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: 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
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 28, 2006 3:20 am) You somehow have come to the conclusion that explanations are excuses. Cadillac may elect to aim a vehicle directly at a single BMW model and if/when they do that we can measure the numbers they put up. But that's not what's going on. Mercedes doesn't match BMW on a strict performance basis either. BMW has developed a very specific formula for car engineering that gives their products a specific feel. This is true for Porsche, Mercedes, Corvette, Viper, Ferrari, Lambo, Maserati, Audi, Aston, Jaguar, Subaru and others, and now Cadillac. If I wanted a BMW I'd buy a BMW. No one else needs to duplicate it. Cadillac's take is different, as is Mercedes' on these matters. Even when they put up similar numbers, the feel is much different, brand to brand, model to model. I'm advocating that the reflexive brand buyer should consider alternatives, including the new Cadillacs. They might find a mix of factors that's better for them. The CTS-v is outperformed by the new M5, a vehicle that didn't exist on the market when the CTS-v debuted. And the difference in price is large. Obviously, GM can put 500hp into the CTS-v and perhaps they will. But frankly, the sales numbers for the entire category are small and there's no hurry. Nearly every driver of this class of sedan is absent the skills to make proper use of 400hp, let alone more. Besides, that M5......wait for it.....weighs A QUARTER TON more than the CTS-v. 500 pounds. And that pointless V10 musters 12 fewer lb/ft while generating another hundred hp. Plus I don't have to put up with the annoying SMG transmission. The performance difference between the two cars in practical use isn't nearly as large as the numbers suggest. On the full tour of senses, the CTS-v is at least as much fun. Hell, for a little more than $81K I could buy a Z06 and get proper sports car performance + a 3.6L CTS for when I need room for passengers. The M5 is a nice halo sedan for BMW. But given how close the $53K CTS-v gets to it, don't you think Cadillac could field a car that outperforms it if they built a car for $81K too? It still won't feel exactly the same. Put another way, BMW doesn't know how to duplicate the emotional cues and feel of a CTS-v. They shouldn't be expected to. Again, if I wanted ultimate performance parameters, I'd buy a Z06 or pony up for a Ford GT. If I wanted a distinctive Euro sedan, I'd leapfrog the common-as-beans Germans and buy a Quattroporte. The M5 is an interesting artifact in which the BMW sedan vision is executed well, but it's not a desirable automobile to me when all factors are considered. It's not even aesthetically attractive. For me at its price, it would be an STS-v or I'd pay more for a Maser. On the STS v 7 v 5 issue, it's only natural to compare a class-splitting car with the next car up, not the next car down in size. This is why market behavior is what it is. And it's a good re-entry strategy for Cadillac. You're right, some 760 shoppers will want a V12 just for the sake of having a V12. Some will shop a Quattroporte against a 760 and they'll complain that it doesn't feel like a BMW, whereas the complaint should be that the BMW doesn't feel like the Maserati. And some will look at the size, weight, power and feel and conclude that the Cadillac is an alternative. I saw someone buy an STS-v at my dealership yesterday, after making exactly this comparo. It's not wrong just because it violates your sense of car class propriety. By the way, here in L.A., it's surprisingly common for people to have six figure cars further customized by interior crafters -- well, any cars. I see it across the board in luxury brands, except the Italians. Everybody respects art when they see it so you never see it there. Similarly, the Mercedes/BMW/Lexus gold badging is still going on every day, on brand spanking new 2006 models. That little bit of tasteless excess isn't dead by a long shot. The mass issue with the SL permeates the entire experience with the car. It's evident as soon as the car is rolling and is the singular defining element of the car to me. There's needless mass evident in every change of direction. It just feels porky compared to the V. I can't help it if reviewers who are less discerning or too brand-blinded don't report it. That's what I'm doing here. That mass shouldn't be there in the first place and hiding it through engineering only is barely sufficient. Even if you put enough tire on the car to keep it on track, the mass feels ponderous. I suppose Mercedes must be taking to heart the 1950s Detroit marketing for "Road-hugging Weight!" Except now it's 2006 and there are better ways. As for the Cadillac V interior, I like it fine and the next version will be better still. It has no more nor less than it needs and the rest of the car matters so much more. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 28, 2006 3:20 am) Putting aside that the M5 looks like an overfed catfish and is a cosmetic blight to the roadscape, whereas the CTS-v cuts a sharp-creased dashing figure to enhance the landscape, what do we have? Both seat 4 in leather, have muscle motors, big brakes, communicative steering, agile chassis/suspension, and 0-60 times under 5 seconds. Sure, BMW has a new version of their car with a 500hp V10. Cadillac has adopted the Corvette LS2 for 400hp. Looks like a slam, doesn't it? But wait. The BMW V10 develops its rated 500 hp  7750rpm. The Cadillac V8 develops its rated 400 hp 6000rpm. Looks like the BWM has the Honda S2000 problem in circumstances prevailing in North America. The BMW V10 develops its rated torque of 383 lb./ft. 6100rpm. The Cadillac V8 develops its rated torque of 395 lb./ft. 4400rpm. The big 6 litre Caddy has a redline at 6600rpm so it's not reluctant to spin. Then, the quarter-ton heavier M5 saddles each pony with 8.024 lbs. While the lighter CTA-v puts 8.7725 lbs. on each horse. The torque ratio is in favor of the Cadillac. In the hands of competent drivers, the two cars aren't so far from each other, especially given the $28,000 difference in price. In fact, a difference in driver competence can make all the difference. Put the better driver in the CTS-v and he or she can beat the less skillfully driven M5. And vice-versa is true too, of course. In America, you drive torque even though you bought horsepower. Those 395 lb/ft are a lot more accessible at 4400rpm than the heavier BMW's are at 6100rpm. And 400 hp isn't light. Now, to be sure, the M5 is well-engineered, which isn't the same as sensibly-engineered. The V10 is a dead end. They either need a better 8 or a 12, but the latter probably won't fit and it's even worse for weight distribution. Like Mercedes on the SL55, the engineers did their job of managing the baffling extra quarter ton of useless mass, rather than figure out how to avoid it in the first place. But hey, it's what they do. They've made a competent high performance 4 door car, bizarre as that category is. But of course we like and buy such things. The thing is, so has Cadillac. The CTS-v won't feel like a BMW M car to be sure. The BMW is sterile and precise. But the BMW won't feel like the CTS-v either, which means it's missing the emotional engagement of the LS2, the stick action of the traditional 6 speed manual, the better sightlines out of the car, and of course it won't have that set-apart visual impact of the V's edgy presence. The interior of a $28,000 cheaper car is quite acceptable to get that. The ergonomics, with the exception of Cadillac's silly foot-depressed e-brake, are better anyway. The M5 is a highly competent performer, unfortunately it's just not all that desirable in current form. All left brain, no right. A million dollar head and a ten-cent heart. The CTS-v by contrast is the more attractive, more emotional, more fun ride. It's more comfortable too. I'd rather have it. I do have it, in fact, along with my XLR-v. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 28, 2006 8:22 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 28, 2006 9:16 am) The problem is that you don't get that the 5-Series isn't trying to be a luxury car first and the 7-Series isn't trying to be a performance car first. The 7-Series is a luxury car first, its size and weight dictate this and comparing the STS to it from a performance standpoint very disingenuous. Ditto for the 5-Series. Of course the 5-Series isn't going to function as luxury sedan on par with a larger car for those looking for a roomier/larger car with ride-comfort being the priority. To compare the STS to the 5-Series and say it is a better luxury car is equally nonsense because Cadillac is the one doing the chasing and they intended the STS to be the 5-Series competitor, not the other way around. You're making excuses for Cadillac by changing around the criteria and purpose of the 5 and 7-Series cars to make the STS out to be some kind car that competes so well with both. It’s specious. You say that Cadillac "may" decide to put a car directly up against BMW. Uh...they have, it’s called the CTS-V or STS-V. Take you're pick. You think the CTS/CTS-V competes with the 5-Series/M5 right? If that is the case the Cadillac gets beaten badly. End of story. All the theories (excuses) about how Cadillac is going a different route doesn't cut it. True all makes have their own take on how a car should look, ride, feel, perform, but all I'm reading here is that these "V" Cadillacs are superior one minute, yet when called out on performance against Motorsport BMWs, all I get is how Cadillac isn't competing directly. It