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: merc1 (Sep 13, 2006 1:58 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 13, 2006 12:36 am) Anyway, Phil, what kind of real-world mpg are you getting with your V? And thanks for the write up... I think I'm much further away from grabbing my mid-life crisis car as the evil wife has announced that she wants to buy a lakefront home in New Hampshire or Vermont within the next year or two. Actually, so would I. God's Country are the Northern New England states. Dropped my skis off at the shop for a tune up, looking forward to Ma Nature making up for the dearth of snow last winter this year.
|
|
|
Replying to: laurasdada (Sep 13, 2006 3:56 pm) Real world mileage? I live in L.A. I often have an entire tankful of fuel consumed at an average speed of 26 mph when I can't arrange driving time outside of the expanding "rush hour" on our freeways and city streets. When I have a tank like that, I get 16 mpg. On a tank of solidly mixed off-peak freeway and on-peak city streets driving, I get 19/20 mpg. And when I have been able to track mileage on sustained highway runs at speed, I get 24-26mpg. Example: I recently finished a meeting in south Orange County after midnight and had to drive home on the northwest side of Los Angeles. It was 88 miles. Knowing I'd have clear running, I filled up before I left, and then topped off at destination. 88 miles at average speed of 82 mph yielded 25.2mpg. I...uh....can also say that I know exactly how to drive mileage down to 12 mpg, but doing so is a deliberate indulgence of unfriendly acceleration. I'm happy with the mileage given 443 hp in a 3800 lb. car. A couple of weeks ago, I was helping a friend evaluate cars. I have to say that if I were more cash limited and wanted a mid-life crisis machine, the only other car today under $100,000 that can match the XLR-v's sheer charisma and presence is the Shelby GT500, especially in coupe form. Simple, competent, poised, sensational. Otherwise, when you buy that lake house, sneak in a just-off-lease XLR-v in 2007/8. Phil |
|
|
Replying to: poncho167 (Sep 13, 2006 4:54 am) True and I don't think I've ever said that MB was perfect in this regard. However this year JDP changed the criteria because MB went from 5th to below average and that didn't happen due to a sudden drop in quality either. Depending on which magazine write up you read the Cadillac XLR is raising a lot of heads. I believe it was Car & Driver last year that had it being barely edged by the Mercedes with four cars being tested. Must be a magazine not published here on earth. No issue of Car and Driver has ever said anything near that, in fact it was just the opposite. The XLR has lost each and every time it faced the SL and not by a small margin. In this recent comparo they pretty much said the BMW 650i barely edged out the XLR, not the SL. The XLR hasn't raised that head of anyone that matters, buyers. GM has a huge supply of XLRs and they are simply put, slow sellers. Cadillac uses a better quality plastic than Mercedes does as far as the noxious fumes that it doesn't give off. Other than that plastic is plastic and few people really notice the differences which are very minor. Not! GM uses the same plastics in the XLR as they do their other cheapo cars. I give the XLR credit for being something no other American brand can touch, but that isn't saying much since Chrysler and Lincoln have nothing even remotely similar. The problem is that GM doesn't sweat the details and a 100K is all about the details. You look at GM's new Kappa twins, the SKY and Solstice. I had to stop and look at one up close on a dealer lot because I couldn't believe how sloppily the top fits on these cars when the top is raised. Whoever signed off on that should be fired, but hey that it typical GM. They'll introduce something with great potential and even get the engine right, but then muck it up in cheapo details. M |
|
|
