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
|
|
|---|---|
|
I think the salient point here is that Phil did his research, test drove the contenders and bought the car(s) that best suited his needs, wants and desires. He has posted his thoughts here, which I appreciate. They are no less right or wrong than anybody else's opinions. I'm no fan of GM, but the XLR intrigues me (the CTS does not in the least. Mostly due to its exterior and just terrible interior. Although I think its been upgraded a bit?). Any car can be compared, and compete, with any car. The measures and results of that comparison/competition are up to the individual to determine/interpret/apply to their situation. C & D recently did a (mostly favorable) write up of the XLRv and in the bar chart comparisons used the SL500 (and Vette Z06, Lexus SC430 if I remember). Just from the charts, the Vette was the clear winner/value. The SL500 matched up nicely with the XLRv, I assume they compared the v and SL500 due to price? Anyway, XLR owners, please keep posting your experience. '05 prices continue to fall and my mid-life crisis begin many, many years ago!
|
|
|
Replying to: laurasdada (Mar 23, 2006 9:56 am) You brought up the CTS-v. We bought one on the same day as the XLR-v. It is unconditionally a rockin' car! But it isn't what a lot of people think of as a $50K luxury car. That Corvette LS2 is a genuinely meaty engine and the 6 speed manual puts you to work. The driver must drive -- there's no option to delegate the pilothouse duties to software and machinery. It sounds like a wide-open small block when you hit the spurs, and otherwise is voiced to announce its presence in a manner that is more reticent than a muscle car, but not retiring like a Lexus or Merc. Handling is everything reputed for it -- very tenacious with controllable slip, with beautiful steering, great sightlines out of the car, excellent brake modulation and plenty of throttle steer on tap when you slip the Stabilitrack into performance mode. As for the CTS-v interior, it is techie and modern. Ergonomics are quite good with the singular exception of the floor-pedal e-brake rather than a console hand-brake. Serious old-school lapse there. Seats are terrific and it is easy to find a great driving position. Technology integration is pretty seamless and well-thought-out. The touch surfaces are largely plastic, but plastics are good quality. Some people think it looks cheap. I think it is an alternate aesthetic with perfectly good materials. Essentially, the polarizing exterior properties have been brought inside. You might not like it, but you can't accuse it of not representing a point-of-view. The brushed metal door grab handles and the door latch handles are a very nice touch, where the designers really nailed a detail on touch. For its size the CTS-v has gobs of trunk space in an efficient wheels-at-the-corners package. I am 6'3" and I can just sit behind myself in the back seat. The structure of the car is torsionally stiff and feels strong. Really, unless you just can't live with the design cues, the CTS-v is a whale of a bargain, if you're judging on capabilities first. Anyway, we really, REALLY like our CTS-v and didn't see anything else in the category that was compelling as an alternative. If we had included front drive cars, perhaps there'd be some contenders, but among the rear-drive brigade, nothing matches it in that bracket. The 3 series is too small inside to function as a true 4 door, and the 5 series doesn't feel worth its premium when the CTS-v exists. Mercedes has nothing in the class with a manual tranny or an engine with that much charcter. The Chrysler 300 and variants feels porky by comparison and while its interior has more design glitz, it is all facade and we felt the Caddy interior is executed with more attention to detail. Lincoln has nothing in the class. Every Lexus is comparatively too soft and the rest of GM can't match the car. So we know lots of people will contest the idea of preferring a Cadillac CTS-v over a BMW, Mercedes or Audi performance model, we stand by our choice. Especially in V form, the CTS is highly distinctive and the chassis is ultra-competent. And yes, let's ignore the people complaining about wheel hop when they drop the clutch at 3500 rpm in an independent rear suspension 4-door with nearly 400 lb/ft of torque!! Sheesh -- get a solid back axle Mustang GT already and bolt a supercharger in it, fer cryin' out loud. I expect the next version of the CTS-v to get an interior upgrade to look and feel a little richer. OK. But I have to say that when you drive the CTS-v, you quickly get engaged by the emotion intrinsic to the car, fully imbued in it by its Corvette heart, and you understand there isn't another car like it with its particular emotional profile. IF that clicks with you when you drive it, everything else competing fades to grey. