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 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
|
|
|
Replying to: laurasdada (Jul 08, 2006 5:40 pm) Price? The Cadillac is competitive. Their comment on price was a matter of it being Cadillac's first 6-digits car and the writers were still getting used to that. No doubt some people feel that way. But it's an irrational reservation having nothing at all to do with the car itself. On interior, wrong again. All the cars have interiors distinct from one another. The Caddy's is the most straightforward, cleanest in design aesthetic, has best ergonomics for its functionality. As for materials, well, there's leather, aluminum, wood, and high-grade plastics in appropriate places, just like in the other cars. The interior issue is a red herring, unless you're comparing all the cars to a Maserati. Phil |
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 15, 2006 12:41 am) Phil
|
|
|
Replying to: 213xlrv (Sep 18, 2006 12:51 am) Wrong, driving a car has absolutely nothing to do with judging the quality and build of the interior, uless you're looking for squeaks and rattles. You might have noticed that all GM interiors are improving rapidly with new model introductions. But if you haven't been in the car, then you don't know what you're talking about when you claim the interior can't be better than other GM interiors. Yeah GM interiors are improving and guess what, they're still behind the competition in most areas, as are Cadillacs. Again, I've been in the XLR/V more than a few times and I've examined the interior several times and it doesn't pass for 100K, it isn't even close. This isn't enough reason not to buy the car, to get the superior aspects of style and low mass with resulting handling character, compared to the the SL. For you maybe not, but this bs about low mass and a non-existant handling advantage isn't reason for many buyers to pick the XLR over its competitor eithers or so the sales numbers prove. You gloss over the interior issue with this design ethic excuse and trump up weight and some handling advantage that hasn't shown up anywhere yet. You've got the average buyer's priorities for this segment backwards! M
|
|
|
Replying to: merc1 (Sep 19, 2006 3:18 am) The XLR is too much of a toy and not practical. Our kids are grown. My wife drives a sedan and I drive the convertible. The XLR has no storage room and therefore, is almost a 3rd car ... a toy! They need storage behind the seat and a trunk big enough with the top down to go away for a weekend with the wife or go shopping. Many of us better off empty nesters use these luxury convertibles as our only ride. The storage area in the XLR is just enough smaller than then the others to make it almost unfunctional. Just some thoughts.
|
|
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