Replying to: poncho167 (Sep 13, 2006 7:02 am) The XLR is no sports car and neither is the SL, they are GT cars. Big difference. M |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 13, 2006 7:19 am) True, but who should I believe as far as the XLR goes? A biased person who has the car and thinks it is so superior to everything else in the class or the professional reviewers? Not just one, but all of them say the same thing about the XLR. I have driven the current SL a many times, thank you. This nonsense about handling and weight is the about most ridiculous thing I've seen harped about for a long time. When is it going to sink in that even if the XLR were a superior handler (which it isn't) that handling is not the sole criteria for buyers with these cars! So what if the XLR is a better handler, it still is skinny-tired and very much an aquired taste for many and it doesn't have an interior worthy of it's sticker. You keep harping about handling yet you'll then turn around and say that these are not sports cars. Which is it going to be? If you're going to make the case for the XLR and it's handling advantage (which no one else has found) then that is ok, but that doesn't outweight the rest of what is wrong with the car, especially the 100K version of it. More to the point, it would be impossible to build a sports car from the SL platform. It's stupidly heavy. Yet the light-for-class XLR-v is built on a platform that with the luxury stuff deleted and bigger stickier rubber added becomes a 3100 lb world-class sports car. The XLR-v comes from the factory tuned to a specific state of compromise. If you want to shift that mix this way or that, it's easy to do, and you'll be doing it with a quarter ton advantage over the porky SL55. So what? Mercedes didn't set out to build a "sports car" from the SL platform. I mean really is it that bad to the point where we have to debate shoulda/woulda/coulda been built from the SL platform. Now the XLR is a sports car again? Plainly, the XLR-v feels more incisive and gives me more information about the tire-road interface than the SL. Everything about the car is more communicative. It's not my fault if this isn't obvious to magazine jockeys. Want to really make the point? Put Corvette rubber on a V. Drive one, please, before you use someone else's opinion again to justify your own bias. Ok, to you, no one else. Fine, but that doesn't put the XLR over the SL. Seconldy why do I have to put Corvette rubber on a XLR? They aren't going for the same market, yet another "wait until next year" type apology. My bias didn't set in until I saw the reviews of the car because honestly I thought (initially) the SL would really have some competition, but it doesn't in either the market or on the road, at least not from Cadillac. Now, I agree with you that 9,000 miles doesn't prove the long-term reliability of the V. But given the role of infant failure of componentry in gizmo-loaded luxury cars as a class, it's a good harbinger. Having put well over 100,000 miles on a prior generation Corvette, without so much as an upholstery scuff, I have confidence in the long-term stalwartness of the V. The basic durable goodness of the platform is routinely evidenced in harder-driven Corvettes in larger numbers. The long-term questions TBD are in the small-displacement supercharged engine and the top's mechanism. I'm expecting my car to be in my hands well into 6 digits. Putting 100K on a Corvette has what to do with the XLR? I don't expect any car to have problems relating to it's structure nowadays. The XLR has more things to go wrong than a Corvette every had so if you can put 100K on a XLR and nothing goes wrong, bravo. Until then the previous mileage racked up on car as bascially simple (relative to the XLR) is matterless. Haven't driven the new platform XKR (not sure it's shipped yet) but have driven the current XK. Extrapolating from that experience, and having driven the two cars in last gen and knowing that version's R difference, I don't think Jaguar's convertible handles like I expect 100K worth of car to handle. It has other merits to justify its price however. All these cars, even at 100K, are specific compromises. So in other words your bias is there before you've driven the thing? How hypocritical is that? The new XKR shares absolutely nothing to do with the last generation car, nothing. Totally new chassis/platform etc, only the engines carry over so some of your own "until you drive it" advice would be in order for you here! I fully expect the XKR to trounce a XLR-V in handling if not in a straight line. Anyone who thinks it isn't worth $100K is essentially saying the brand is their issue, not the car. Bingo! Cadillac hasn't built anything in the last 30 years that even comes close to putting them in the position to ask 100K for one of their cars. You're right it is a brand issue that is supported by a car that simply doesn't feel like a 100K car. No one thinks the XLR, XK or SC are too expensive for the market. Not true, obviously buyers think the XLR is too expensive going by its lacklust sales performance, then again it could be the whole thought of sinking 100K on a Cadillac that won't be worth half that in a few