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 22, 2006 11:45 pm) The STS definitely competes with a 7 series, and the STSv certainly. The big Germans, again, feel ponderous and unnecessarily porky, though they are well-sprung. The STS is a different take on the same theme, more comfortable but a little less incisive. The STSv addresses that. Someone might like the German take, someone else might not. They're all big 4-door sedans to move people around in civilized fashion. I've driven the M versions of the 3 and 5 series. The M3 is too small inside to function as a 4-passenger, and the M5 has poor interior space utilization for its exterior size. It performs well, to be sure. The older V8 powered car wasn't worth the premium over the CTS-v as a performance 4-door, and the new V10 powered car is aesthetically challenged and aurally disturbing. Really, a V10. What's the point? The older V8 powered car was more in balance. These are all overpowered 4 doors, which is a vehicle type in which you can't really use sports car performance but some of us buy them anyway. The CTS-v is enough and if I want to put more power in it, there are myriad ways to get that done and further tune the handling and grip. I just didn't think an M5 is worth the additional money; it's less distinctive visually than the CTS-v; and the brand has too much arrogance associated with it. An M5 is a little embarrassing because of that. Would rather leapfrog it for a Quattroporte Sport and get something genuinely beautiful (which a current BMW or Mercedes ain't), rather than something generic and obvious like the M or AMG. The vast majority of buying of luxury goods is imitative. It's not that a Cadillac is perfect. It isn't. Whatever you think of them now, I can guarantee the next ones will be better still. I do think the new Caddies get criticized for perceived deficiencies that are not meaningful to the purchase outside of herd-mentality brand seeking. It's that it is different, distinctive, and fully credible on the engineering & performance. Personally, I'd rather be associated with a comeback effort built on product advances, than with the elitist arrogance and the worsening product aesthetics associated with BMW and Mercedes. And, a quarter ton of needless bulk is evident to anyone paying attention, even at school-zone speeds. I would have to hide in shame. I was driving home from work today. 18 miles through L.A. traffic. I saw 5 SL55s and I counted 13 SL500/600. Funny thing was, in all cases they were maneuvering to get a look at my XLR-v. I looked at those funny Camaro overhangs front and rear, and half expected to see those SL drivers in mullet haircuts. Man, that thing's proporations just look old and dorky next to the Cadillac. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 23, 2006 11:31 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: anthonyp (Mar 25, 2006 8:09 pm) The car is stable at speed. Compared to the vast majority of even V8s on the road, driving this with my toes can put me up someone's tail pretty quickly. In terms of gas mileage, with the drivetrain not even run in yet, I am getting 15 mpg in daily stop-and-go LA traffic, and 22+ on open freeway at 80+ mph. And that's with the auto trans in "Sport Auto Mode" with some manual shift actuation mixed in. No question the XLR-v is more sports-car tuned than the SLs. It is quick and the suspension isn't really luxury oriented in the settings I use for the car. It can be made softer in the mainstream setting for transmission/suspension behavior. The Pirelli Eurfori run-flat tires definitely transmit more road grain and pavement shock than regular inflated tires would, and they are noisier than what's normally on a luxury-oriented car. I don't mind it. These are 3rd gen run-flats and I'm impressed with their grip and progressive slip near limit. And the limits are quite high. The cabin is comfortable on a long trip, but of course it doesn't have the stretch-out room of a large sedan, nor the sedateness of a large sedan's long wheelbase and isolation. But then if I wanted that most of the time I'd have bought an STS-v. I can swap with my wife's CTS-v when I need that. I'm about as tall as a person can be and still sit in the XLR/XLR-v comfortably. I have no idea how Michael Jordan fits in his. But then I fit in this and I can't drive a P-911 more than 20 minutes. I know the interior continues to be a controversial point, but the longer I live with what's in the XLR-v the more I appreciate the straightforwardness of its design, layout and materials. The much-maligned gauge cluster is very clean and at night its clarity is exceptional, not to