can't be both, the STS/CTS-V either compete with the M5 or they don't. If they don't then they can't be superior, and if they compete with the M5 it is a lost cause for them to say the least. The CTS-v is outperformed by the new M5, a vehicle that didn't exist on the market when the CTS-v debuted. Ok a bow to the reality of the situation followed by an attempt to give Cadillac a pass. FYI the CTS-V didn't outperform the old M5. On the STS v 7 v 5 issue, it's only natural to compare a class-splitting car with the next car up, not the next car down in size. This is why market behavior is what it is. And it's a good re-entry strategy for Cadillac. Yeah and it makes them a jack of all trades, master of none. The last time I looked sales of the new STS had fallen dramatically in only its second model year. By the way, here in L.A., it's surprisingly common for people to have six figure cars further customized by interior crafters -- well, any cars. I see it across the board in luxury brands, except the Italians. Everybody respects art when they see it so you never see it there. Similarly, the Mercedes/BMW/Lexus gold badging is still going on every day, on brand spanking new 2006 models. That little bit of tasteless excess isn't dead by a long shot. Yeah they're called tuners, but people don't run to them because the base car has a cheap interior. Quite a difference. I don't believe you're seeing brand new Mercedes and BMW models with gold badging "everyday" or even at all. Thats nonsense. The mass issue with the SL permeates the entire experience with the car. It's evident as soon as the car is rolling and is the singular defining element of the car to me. Bingo! For you yes, but for most buyers not! Reviewers are reporting on the cars in the SL's class as GT cars hence them not complaining about this trumped up weight issue you're eternally stuck on. As a GT car the SL is the class leader has been for years and years and a Cadillac with a typically cheap GM interior and less weight is going to change this. M
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Mar 28, 2006 8:22 pm) Like I said a few posts back you not liking the car is fine, but to try and say the CTS-V is someone equal to the M5 or superior is ridiculous and a pointless exercise to say the least. There are cars I don't like either, but to do that much reaching in a wasted attempt to down a car like the M5 is really telling. Just say you hate the car because none of what you've said (some of which I can't believe you actually think) about the M5 has any merit or substance. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 30, 2006 4:45 am) For anyone who wants a car configured exactly to the 5 and 7 series formulas, only a BMW will do, since no one else will ever build the identical car. Cadillac didn't set out to build identical formula cars. I think it's you making excuses for BMWs that are too one-dimensional in their intent, as sedans. Sorry, but a CTS-v doesn't get "beaten badly" by an M5. Especially when you consider the nearly $30K difference in price. But I already addressed the reasons why the cars are closer than you say, in the prior post. Certainly in North American conditions, the CTS-v formula has more tractable, more accessible power, and in a lighter more entertaining package. It's only missing some extra leather and dead weight compared to the M5, and the gap is even narrower compared to a lesser 5. If Cadillac equipped the CTS-v to an $81,000 retail level of gear and creature comforts, it wouldn't be difficult to beat the M. But there's no need to. The better driver in the "slower" car can beat the average driver in the one with 500hp sitting up there at 7750rpm. By the way, a sedan by definition is a jack of all trades. I don't expect a sedan to be anything but and the M5's "master of one thing" design is precisely what makes it flawed as a sedan. If I want a single-purpose master in the performance category, a Z06 sounds about right. STS sales down? Yes, modestly. So are E-Class Mercedes. In Cadillac's case, part of this reason is the new DTS which is taking some STS customers who a year prior bought a smaller car than they originally intended. The STS drop off is just a few hundred units. There are tuners for 6 figure cars, sure, but that's not what I referred to. There are a gazillion upholsterers who do nothing but repair or upgrade interiors. You can see instances of their work in everthing but Italian cars, where they can't make an improvement. There's no advantage to a surplus quarter ton in a GT car, no matter how much you'd like to sweep that under the rug. It's only penalty. Nothing positive can be achieved by that mass, especially since the price of the car suggests the engineering and materials would be more sophisticated to avoid the needles bulk. An interior is superficial