years. In short Cadillac's comeback wasn't yet up to the level of being able to charge 100K for anything yet. All the the other cars have proven themselves to some degree, especially the SL. I share you're dislike of the SC430 as a GT car, but the car reeks of quality build, construction and materials, that is what puts it over. The previous Jaguar XK, while totally an antique until this new 07' model came along, was so gorgeous to the point where it could sell on looks alone. I can't take any of your dynamics argument seriously if you're going to say this: ..lacking the ponderous dynamics of the SL and SC.. The SL is a lot of things, but ponderous it isn't one of them and to place it on the same level as the sedan-like driving SC430 tells me you simply don't like the SL because this claim is just plain untrue and ridiculous. The SL can run rings around a SC430 and you know it. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 13, 2006 10:32 pm) 1/ I'm not biased. I came to my decision about the XLR-v over the rest of the class BEFORE I bought it. I did so based on an objective survey of the class, driving each car under nearly identical real-world conditions. I was prepared to buy any of them, except for the SC. So yeah, you can believe me at least as much as a bunch of jaded magazine jockeys who are perpetually blinded by brand. 2/ Handling matters as much to a GT's competence and suitability as a sporting car as handling matters to a pure sports car. The difference is that you tolerate some compromises to get more comfort and amenities in the GT for extended travel. But WITHIN the class, handling is as important a criterion for selection. A retractable hardtop GT roadster/coupe is a peculiar multi-function GT, but you still want it to handle and be agile. 3/ I never said the weight and handling advantage of the XLR-v is the only reason to buy the car. It's a big reason. I did plainly say that the useless extra mass of the SL is the elephant in the room, and that the XLR-v has the best balance of compromises of any car in the class. It has the most progressive, dramatic and impactful aesthetic design, best interior ergonomics, best architecture, best mass-efficiency in its platform, and is competitive in every other area. 4/ The XLR/XLR-v are built on a sports-car-derived platform and inherit those advantages. This doesn't make them sports cars, but does help to make them more sporting GTs -- especially the V. 5/ You don't have to put Corvette rubber on your V, but the option exists, just as people put bigger wheels/tires on their SLs and every other car in the class. Point is, Cadillac could have spec'd tires tilted more to ultimate handling/stopping. They did not, because they chose to use the quietest run-flat to both preserve GT properties and give drivers the security of not having to change a tire on the freeway. Any owner who wants to shade the factory's chosen balance of factors is free to do so. In practical driving, the Eufori's grip will exceed the gumption of most drivers. Conventional performance rubber will certainly transmit less road rash NVH into the car. 6/ Corvette is the platform basis, the body panel basis, the ancillary systems basis, and the automatic transmission is now the same between the two cars. From a reliability standpoint, the top mechanics, the DOHC hand-built SC engine and the engine management computer are the primary differences where things can go wrong. Corvette platform experience is a good harbinger of the V's integrity. But time will tell for sure. 7/ I'm going to drive the XKR with an open mind of course. Note that I said I have driven the current XK, so I know what the platform characteristics are. I also know the difference between the prior XL and XK-R, and Ford's approach this time is very much the same, in terms of engineering differences between the new versions or XK and R. Having driven the base car, and being thoroughly familiar with the results to the "R" upgrade approach, it's not hard to extrapolate some expectations. The new XK aluminum platform is an excellent upgrade over the old platform. But modern Jags are shaded more toward comfort than sports traits than I think they should be. The XK-R will be in the $90sK like the last one. Will it be worth that? In the context of what cars cost today, sure, but not for its handling as its strong suit. Perhaps they will surprise me. In any case, there are other reasons for some folks to prefer that car. 8/ The prior damage to the Cadillac brand had no bearing on my willingness to pay the price, because the car itself