mention the HUD. It seems like a gimmick on paper, but the steering-sync headlights are phenomenal, and reduce fatigue in lengthy night driving. You're just not peering around curves, straining to see wildlife, kids or other obstacles. And you get a fantastic fan of horizontally dispersed but vertically limited brilliant white light. To me, the headlight pattern is much more useful and better planned than on the Maserati or the SLs. There is no cowl shake on this car at all, and the steering column stays steady in your hands, again proving responsive while reducing the fatigue factors. The fan for the climate control seems a little noisier than expected when the center vents are wide open. Small point. The nav system seems to have a very robust database of locations and it occasionally puts an address 50 yards away from its actual location, but that doesn't seem peculiar to Cadillac. I like a car to have sounds, and this XLR-v is aurally distinctive. Hushed in town at low speeds, with just enough low thrum to telegraph its meaty motor. Then if you put your foot into it, the pipes valves flip open for some supercar wail as the 4 cammer spins up. Everyone knows when you're rocketing in this mode. The cool thing for long trips is the near turbine-like whirl of the supercharger under moderate acceleration. It's a future sound, not retro, that goes well with the exterior design theme of the car. Uh.....going into triple digits of velocity proves the car's solidity, stability and aerodynamic equilibrium. Brakes are strong, linear and effective with excellent pedal feel to me. I have no doubt that to some, the SL will feel more sybaritic and plush inside in motion. It also feels less incisive, less sharp, and wears its mass on its sleeve. Also, top down with no windblocker, the cabin is calm enough with the windows down, and quite conversational with the windows up. The car should have nicer carpet for its price. So far, seats are firm and supportive. The suede inserts do their job of holding you in place, in lieu to deep tight bolstering. One thing I didn't mention before. I was really surprised how strongly Onstar resonated with my wife when we were looking for cars for both of us. She was all-but-willing to limit her vehicle selections to Onstar-equipped models. I am hoping XM Radio debuts Dylan's new weekly DJ show before my comp 90 days sub runs out, so I can see whether this service is worth buying! Phil |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 24, 2006 6:30 pm) No the STS/STS-V doesn't compete with the 7-Series. That is typcial GM overeaching in order to avoid the real competition. The M5 is the competitor to the STS-V not the more luxury-biased 7-Series and the same goes for the STS V8 and the 550i. Why is it that GM supporters always try to put the STS up against the 7-Series and pretend like the 5-Series/M5 doesn't exists? Is it because they know the 5-Series/M5 will easily put the STS/STS-V on the trailer? Of course it is. I'm not going to even going into the many excuses I'm reading about why the M5 didn't make the cut when everyone knows it is superior car to anything GM makes. You found the M5 to be inferior because of the image associated with it? Ok. You may find the CTS-V to your liking, and thats ok, but that car isn't even in the same league with the M5 neither is the STS-V when it comes to performance. Not going to debate which looks better, brand associated arrogance and what not, but the numbers don't lie...the M5 roasts anything in the "V" stable. I can't believe you would actually mention the word "balance" to knock the M5 while at the same time while trying to make a point about the STS-V a car that is even less "balanced". That is a very specious argument to say the least. It is amazing how you seem to be able to knock BMW and Mercedes for the things they have compared to what GM doesn't have. Now a V10 is pointless? Yet that V10 is an engineering masterpiece and allows BMW's M5 to blow the doors off of any GM sedan made today, including both "V" series Cadillacs. You also seem to think that Cadillac is now some type of performance brand when you can go to any Cadillac dealer and find regular STSs on the lot with carriage roofs. I mean really all this talk about weight, image (when Cadillac's still isn't nearly on the same plane as MB/BMW) and how Cadillacs are different takes on the same thing I just find to be some of most ridiculous things I've read on the site in quite some time. They have 3 impressive performance tuned cars one of them crude and hell (CTS-V) and the other two are impressive, but lack the build, refinement and in most cases the performance (handling isn't the only performance criteria) to compete with the class leaders head on. This sentiment has been echoed