard. These forums are good for that though. Just make a statement - that makes it true.
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Apr 16, 2006 9:49 pm) A business acquaintence needed a ride from the airport yesterday. He drives an SL55, which has caused him no end of glitch torture. Anyway, he got in my XLR-v, not being familiar with the car. After a couple of miles, his first comment about the car was "What the hell is this? It feels way more nimble than my SL55." His second comment, looking around the interior was, "This is a Cadillac? They did a beautiful job on this car!" He agreed with me that the carpet should be upgraded. Premium gasoline hit $3.32 last night in SoCal. I had a late business dinner and then had to drive from Orange County back to L.A. I filled up before I left. 71 miles of night freeway driving, average speed of 82 mph, my gas mileage was 25.2 mpg. Not bad for a 443hp car with a juice drive. I've had the car 2 months as of today, 3000 miles. Like high-end audio gear and new guitars, the car benefits from break-in, so new owners should be patient about little extraneous noises. They all emanate from the top. Little chatters on rough pavement caused by glass-to-weatherseal interfaces and new seal-to-seal interfaces. I've heard the same thing from new SLs and Lexi too. But at about 6 weeks suddenly the seams settle in and the car quiets down. During this time if you need any assurance that the car is rock solid, put the top down and you'll hear that nothing moves that isn't supposed to. Another thing is that people just love this car. It gets nothing but favorable attention and response. The German luxury brand mindset has attracted so much social arrogance to it that many people resent a Porsche, BMW or Merc. Not this car. Like a Mustang, a Mini, a Ford GT, everyone has a soft spot for it. It is unifying rather than polarizing. Drivers of Bentleys, slammed Acuras, Mustang GTs, BMWs, Mercs, F150s, Mini Coopers and Ferraris give the car smiles and thumbs-up. The real arbiters of street cred, the Latino valet crowd, love this machine. I get more favorable lot position for the XLR-v than anything short of a Maranello or Gallardo. Weight is a problem in any car with sporting intentions. 500 lbs extra in the Merc! Ridiculous. Even the guy yesterday had to observe, "Makes my SL feel positively fat." Yeah. Looks it too. Side by side, the SL just looks old and in the way. Anyway, if you can't understand how deleterious a surplus quarter ton is to the character of a 2 seat GT with performance aspirations, I suppose no words will move the ball upfield. Not one of those larded up German cars "easily" outperforms its V series match. As another poster already illustrated, the vast differences you claim are fiction. In either car, the superior driver wins. My point about Audi vs Town Car mass was not to compare the cars but to point out that to make an aluminum car as heavy as a body-on-frame all steel behemoth is truly a reflection of overengineering run amok. It's just a shame so many clueless brand seekers don't have the sense to reject this approach. I recognize the missing 500 lbs. in my XLR-v in the arc of every turn. Phil
|
|
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