earns its place. I'm happy to be part of rebuilding the brand perception. No one considering a $100K car really cares financially whether it cost $10K less or $10K more. I can't imagine the V costing less than $90K retail in any sustainable scenario for Cadillac, so 90, 94, 98, 100K -- who cares? It's the most holistically advanced car in the category. It's worth it. 9/ Yes, the SL runs rings around the SC even without a driver present. The SL and SC certainly have different dynamics, but both are indeed ponderous, though differently. Forgetting the design for a moment, the SC is both fat and sloppily sprung. It's aggressively un-incisive. Not a serious car in the least. The SL is a serious entry in the class, sure. It is made ponderous by virtue of the fact that compared to the lighter V, you can feel all its dynamics management systems constantly fighting the weight. Yeah, the tires stay planted. But the pendulum effects of that extra quarter ton....well, there's no getting away from it. It feels needlessly heavy in any situation other than straight-line travel at steady speed. Let's put this weight issue into further perspective. NONE of your vaunted magazine writers would agree that more weight is a good thing when you can engineer less. They all diss mass in cars they don't like. And then they don't hold DCX's feet to the fire. Cadillac delivers a retractable hardtop luxury 2-seat GT at 3810 lbs, using a hydroformed perimeter box-tube frame with rigid spine and torque tube. It surrounds this stiff driveable chassis with modern lightweight, ding-resistant, composite body panels. Jaguar delivers a ~3800 lb. cloth top convertible using an aluminum unibody with subframes, very modern manufacturing too. Maserati gets in there with steel. Mercedes saddles their short-wheelbase/long overhangs steel body car with 400 - 500 pounds more. Nice paint though. Imagine how good the SL could be if MB exercised the imagination to engineer that quarter ton OUT of the car and get down to the new class weight? If undercapitalized Jaguar can make the investment and "the world's on my shoulders" GM can innovate, why not DCX? Heck, I want to see the XLR-v get lighter too! Let's get Corvettes down to 2800 lbs., and XLR-v down to 3200 lbs. with all the luxury stuff. I didn't like the overwrought cabin of the SL, and the brand itself doesn't appeal to me. But if the car itself had been best-in-class in enough categories, I might have bought it. The big sore thumb of the SL's ponderous extra mass was distracting and disturbing to appreciation for the car. And I have to draw a line somewhere: any reasonably advanced automobile company ought to be able to keep a 2-seat perfrmance GT roadster under 4000 lbs. When you're looking at a 2 seat GT that packs the weight of a Lincoln Town Car, something's gone very wrong in product planning. Anyway, I live amongst a sea of SLs and I experience them first-hand routinely. Nothing about an SL prompts a single regret about owning a V, but owning the V confirms for me every day that I made the right decision. Phil |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 14, 2006 12:41 am) This I can buy, that you actually drove them all and decided what was best for you, never doubted that. Handling matters as much to a GT's competence and suitability as a sporting car as handling matters to a pure sports car. The difference is that you tolerate some compromises to get more comfort and amenities in the GT for extended travel. But WITHIN the class, handling is as important a criterion for selection. A retractable hardtop GT roadster/coupe is a peculiar multi-function GT, but you still want it to handle and be agile. And the SL has been judged by everyone but you to have equal or better handling than the XLR, period. This nonsense about how much better the XLR feels and handles hasn't helped the car at all in the marketplace because buyers of 100K GT are lookig for the whole package. Something you seem to completely miss. You act as though the SL can't handle and that my friend is BS, especially that about the SL and the SC having anything in common as far as dynamics. For what most people buy these cars for the Jaguar and Mercedes top the Cadillac without question. Want something more serious than the XK or SL550, the XKR and SL55 are waiting. Cadillac has no advantage on these cars except for weight, but the thing is none of these cars are true lightweights. The XLR being light for it's class is the same thing as when the mags say a heavier car handles good for it's weight. Either way you're spliting