by everyone who has experienced these cars so where you get this about a "different asthetic" and different take from I'll never know because looking at their interiors/performance it reeks of grand excuse making IMO. I'll give you that Cadillac's image is on the mend. Why that is so is kinda funny to me when I look at how unnattractive their cars are, but that is just me because I grew up around Cadillacs and even when they were at their junkiest they were still "pretty" unlike now. The truth of the matter is Cadillac has built a very good alternative to the usual suspects from BMW/Mercedes, not a superior vehicle. This is typical GM practice and the latest and greatest Cadillacs are no different. Now you can juggle the classes around like saying the STS-V competes with the 7-Series while ignoring the M5, but most know better than to fall for that nonesense. You really expect a car like a 750i/Li to keep pace on a track with a STS-V and then when it doesn't you knock the BMW for being some type of inferior vehicle? Its absurd. And, a quarter ton of needless bulk is evident to anyone paying attention, even at school-zone speeds. I would have to hide in shame. Ridiculous over-dramatization. If that is the case then certainly a cheaply made interior in a Cadillac is apparent to anyone paying attention just by sitting in one. A "different asthetic" isn't cheap. A Maser has a "different asthetic", but the materials aren't cheap. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 27, 2006 5:27 am) Against the 7, the STS makes perfect sense. Against the 5, less so, though the V can play. The M5 is capable, no question. I said so. But the V10 is a misstep on BMW's part. It's unnecessarily heavy, it doesn't sound good for a car of that expense and class, and they haven't exhausted what they can do with a V8. Sure, it's an advanced engine. But so what? Most manufacturers have advanced engines that can go toe-to-toe with one another. Certainly GM is no slacker there. Neither is BMW. But the V10 doesn't do anything positive for the balance of the car. So, I am not pretending that the 5-series doesn't exist. I just see the CTS as the car that is closest to it functionally, and the CTS-v is what Cadillac has presently against the M5. By the way, the magazines seem to agree since THAT'S the pairing they've nearly all elected to review since the CTS debuted. Put another way, the 5 series is a car sharply skewed to drivers at the expense of passengers in transit. The STS and STS-v strike different balances between driver and travel. Most people, if you blindfolded them, would rather travel in the STS or STS-v. A lot of people buying M5s really belong in sports cars or GTs, but they are prioritizing driver thrill over passenger experience. The STS turns that dial a little bit in the other direction. I didn't say the M5 was inferior to the CTS-v. I said I wasn't willing to be part of the negative brand associations. That's not a function of the car itself as physical object. It's true that the STS-v is less balanced than the M5. I admitted as much in pointing out that the car is a different take on performance-oriented luxury. Again, the STS-v is the better car to travel in. The M5 is a little sharper to the driver and now even more aggressive. Ho-hum. You could almost buy a Z06 + a CTS 6 and get better optimization on both planes. The Cadillac V Series is a performance sub-brand. Cadillac in general is once again a quality and luxury brand and all their cars, including the DTS, are now highly competent handlers in their class, with strong drivetrains now that the 3.6L V6 is in place for the CTS, SRX and STS, and good brakes. Let's face it, not every BMW is a performance car and certainly many Mercedes models are far from it. Plus, I look at the gold-badging / gold + chrome wheels crowd in the BMW/Mercedes/Lexus camp as being just as tasteless as any Cadillac customer who salivates for a padded vinyl roof. Everybody is paying their price in brand dilution for volume and ubiquity to satisfy Wall Street. You don't like Cadillac's current "Art & Science" edges design theme? Ok, can't argue with that. I like it and so do the people buying them. Sales are sharply up so it is appealing to somebody. To me, the Chris Bangle cars at BMW are hideous to the point where I couldn't remotely consider "wearing" any of them. But plenty of people prefer them for reasons of their own. Mercedes has lost a sense of design discipline for how to become expressive in design. But this is to be expected from a marque that made slab-sided expressionless cars (though competently engineered) for about 30 years and is trying to recapture a formerly-dormant sense of style. Everyone is in transition coping with globalization and an aggressive Toyota. The