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 vs. Mercedes-Benz SL
63 messages, Last post on Mar 07, 2009 at 4:51 AM
You are in the Cadillac XLR and XLR-V Forum. Your Host is claires
Compare and contrast the features of the Cadillac XLR/XLR-V with those of the Mercedes-Benz SL-Class models.
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 7:42 pm) Well it is called being superior, now you can coat it with an excuse about products and phases if you like. Doesn't matter the SL was judged superior by all before the 07' upgrades. Brakes of an XLR-v not quite up to a 911's? Really? Not up to a Z06 either! That's because it's not a pure sports car and it's 600 pounds heavier than those two. However, this is easily corrected in the aftermarket if anyone really thinks that gap is worth closing. I have to ask you if you're been reading you're own posts up until now? I've been telling you that the XLR-V isn't a sports car all along, yet you going on and on about it being lighter and what not and yet none of that turned up in actual testing by the professionals, now you claim that the XLR isn't a sports car! Well no kidding! Now you've got to resort to the aftermarket to get brakes, how lacking is that on a 100K car! Crossed 9,000 miles in the XLR-v last week. Dead nuts reliable, feels faster than new, as expected. This car gets more attention than an SL. And the interior materials show no signs of use whatsoever. Very high quality, and not overwrought. A friend and I swapped cars for a few hours -- he has an SL55. Man, do you feel that extra quarter ton in the porky MB. Yeah, they keep the tires planted, but you feel the inertia of that useless mass in every change of direction. I far prefer the more incisive, agile V. Congratulations on the miles, but the rest of that I'd have to say it is time to turn that record over. Both MT and C&D judged the mere base SL550 to be better handling than the XLR-V, and to add insult to injury MT even said that the SL550 felt lighter and more agile. So much for your friend and his seat of the pants assesment! M
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 8:07 pm) We're down to bragging rights about kids turning their heads when a XLR passes by? They can't buy and by the time they're ready, willing and able, the current XLR will be in a GM historical display in Detroit. I've never seen so much nonsense written in dislike of a particular brand, that wasn't based on anything but a clear and present bias and resentment of said brand building a better car. Goodness that was a lot of nothing guy. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 12, 2006 9:16 pm) Who said C&D has any special insight about automobiles anymore? Not me. They are entertaining to read, but actual experience with a large number of vehicles only leaves me wondering what the magazine reviewers ever knew in the first place. Anyone who thinks an SL550 feels lighter and more agile than an XLR-v is numb or has otherwise dulled senses. The brakes on the XLR-v are fine. Exceptional really. Only if you want Corvette Z06 or Porsche 911 stop distances will you want beefier brakes to make up for the added mass of the luxury GT retractable hardtop. In which case you'll be mucking with the luxury/sports car axis by increasing the unsprung mass on all four corners. Cadillac has it right for the car's purpose. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 12, 2006 9:20 pm) Plainly, I'll say it again: Between the Mercedes SL-XXX variants and the XLR-v, Cadillac has built and offers the better car. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 10:15 pm) I'm sorry guy but you're just back stroking now because I've been saying that the XLR isn't a sports car all along and now that it has been tested and compared against the competition and found to be lacking you've all of sudden seen the light. Also, this advantage you keep talking about regarding mass hasn't materialized anywhere especially in regards to handling, where the SL was chosen to be better at the task. Maybe it is the skinny tires on the XLR or something, who knows, but this weight advantge you're maintaind hasn't shown up in any tests so far. What C&D said was that in the mountains the SL felt agile and MT said that SL actually felt more agile also. Having to mention something, anything about going aftermarket for brakes a luxury GT car is downright inexcusable and really ridiculous. Now to be fair in the C&D test the XLR-V's brakes were pitiful, but in the MT test they turned in the same distance as the SL550 so that could have been just a one time thing, but still. The XLR-V is a the top of the line XLR, the SL550 is the base SL and for all the talk done before the differences are very slight. The SL55 AMG would rip the XLR-V good if the SL550 can come oh so close to doing so already, so much for all that about the Corvette's platform and what not, hasn't amounted to anything, only last place in C&D's comparo. It is amazing how you now refer to the XLR as a "luxury GT retractable hardtop", when just few months ago it was this oh-so light sporting machine that made the SL look like a beached whale. Hilarious. "Unsprung mass" and "right car for the purpose" yet it loses to a bunch of other cars and to the SL each and every time. I love it!!! M
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 10:21 pm) What I find interesting is that the SL won this latest round based on how it performed and drove, no one at C&D mentioned status and prestige as the thing that put the SL over. Now MT did mention status and what not as icing on the cake. It isn't MB's fault that Cadillac ruined their image with so many years of lame cars. One minute when the mags praise the XLR in a single car test they're all knowing and really on the money, but when they compare it and find it lacking they're clueless. Oldest about-face in the book. Plainly, I'll say it again: Between the Mercedes SL-XXX variants and the XLR-v, Cadillac has built and offers the better car. Only in your mind. Cadillac apparently hasn't built or offers squat better than MB, BMW or Jaguar for that matter. