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 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 |
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 14, 2006 7:13 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 13, 2006 2:09 am) Discuss.
|
|
|
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. True, 94, 98 or 100K wouldn't make a difference, but when you have a Cadillac to cost that much it certainly does because the brand doesn't have the reputation to command such money anymore. The regular 75K XLR is expensive enough compared to other Cadillac, but 100K is ridiculous for any Cadillac or GM product IMO and apparently buyers feels the same way since Cadillac can't catch any of the other cars in this class in sales. 80, 90K whatever over 65-70K is too much for a Cadillac that will drop like a rock at resale time. 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. What? The only part I agree with here is that about the SC430. Now their different types of ponderous? Again, the weight advantage the XLR has hasn't showed up likely due to it being under tired to begin with. 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. That is because all the cars in this class are somewhat heavy and they aren't sports cars! Plus, plus, plus the weight of the SL has been largely checked due to various engineering solutions. I get the XLR is lighter, but it is a lightweight in features and build quality compared to the SL and none of the other cars in this class had the option of taking a true sports car and fattening it up with wood and leather. You act as though GM has made some type of break out innovation when they've been doing platform sharing for years! No one but you cares about the SL's extra weight once they drive it and your continual harping about this is just plain ridiculous when the XLR has faults that you just dismiss with some excuse about it having a different design "asthetic". Specious. M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 14, 2006 1:39 am) The car mags complain about weight in trucks, SUVs, sedans, sports cars and GTs alike. Of course they are inconsistent. A 4300 lbs. Town Car is heavy but they are mute about a 4300 lbs. SL or the ridiculousness of an aluminum Audi wieghing in over 2 tons. Weight is weight, and more isn't good when you can have less and still meet safety and structural requirements. The engineering solutions to manage the excess mass of the SL are band-aids that cannot conceal the weight itself. They only manage it. You feel this awkwardness in ever change of speed or direction in the SL. The design aesthetic of the XLR-v isn't related to your critique. It's a superior design aesthetic to me. You are carping about other things that I don't agree are true, or I don't think they are important to the selection of which car to buy in the class. That you know of few others who understand the penalty that 500 extra pounds imposes on the SL isn't my fault. But the weight penalty is still there for anyone to experience. Whether or not brand fealty blinds someone to it, my view remains the same. The XLR-v is a great car and the innovator in the class. Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 14, 2006 7:26 am) Then please don't put the SC in the same category with the SL. The SL is another league as you seem to imply here. Secondly if that is the case with the SL then they've done a good job with those systems for it to be able to match and/or exceed the handling of your much lighter XLR. That and IMO a vastly better interior and styling, along with more safety features makes the SL a big winner in the market place something the XLR isn't. The car mags complain about weight in trucks, SUVs, sedans, sports cars and GTs alike. Of course they are inconsistent. A 4300 lbs. Town Car is heavy but they are mute about a 4300 lbs. SL or the ridiculousness of an aluminum Audi wieghing in over 2 tons. Weight is weight, and more isn't good when you can have less and still meet safety and structural requirements. The engineering solutions to manage the excess mass of the SL are band-aids that cannot conceal the weight itself. They only manage it. You feel this awkwardness in ever change of speed or direction in the SL. Time to turn the record over. The reason why the mags complain about weight in those cars because it either is managed too good or the weight is blatantly obvious. The SL's weight is well managed and not even you can spin that around. You keep missing the point of these cars which is why you're so hung up on this weight/feel issue. These are GT cars not sports cars and most buyers don't care about this a tenth of what you do, they want style, luxury, features, speed and good handling and the SL has the latter, so the XLR's advatange (in your mind) hasn't meant a hill of beans. Why can't you see this? If the XLR truly had such an advantage don't you think it would have caught on by now? Or is the fact that the Cadillac name is still mud to a lot of folks that keeps them from buying the "superior" XLR? The design aesthetic of the XLR-v isn't related to your critique. It's a superior design aesthetic to me. You are carping about other things that I don't agree are true, or I don't think they are important to the selection of which car to buy in the class. I'm sorry but this is bs. Design ethic could be whatever you want it to be, doesn't have to be done with cheap materials and poor fits. That you know of few others who understand the penalty that 500 extra pounds imposes on the SL isn't my fault. But the weight penalty is still there for anyone to experience. Whether or not brand fealty blinds someone to it, my view remains the same. The XLR-v is a great car and the innovator in the class. Actually isn't who I know it is the automotive press, they're clueless I guess. All of them are saying the same thing. What you don't get is that this weight advantage doesn't show up for most buyers and the cheap interior and poor reputation Cadillac has and those are the two main reasons why the XLR is a non-starter. You don't even take into account what the SL has in the way of features over the XLR as part of that weight difference, a difference that you try to hype by saying a 1/4 ton, like the SL is some lumbering SUV. Pluhease. The XLR hasn't innovated anything, it trails the class in what matters to most buyers in this class. These aren't sports cars and most luxury GT convertible buyers in this class aren't looking at weight specs, they're looking at the interior finish, material quality and other things that you dismiss or gloss over with that design ethic nonsense. The bottom line is that whatever handling advantage you think the XLR has over the SL doesn't matter enough in this class of car and said advantage DOES NOT outweigh the XLR's other faults, those faults being in more critical areas to the average buyer of this type of 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