same reason you want to give the 750i a pass against the STS-v is why you should be forgiving of the 10/10ths margin between the STS-v and the M5. And I didn't say the 750 is inferior to the STS-v, just that it FEELS comparatively ponderous, though it is well sprung to mitigate the problem. They both have great drivetrains for their class. The Cadillacs ARE a different aesthetic. Frankly, I don't want an overwrought and understyled Mercedes interior. I like the Cadillac cabin better. A little more leather here and there would be great. But the only cheap material I see in both our Cadillacs is the carpet. There, GM's finance knuckleheads are front-and-center. Otherwise, the plastics are fine, the leathers are satisfying. And in my V cars, there's no fake wood, plus the instruments are clean, crisp, well-presented and legible at the slightest glance. Maserati has special skill and competence in their interior sensibilities and craft, which Cadillac, MB, BMW & Lexus don't match. No one is going to duplicate it. However, some of the switchgear in the Maser is cheap and feels it. But the overall effect is to completely distract you from that. Frankly, for the most part, the XLR-v has better switchgear than does the Maser. The CTS-v isn't expected to be at the same level, being only a $50K car. The Maser has more and richer leather, in beautiful colors. But, you know, there's just no retractable hardtop and the Cambiocorsa is clunky when you're at any speed other than high. Every one of these cars involves some trade-offs to get their strengths. You've chosen to ignore that an extra QUARTER TON of dead weight is a disadvantage in a relatively small, 2 seat GT. To me, that's a failure of imagination and conviction on the part of engineers and product planners, which I'd be embarrassed to reinforce with a purchase. That doesn't mean they aren't competent cars in other ways. But we're in a dialog about comparatives between 6 figure cars -- an esoteric exchange is there ever was one. I've just been outlining for you why MB failed to win my sale, and why I think the brand-lemming market's criteria for product selection between the XLR-v and the SL55 is dated or even wrong. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 27, 2006 5:29 pm) The M5 is capable, no question. I said so. But the V10 is a misstep on BMW's part. It's unnecessarily heavy, it doesn't sound good for a car of that expense and class, and they haven't exhausted what they can do with a V8. Sure, it's an advanced engine. But so what? Most manufacturers have advanced engines that can go toe-to-toe with one another. Certainly GM is no slacker there. Neither is BMW. But the V10 doesn't do anything positive for the balance of the car. Says who? The V10 is a mistake when this car has literally inhaled the entire segment in every performance category possible? Just say you don't like the M5 because your argument has no credibility here. Who says BMW has to stick with a V8? They were at 5L already so maybe they don't want to go the Mercedes route with a 6.2L V8 to get more power so they added more cylinders. If the STS-V isn't as balanced as the M5 then what is the point of mentioning "balance" in the first place when the M5 is still better in that regard? You say the V10 hasn't done anything to help the balance of the M5, but it hasn't done anything to hurt it either. I just see the CTS as the car that is closest to it functionally, and the CTS-v is what Cadillac has presently against the M5. By the way, the magazines seem to agree since THAT'S the pairing they've nearly all elected to review since the CTS debuted. Well if that is the case it is a no-contest. The M5 will smoke the CTS-V quite easily. I'm only aware of one mag (C&D) that compared the old M5 with the CTS-V after the old M5 was out of production. What I have seen is the CTS-V get beaten by the Audi S4 and this has happened more than once, but that is another conversation. Put another way, the 5 series is a car sharply skewed to drivers at the expense of passengers in transit. Yeah sure. Let's face it, not every BMW is a performance car and certainly many Mercedes models are far from it. Plus, I look at the gold-badging / gold + chrome wheels crowd in the BMW/Mercedes/Lexus camp as being just as tasteless as any Cadillac customer who salivates for a padded vinyl roof. Everybody is paying their price in brand dilution for volume and ubiquity to satisfy Wall Street. And every Cadillac is? Mercedes and BMW don't make a fwd barge like the DTS and they're cars are more driver orientated than your average Cadillac is, especially the STS and DTS. I haven't seen a gold-badged Mercedes since the mid-nineties. Ditto for BMW. Don't care about Lexus, that group tends to be tacky anyway, pint-stripes and