and the differences you complain about are small. No doubt, some people will choose a car on that criterion alone. But then they're not really buying the car, are they? For an extra $40+ thou, I hope Mercedes can put a few more scraps of leather and metal in their interior! The XLR-v ergonomics are fundamentally correct however and they've come to market with something much more distinctive, better engineered for mass optimization, and more entertaining to boot, for enough less cash to buy a sports sedan. I expect there to be a little less of something somewhere. The interior is the logical place to dial back the opium den aesthetic. You'll love this: Today, between 7:35am and 8:30am Pacific Time, I saw 3 new (not even tags yet) Mercedes and 2 new BMWs with GOLD PLATED BADGING. Not enought? 10:07am, eastbound I-10 near 20th Street exit in Santa Monica. What do I see up ahead (and quickly behind)? Plain as day, a new, no-tags, greyish SL55 with GOLD PLATED BADGING and a gold-plated license plate frame. Tasteful. You just don't get around much, huh? Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Mar 30, 2006 4:52 am) I don't hate the car, actually. I just think it's kind of useless. A sedan doesn't put your ass close enough to the driving wheels or get the mass optimized to give you a sporting experience, and it terrorizes the passengers if used as a performance machine. Brakes and handling? Fine. But, you know, an extra quarter ton does nothing to improve those either. What is it about the Germans lately and surplus quarter tons of useless mass?? If the M5 were $30,000 and aimed at the guy who can only afford one car, then OK. But it's $81,000. That buyer can afford variety and in a multi-car scenario, the M5 is just silly. The CTS-v is a better mix, especially in North America. Now the silliness of the M5 won't keep them from being sold, but you can be sure that far fewer than 20% of the people who buy an M5 understand the slightest whit of what they've bought. I don't find a couple of tenths or hundredths interesting or convincing if the central aesthetic (all of it -- appearance, sensation, driving feel, packaging) is alienating. Great, I can spend $81,000 or more but to extract the performance I allegedly bought, I have to spin the thing up like a crazed ricer. It's just one of those things. Remember, nobody sees a Maranello and concludes the driver is an ass, but nearly everybody has that first reaction to seeing a Ferrari 360/430. The M5 has that rep. BMW, on basis of their own communications, apparently perceives the M5 as the purest expression of their idea. It's all the more reason not to desire the car, and it's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way from the friendly, competent, charm of the then-competent 2002. Phil |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anthonyp (Mar 29, 2006 5:43 pm) My .02 and strictly my theory from 20,000 feet. I have driven neither XLR or SL, but am familiar with both and wish either one would fall from the sky into my driveay bought and paid for. At this price point and type of car, for the majority of buyers, I think deciding factors in a purchase include: Prestige: A lifestyle statement. I've made it, this is my toy/reward. (or I'm leveraged to the hilt!  ) Style/design, both interior and exterior. A two seat convertible is a fashion statement, an accessory, a toy. Ride: For cruising the boulevard or blasting down the interstate. Handling: Just looking for the car to be able to reasonably negotiate the back roads for when you're trying to avoid the paparazzi... If the buyer simply wanted a fun, great handling two seat convertible: Miata (and now, maybe Solstice/Sky?). But that would'nt satisfy the "Prestige" factor. So, in the grand scheme, at this point in history, imho Mercedes beats Caddy in prestige and styling (not by much on the exterior, quite a bit on the interior). I can't comment on ride/handling. I have to line up more with Merc on the "weight" vs. "interior" shortcomings issue. Yes, extra tonnage is undesireable (in both car and myself  ), but I think to the buyers here that if the pleasantly plump SL500 has the smooth, quiet ride to go with the styling and prestige perceived with MB, it wins. The weight will never be an issue (as weight would be an issue to the handling maven's, but again they could go Miata, Z4...). To the buyer, the somewhat "downscale" XLR interior design is a bigger issue. When paying ~$70k + for a car, certain overall expectations must be met and a luxurious, well appointed interior (as well as a corresponding exterior) is a minimum daily requirement. And therein lies the rub with GM. They can't generally seem to put a full package on the road. To me, the XLR is a player, but at the wrong price point given the entire package. Cool exterior style, hard top convertible, great Northstar engine, lots of toys BUT the interior for the price of admission they're asking...? It is not a terrible interior, just shy of the $76k in look and feel. I think they improved it a bit with the '06 though. |