hairs. I never said the weight and handling advantage of the XLR-v is the only reason to buy the car. It's a big reason. I did plainly say that the useless extra mass of the SL is the elephant in the room, and that the XLR-v has the best balance of compromises of any car in the class. It has the most progressive, dramatic and impactful aesthetic design, best interior ergonomics, best architecture, best mass-efficiency in its platform, and is competitive in every other area. However in reality of marketplace and the type of buyer that usually goes for one of these cars they're looking for features and luxury not just some far-fetched notion about the XLR's handling being superior. That about the XLR's interior is your opinion, no where else have ever seen anything to support it either. The interior is the weakest link of any GM car! Where have you been? This about a different design ethic is just hilarious. A Jaguar has the same thing, but it ain't cheaply made. When oh when will that sink in? You can be different in every way regarding inteior design/function/layout etc, but the materials need not be of the cheapo variety as in the XLR. Period. The XLR/XLR-v are built on a sports-car-derived platform and inherit those advantages. This doesn't make them sports cars, but does help to make them more sporting GTs -- especially the V. Yet this has yet to amount to anything real advantage in either the market or to the press. Talk about much ado about nothing. You don't have to put Corvette rubber on your V, but the option exists, just as people put bigger wheels/tires on their SLs and every other car in the class. Point is, Cadillac could have spec'd tires tilted more to ultimate handling/stopping. They did not, because they chose to use the quietest run-flat to both preserve GT properties and give drivers the security of not having to change a tire on the freeway. Any owner who wants to shade the factory's chosen balance of factors is free to do so. In practical driving, the Eufori's grip will exceed the gumption of most drivers. Conventional performance rubber will certainly transmit less road rash NVH into the car. A grand excuse plain and simple. Corvette is the platform basis, the body panel basis, the ancillary systems basis, and the automatic transmission is now the same between the two cars. From a reliability standpoint, the top mechanics, the DOHC hand-built SC engine and the engine management computer are the primary differences where things can go wrong. Corvette platform experience is a good harbinger of the V's integrity. But time will tell for sure. What modern car is going to have trouble with body panels? All the other stuff that is shared between them I'm fully aware of which is one reason why a XLR is simply not worth 75K not to mention 100K. Secondly the XLR has a few extra features like a folding hard top and those ridiculous electronic door latches that could prove troubleseome, not saying they will, but those are some of the differences between the XLR and the Vette. I'm going to drive the XKR with an open mind of course. Note that I said I have driven the current XK, so I know what the platform characteristics are. I also know the difference between the prior XL and XK-R, and Ford's approach this time is very much the same, in terms of engineering differences between the new versions or XK and R. Having driven the base car, and being thoroughly familiar with the results to the "R" upgrade approach, it's not hard to extrapolate some expectations. The new XK aluminum platform is an excellent upgrade over the old platform. But modern Jags are shaded more toward comfort than sports traits than I think they should be. The XK-R will be in the $90sK like the last one. Will it be worth that? In the context of what cars cost today, sure, but not for its handling as its strong suit. Perhaps they will surprise me. In any case, there are other reasons for some folks to prefer that car. Again you haven't driven the car so all this about the previous version is matterless. WOW! Wait a minute you'll condem the Jaguar based on what Jaguar/Ford has done before, but I'm supposed to believe that GM has totally changed their normally laggard ways when turning a Corvette into a Cadillac? That is pretty rich don't you think? Hypocritical, very hypocritical! The prior damage to the Cadillac brand had no bearing on my willingness to pay the price, because the car itself earns its place. Apparently not, but it hasn't earned anything and Cadillac certainly hasn't. They just stopped building junk just a few years ago. cont....