what not, but what I do see is Cadillac DTS and STS models being sold today with carriage roofs and gold badging. This is tradition with some Cadillac dealers so this mesg you have about them being on par with MB/BMW hasn't reached them yet obviously. The same reason you want to give the 750i a pass against the STS-v is why you should be forgiving of the 10/10ths margin between the STS-v and the M5. And I didn't say the 750 is inferior to the STS-v, just that it FEELS comparatively ponderous, though it is well sprung to mitigate the problem. They both have great drivetrains for their class. The problem with this is that the STS-V and 750i aren't competitors. The STS-V competes with the M5 to anyone that hasn't fallen for GM's line. If BMW made an M7 you'd have a point, but they don't. The 750i isn't a tuner car like the STS-V, I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. You just stated that the "V" cars are sub-brand within Cadillac right? So why compare specialized tuner products to "regular" BMW models when BMW has tuner models also? The 750i doesn't need a pass from me, it sets the dynamic standards (or did) in its class of cars which are the S-Class, A8, LS430, and XJ. Me ignoring (not) the weight difference of the SL compared to you ignoring or making excuses for Cadillac having cheaped out on the interiors on the 77K STS-V or 100K XLR-V is the same thing. Difference is that I see far more complaints about the Cadillacs having a "K-Mart" (Motor Trend on the XLR-V) interior than I see people complaining about not being able to toss around a SL like a Lotus. This about a "different aesthetic" is just an excuse IMO and if this about a "different aesthetic" were really true reviewers wouldn't complain about these interiors as loudly as they do. They would be able to recognize a "different aesthetic" like they do in a car like a Maser, Jag or Aston. Having a "different aesthetic" doesn't mean cheap no matter how you word it. You can have a "different aesthetic" while using quality materials. The base SL500 and XLR have been compared and in all but one contest the SL500 beat the XLR, so I'm really anxious to see someone compare the SL55 to the XLR-V. Can't wait to see what they have to say about the handling of each. I've just been outlining for you why MB failed to win my sale... I understand that but you're passing certain things off as facts (while ridiculously over exaggerating things about the competition) while making these Cadillacs (and the Cadillac brand) out to be superior when every source possible has stated that they aren't. They're merely competitive or at best a decent alternative, but superior not. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 27, 2006 10:27 pm) And by the way, the STS-v is positioned as a performance sedan, not a sports sedan. That's the CTS-v's role. That DTS Cadillac makes isn't a barge anymore, but it does have FWD. Not appealing to me. But for its market, it's sharp, capable, comfortable, and more so compared to anything else offered to them. The Germans blew their brand purity when they added SUVs, so let's admit that no thoroughbreds are left here. If you haven't seen a gold-badged Merc or BMW since the 1990s, you haven't been to Southern California for awhile. I see a new one every day. I put that and faux roadster roofs in the same bin. I don't really care about the ultimate numbers a 4 door sedan can put up. Several competitors getting close puts them in a practical category, and then the characters of the cars can come through as differentiators. If I want a hard-edge car for hard-core performance, I'll buy a powerful balanced sports car like a Z06 or a Ford GT. A sedan that skews too far to that objective is a silly object. I think Cadillac has that balance about right with the CTS-v. I can also tell you from experience that if, in the rare situation you have 3 passengers who want to feel a driver really exercise his M5, the extra mass of those bodies also degrades the precision claimed for the car. I don't evaluate 4 door sedans as sports cars. I evaluate them as sedans. And on that count, the Cadillacs are fully legitimate contenders albeit different in their design brief. The magazine quant results are interesting, entertaining, and given the number of good cars contending -- esoteric. Nothing says BMW has to stick with a V8 in the M5. I'm saying it would be preferable if they had. The V10 adds unnecessary complexity, mass and dimension, which has to be managed through additional engineering. There are a lot of ways to get the horsepower up. I think BMW chose the least desirable path available to them, and certainly the least impressive, from a standpoint of projecting engineering wisdom. But, the path they chose they did execute well. I doubt