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 12, 2006 10:50 pm) Never did I say that the XLR-v is a sports car. If I wanted a sports car, I would have bought a Z06. Still might add one. I said the V is a sporting GT and it is the leader in architecture, design and agility in its class, not least because it is designed to avoid the useless bulk of the SL. What the magazines have to say about relative agility is irrelevant to me. I have mountains to drive in and have driven both. The XLR-v is the more agile car and easily feels by far the lighter of the two. MT and CD are just wrong, but they may write what they wish. If you look at my posts, I wrote repeatedly that the XLR-v is a sporting retractable hardtop GT. My position is entirely consistent. You're misrepresenting the facts. NO ONE will feel they must go to the aftermarket for brakes for an XLR-v. But just as Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Audi, Ford and others have cars that support rich aftermarkets, options exist for the V too on many fronts, owing to its Corvette architecture. Do you need aftermarket brakes for the V? Not in the least. Can you get some monster brakes that will harshen the ride and boost chance that lesser cars rear-end you? Absolutely. Buyer's choice. The car is perfectly balanced stock. The biggest improvement one can make to any car using run-flat tires is to migrate to a stickier conventional inflatable in the high performance Z or W class. It's easy to do and if I wanted to discreetly and seriously affect the reviewers' perceptions of the V, that's the change I'd make. But in real world driving, the Pirelli Eufori on the car is excellent and the security is well worth the current cost in that technology to ultimate grip and ride. At a quarter ton heavier, comparing the SL to a beached whale is an insult to the whale. It's 500 pounds of lack of engineering imagination any way you cut it. The SL55 has torque, in the way that the 5.7L pushrod Chevy small block had a twist advantage over the 4.6L OHC Mustang mod motor. But it feels like even more of a pig than the SL550. It gets out of its way maintains traction, but the pendulum of that quarter ton degrades everything about the experience in motion. In 8 or 10 years when MB finally re-architects the car, maybe they'll come up with a modern lightweight structure. Nah....maybe not. You're bench comparing the opinions of magazines that are packed with as much bias as you'll find on any internet board. I've actually driven the cars. When you do, you can come back and talk about winning or losing comparos. I'm in a position to say, and my verdict is XLR-v leads this class of car. And yes, it is the most sports-car like of the category, which is one of the reasons it wins for me. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 12, 2006 11:04 pm) They might still say, "The MB SL is wildly overweight in its class but we like it anyway." Then I can say it's an honest review and the writer's priorities are woefully misordered. Anyway, no I did not ever think magazine reviewers of any employ were worthy of influencing my perception of a vehicle. And yes, the current SL is antediluvian with respect to its designers' nonchalance about useless mass. I wouldn't want to be associated such lack of progress. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 11:15 pm) Again the same ole same ole, and yet this advantage hasn't shown up anywhere. Why is that? It doesn't exists because someone at GM didn't take advantage of it. Ok you say the mags are wrong I could respect that if, and only if you hadn't praised them before when the tested the XLR by itself and found it to be a good car. Now just because they didn't put it ahead of the SL or any other car in the class, now they're just wrong. You can't have it both ways. If you look at my posts, I wrote repeatedly that the XLR-v is a sporting retractable hardtop GT. My position is entirely consistent. You're misrepresenting the facts. Actually you are because for the fact that XLR weighs less hasn't turned up any advantage in handling. You're the one trying to turn a slight weight advantage into something heaven sent and it has proven to be anything but that. At a quarter ton heavier, comparing the SL to a beached whale is an insult to the whale. It's 500 pounds of lack of engineering imagination any way you cut it. Wrong again, the exact weight difference is 380lbs, not a 1/2 ton, yet another inaccuracy you've given here and to say that SL has a lack of engineering imagination is really ridiculous. The SL has more featurs than the XLR to begin with such a a pop-up roll over protection system that adds weight and yet they've managed to "engineer" it to handle better than the lighter, gussied up Corvette known as the XLR. Imagine that. You're bench comparing the opinions of magazines that are packed with as much bias as you'll find on any internet board. I've actually driven the cars. When you do, you can come back and talk about winning or losing comparos. I'm in a position to say, and my verdict is XLR-v leads this class of car. And yes, it is the most sports-car like of the category, which is one of the reasons it wins for me. Sure and until then keep thinking that you're found something superior when the industry experts are saying otherwise and as far as C&D goes they didn't even think enough of the XLR-V, a 100K top of the line Cadillac to put it over BMW or Jaguar either, so Mercedes is about the least of your worries. Cadillac ain't superior, heck they ain't even at the front of the class. They're bringing up the rear as most GM cars do. The only reason I find most of what you say to be bunk is because you think that the XLR is superior in every way and there is no car in this class that is superior in every possible way over the competition, such a notion is absurd and this bs about weight and what not is really special because it hasn't turned up anywhere. If what you say were true wouldn't someone else agree with you about it? The mags can't be smart and all-knowing one minute, but they next they're cluess. M
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 12, 2006 11:28 pm) Put aside who won what for a moment and just look at what is being said about the handling between the two cars. Your weight advantage theory just hasn't held water. Sure the SL is heavier and could stand to be lighter, but if you can't see the effort that MB put into making the car drive smaller than it really is then there is no point it talking to me about how light a Cadillac is either. The SL's weight has been dealt with using their ABC active suspension and they've done a superior job at it. Now as to what feels more agile that is arguable for sure, but this nonsense about the SL not beng able to handle or that is someone this poor handler and the Cadillac is so much better is just plain BS, regardless as to which car won the overall comparo. All the while you seem to have forgotten that this class of car isn't decided upon by dynamics like sports cars are, that is why even if the XLR were a superior handler (which it isn't) it still wouldn't top the SL. The XLR is cheaply made and doesn't come anywhere near feeling like a 100K car. M
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Cadillac XLR and XLR-V Cadillac XLR vs. Mercedes-Benz SL
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
2009 Cadillac XLR-V
2009 Cadillac XLR
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