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 14, 2006 1:37 am) Now, we do know a lot about the platform because it is shared with the Corvette. Between the two cars, Corvette and XLR/XLR-v, I haven't ever read anything indicating that the structure, engine, transmission, brakes, body, or any other system in either car is "cheaply made." The only, ONLY, references to cheapness in the car have been about the interior. This is a canard. Yes, there are differences between the various class-competitors' interiors. These differences are minor, with the exception of the Maserati, which puts everyone else to shame. If you're not buying a Maserati, or let's also add the Aston V8 Vantage, then you're in the same realm of plastic/wood/leather/metal in all these cars. From a design and ergonomics standpoint, I prefer the masculine straightforwardness of the Cadillac. The materials are fine. Fit and finish of the interior on my car are fine. I don't see the problem. Can everything be further improved? Sure, this is true for every car in the class. Even the Maserati can stand an upgrade to some of its switchgear. In my car, everything works, everything feels good, plastics are fine, there is 360 degrees of leather, wood and metal are used appropriately. I don't see any aspect of this car that is "cheaply made." Mercedes has trouble delivering working electronics. Jaguar gets criticized for the "cheapness" of using some Ford switchgear and materials. Cadillac gets painted with a "GM interiors suck" brush by people who pay no attention to what's actually in the XLR-v. Frankly, I prefer to have electronics that work, presented in straightforward clean design, through materials at the touch points that feel honest, luxurious and last. You will understand the weight advantage of the XLR-v when you drive one. It has been amply detailed for you here. The Corvette, by the way, has the electronic door latch actuators too. The system is reliable, but a mechanical safety override is at your fingertips by the seat. I didn't say anyone in the class has "trouble with body panels." I pointed out that Cadillac uses lightweight composite panels and these have the added advantage of resisting dings compared to metal. On the Jag, you didn't assimilate my point. I don't condemn Jaguar for anything. They always produce an interesting beautiful car. I don't prefer the tuning of modern Jags on the handling/comfort axis. The relevance of the old platform to the new is that Ford's formula for R-ifying the standard XK is the same now as then. Supercharge the engine, larger wheels/tires/brakes, retune the suspension elastomers, spring rates, dampers, add appropriate cosmetic distinctions and you have an R. Pretty easy to guage where you'll end up if you've driven the base car and are waiting for the new R. Whatever you think about GM, no one considers the Corvette a laggard car, and no one has said the XLR-v, which is derived from Corvette, is junk. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 14, 2006 7:13 am) I don't have to drive the car to know that the interior is cheap and feels like any other GM car. There is no way that interior feel and quality is that much better than other GM cars that costs thousands less. I don't have to drive anything to know that the interior is typical GM in construction and material quality. There are few upgraded pieces here and there, but they missed the entire effect by a country mile. People at the Detroit show were wowed when they found out that the XLR-V costs 100K, no one there felt that the interior was up to 100K. Has nothing to do with driving it. Nothing at all. Now, we do know a lot about the platform because it is shared with the Corvette. Between the two cars, Corvette and XLR/XLR-v, I haven't ever read anything indicating that the structure, engine, transmission, brakes, body, or any other system in either car is "cheaply made." The only, ONLY, references to cheapness in the car have been about the interior. This is a canard. True, which is why I don't know why you keep bringing this up. Again, again, I don't expect the XLR to have any problems relating to anything it inherited from the Corvette, again, it is the other parts of the car that could, and I say could prove troublesome. Things like the top and those silly electric door latches. That was my point there, didn't have anything to do with the hardware or structure. Right, the interior is the cheapened part. You will understand the weight advantage of the XLR-v when you drive one. It has been amply detailed for you here. Yeah adnausem, mainly a lot of bunk, IMO. Feeling lighter doesn't mean better handling as the various test prove. The numbers don't lie and at the end of the day all you're getting with your XLR is a better "feel" at handling, not any differences in times or ability. I pointed out that Cadillac uses lightweight composite panels and these have the added advantage of resisting dings compared to metal. A fancy way of saying that a 75K-100K car has totally plastic body panels. Not something I'd tout. The relevance of the old platform to the new is that Ford's formula for R-ifying the standard XK is the same now as then. Supercharge the engine, larger wheels/tires/brakes, retune the suspension elastomers, spring rates, dampers, add appropriate cosmetic distinctions and you have an R. Pretty easy to guage where you'll end up if you've driven the base car and are waiting for the new R. Spin and twist it any way you like, you haven't driven the car and you can't form an opinion on it until you have, at least that is what you tell me. The XK is a totally new car and what they did with a 25 year old platform previously has nothing to do with it, unless you're going to say that they do things the same way each time. Careful because if that applies to Jaguar it applies to GM and their interiors, which it does by the way regarding GM. Whatever you think about GM, no one considers the Corvette a laggard car, and no one has said the XLR-v, which is derived from Corvette, is junk. We're not talking about the Corvette here, a car I'm crazy about as a matter of fact. We're talking about the XLR and it isn't junk by any means, but it isn't superior to the SL, which is my point. No one else has found any of the handling, schmandling bunk to be true or have any affect on actual results and everyone has found the interior to be lacking, all total opposites to what you're written here. 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