you will see that V10 get long-term development and it will prove to be an anomlie in BMW's engine roster. We've already been over the STS/7 issue. But again, GM doesn't make the claim. Market behavior is my reference. It's also fully legit to compare an STS with a 7. STS to 750 and STS-v to 760. BMW's entire brand is performance, not luxury -- "The Ultimate Driving Machine." It doesn't take an M badge for BMW to claim performance advantage. On power, torque and dimensions, a 760 is the closest match BMW has to an STS-v. A quarter ton of needless bulk outweighs needling concerns about interior materials. We're just not going to get any closer than we are on that issue. The only "cheap" material in my XLR-v interior is the carpet. Mercedes interiors aren't paragons of reference quality these days, so what's the big deal? The interior issues loom large in the minds of many buyers, but the differences are badly exaggerated by reviewers. But that surplus quarter ton? It ain't going anywhere. You can't send your SL out to have it excised like I can have an upholsterer put some added leather in my interior. No matter how much engineering cleverness Mercedes applies to manage that extra quarter ton, it announces itself in every dynamic change and makes the car less fun. The mass is a fact. My view that the SL interior is overwrought is opinion. Mercedes not being the defining standard of the world in interiors is pretty much shared fact for the past decade or more. OK, you can still prefer the SL. No problem. I'm here to say for all who have heard and read that the Caddy has a K-mart interior, that in fact it doesn't. It's better than you've been led to believe and the rest of the car has real advantages making it worth consideration against MB. I sure hope, however, that some kind of advantage is revealed for an SL55, because I priced one recently equipped to parallel an XLR-v and it stickered only a few thousand shy of $150K. This SL has a bunch more torque from over a litre more displacement. 50 more hp than the XLR-v -- that shouldn't be too hard to find with a little tuning and configuring. The SL55's additional 94 lb/ft probably can't be found without a real project. Can't easily make all of that deficit up, but some. So you'll be able to pummel your IRS a little harder on hard launches. Snooze. If we wanted real racers, we'd abandon this class of car and you'd save 1200 lbs. with a Z06, and I'd trim 700 myself going that route. For the additional $40K+, I'd be a lot more impressed to see that extra mass avoided. I don't care about other sources. I've stated I think the rest of the army is out of step on this comparison. I've already said that I think the XLR-v is unfairly criticized for its interior and price, by people who don't grasp its mission as an alternative to an established order. If I were valuing interior above all else, I'd buy neither the Mercedes nor the Cadillac. XLR-v a different prioritization for the same design brief and every difference I've outlined will be plainly evident to anyone who drives both. What remains is for people to decide whether the alternative view represented by GM is meaningful to them. I don't know whether an STS-v is superior to a 750 or 760, yet. I know it is a competitive alternative. But I do know my XLR-v is a superior object of its type compared to an SL anything for reasons amply outlined here. And relative to a 5 series I definitely enjoy a CTS-v more. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 28, 2006 2:09 am) The Cadillac has not been designed to be a full-on assault against the M5 as an M5 clone. It is a car with a different mix. Its difference in balance isn't a matter of weight distribution as much as it is in choices for dynamics. It might be a price issue for some. But for many, a little time in all three cars leads to the conclusion that the STS and 7 seemed paired more than the STS and 5, just as the CTS feels much more like a 5 than a 3. More excuses. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you try to get around it, the M5 ranks over anything from Cadillac, STS-V or CTS-V. You can go on forever spinning the reasons as to which "V" model competes with the M5 and how/why, but it really doesn't matter because the M5 will take them both out in a heartbeat. Cadillac's intention was to compete with the M5, period. Doesn't matter which V car you choose because they both get spanked. End of story. And by the way, the STS-v is positioned as a performance sedan, not a sports sedan. That's the CTS-v's role. Oh, and it gets trounced in that role by the M5. That DTS Cadillac makes isn't a barge anymore, but it does have FWD. Not appealing to me. But for its market, it's sharp, capable, comfortable, and more so compared to anything else offered