|
|
Replying to: laurasdada (Mar 31, 2006 10:21 am) Prestige: No question that in 2006 Cadillac is playing from behind against the Germans and Italians. It's a wash with Lexus. Some Lexus buyers believe they are buying status and everyone else dismisses that as posing. Cadillac is actually well regarded now in some circles. However, I don't buy cars to telegraph my wealth or what I've achieved. In horsepower, money and success there's always someone with more anyway. I buy what I enjoy and in some measure what projects identity. No Mercedes could satisfy that for me. There are others like me and I really don't care whether that number exceeds the population of Mercedes brand seekers or not. I suppose on the contrary I prefer it is smaller. Style: Whether a 2-seat drop top is a toy or not depends on where you live. It undeniably has entertainment value but at times I've had sports cars as my only transportation. But style is a prime mover and on that front for me the XLR-v wins by a knockout over the squashed, bloated, long-overhangs SL. Others may disagree. Ride: You're probably correct that for some people this kind of car is expected to be a good cruiser. I'm not one of them. The cruiser character of the SL is precisely what excuses its surplus bulk and compromises it in the majority of driving. I strongly prefer the edgier, more sporting set of the XLR-v, and when it is in standard auto mode, the ride is soft enough for gliding around town on the no-longer-smooth streets of Los Angeles. Handling: I do agree that the status poseur only asks for reasonable handling competence, and that buyer likely has very little experience with a true sports car. However, there is a sub-segment of this market, in which I include myself, for whom handling is expected to be as close to sports-car-like as possible given the mass necessitated by its GT luxury retracting hardtop configuration. Hence, an XLR-v weighs about 600 pounds more than the performance-oriented Corvette that shares its platform. I agree that for the market-at-large today, Mercedes beats Cadillac in perceived prestige. If someone if buying a car to announce their success to the world and they want a specific recognition and response to what they are telegraphing, then Mercedes will do that and Cadillac may or may not. However for a more secure, confident person, this wouldn't matter at all. So it comes to the interior. No doubt, making it more....something...would overcome a certain kind of buyer's objections. At $76K I don't see the problem with the XLR interior and I've been inside everything it competes with. All the $60K - $80K cars have plastic and leather and wood inside, and none of it looks crafted. It's all mass produced and looks it. On the arrangement of functions, ergonomics, communications, the XLR is a specific aesthetic that I and many others like for its straightforwardness and simplicity. The XLR-v significantly upgrades the touch points and cosmetics on the same ergonomics. If I were the product planner, I'd say put the XLR-v interior in the XLR and then let's look at how we can boost the prestige visuals and tactiles in the V. Especially given the higher-than-average markup in the car. BUT, that's a nice-to-have and the way it is presents no reason not to consider or buy the car. It's quite convincing and accommodating the way it is. Given the serious gap in price between equal equipment SL55 and XLR-v, if upgrading the interior further meant losing any aspect of the drivetrain or dynamics, I'd be begging to keep the interior as is. Now, as a business move, if I were running GM I would consider pricing for the break-even point plus dealer profit to disrupt the market. The fact that they didn't do that is a business decision, right or wrong, that isn't a reflection on the car itself. The fact is, its pricing is more than competitive for what it delivers and the experience the driver gets. In introducing the V into this rarefied market, Cadillac is asserting that the criteria for selection in the class have room for alternative thinking. I can say that actually driving the cars has the potential to change your views about what matters and what doesn't in this class. Cadillac's challenge is to make sure the V gets evaluated. I approached this with no loyalty to GM, and in fact had never bought a new GM vehicle before this. A lot of people ask me for advice on cars and in this class, my message is, if you think you are working from a short list of one -- Mercedes SL -- you settling for less entertainment than you could be getting at the price. 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