to them. The Germans blew their brand purity when they added SUVs, so let's admit that no thoroughbreds are left here. If you haven't seen a gold-badged Merc or BMW since the 1990s, you haven't been to Southern California for awhile. I see a new one every day. I put that and faux roadster roofs in the same bin. It is so a barge with wrong-wheel-drive. It doesn't compete with modern rwd luxury cars of it size so why mention it. It is a throwback in a class of one. The DTS is nothing more than a remodeled DeVille. The comment about the Germans blowing their "brand purity" by introducing SUVs is silly too. What should they have done ingnore a booming market segment for sake of purity in the eyes of buyers who wouldn't buy a German car in the first place? I seriously doubt you're seeing late model/brand new MBs and BMWs with gold kits everyday. That sounds like something from the land of make believe to me. I can also tell you from experience that if, in the rare situation you have 3 passengers who want to feel a driver really exercise his M5, the extra mass of those bodies also degrades the precision claimed for the car. I don't evaluate 4 door sedans as sports cars. I evaluate them as sedans. And on that count, the Cadillacs are fully legitimate contenders albeit different in their design brief. The magazine quant results are interesting, entertaining, and given the number of good cars contending -- esoteric. This happens in any car on the market. No car is going to handle the same with a full load of people. Again what is the point of this statement? You're right the Cadillacs are "contenders" but they aren't superior like you stated in your previous claims. A BMW M5 will mop up the track with the CTS-V any day of the week. There is no amount of excuse making possible to escape this fact. Nothing says BMW has to stick with a V8 in the M5. I'm saying it would be preferable if they had. The V10 adds unnecessary complexity, mass and dimension, which has to be managed through additional engineering. There are a lot of ways to get the horsepower up. I think BMW chose the least desirable path available to them, and certainly the least impressive, from a standpoint of projecting engineering wisdom. But, the path they chose they did execute well. I doubt you will see that V10 get long-term development and it will prove to be an anomlie in BMW's engine roster. Yet at the end of all of this the M5 is the superior sports/performance (whatever you want to call it) sedan by a mile. What a wasted effort to try and disregard this with nonesense like what they should have done when the end results are so stunning. What the heck is " projecting engineering wisdom"? BMW didn't develop the previous V8 any further from its introduction in the 2000 M5. So again your point is? Like I said before, just admit you just plain don't like the M5 because it kills your V-Series Cadillacs and because you're not making any sense here. We've already been over the STS/7 issue. But again, GM doesn't make the claim. Market behavior is my reference. It's also fully legit to compare an STS with a 7. STS to 750 and STS-v to 760. Yeah we have, but you don't seem to get it. Buyers can compare whatever they like, doesn't mean they're right. Who is going to look at 77K Cadillac, which is a rare buyer to start with, and then turn around and look at a 115K BMW 760i and think they're direct competitors? A one in a million buyer. Who goes out and has to have a 100K car fitted for better leather or materials? That is absurd. I have driven the SL and didn't find it to be anywhere near as "heavy" as you over hype it to be, and secondly I've been in the XLR-V (not driven) twice and I found the interior to be as cheap as GM cars that cost half as much so I haven't been "led" to believe anything. It amazes me how this mass issue is hardly ever mentioned yet these Cadillacs having cheapo interiors for their prices is constantly mentioned, but on the rare occasion in which the press does mention the SL's bulk they are right on the money, but when they say that the XLR has a "K-Mart" interior they're wrong. You keep saying that the SL's mass is a fact. I never said that the SL wasn't heavier. What I said (for the umpteenth time) is that the extra weight isn't as obvious to the average buyer for this type of car, being a GT not a sports car. Secondly that weight has been hidden and is carried well enough for the base SL to outhandle the base XLR. This is why I said that I want to see a comparo between the SL55 and XLR-V because I find your constant harping about the SL's weight to be just as much of none-issue as you find the press' (and most here that have sat in the car) issues with Cadillac's interiors. M
|
|
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
