- #2005 of 6098
-
Re: Ehhh [british_rover]
by fintail
-
Jan 19, 2007 (9:39 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: british_rover (Jan 19, 2007 9:29 am)
My fintail has gobs of nice unlaminated wood...dashboard, door trim, and window frames. It's tasteful. I don't know what got the laminated shiny wood kick started...safety concerns about it splintering?
I rode in a coworkers 04 Denali yesterday...it's like they didn't even try with that trim.
|
- #2006 of 6098
-
Re: While my memory [lokki]
by sls002
-
Jan 19, 2007 (9:57 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Jan 19, 2007 9:24 am)
My local dealer had an XLR on the showroom floor last time I was there. The interior did not seem that much better than a basic Cadillac. At the same time I looked at the 2007 SRX interior. It does look better than the 2006 interior, but mainly because there is more wood. The plastics have been replaced with something that looks like leather, and has stitching. The 2008 CTS looks similar.
|
- #2007 of 6098
-
Re: While my memory [sls002]
by lemko
-
Jan 19, 2007 (10:05 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jan 19, 2007 9:57 am)
How's the STS interior? I was really disappointed to see the interior of the STS when it debuted. I liked that of my current car much better. I hope the STS adopted some of the improvements of the SRX and the '08 CTS. I love the interior of the DTS.
|
- #2008 of 6098
-
Re: While my memory [lemko]
by sls002
-
Jan 19, 2007 (10:15 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jan 19, 2007 10:05 am)
I looked at both the DTS and STS sometime back, and I just sort of looked to see what they looked like, I did not get in. But my impression was that the STS's interior was similar to the DTS's for basic overall quality. I think that Lutz may have had something to do with the interior that the STS has, as I think that they may have been thinking along the lines of what the SRX got in 2004.
The basic difference between the STS and DTS interior is space. The DTS is a bigger, wider body, so it has more shoulder and hip room. The STS is a sports sedan, and not everyone wants a sports sedan.
|
- #2010 of 6098
-
Re: Life. Liberty. And the Pursuit. [sls002]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 19, 2007 (10:46 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Jan 19, 2007 9:25 am)
I've driven a lot of 560SLs....I'm very skeptical that it's under 7 seconds unless maybe you are pointed downhill, got racing slicks on there and are lucky. I mean with 3800 lbs of pork, 227HP and a 2.47 rear end, that number just doesn't make sense to me.
A 500SL with 100 more horsepower only can do 0-60 in 6.1 seconds with a 2.65 rear. Even a 600SEC with over 400HP can only do 0-60 in 6.3.
FORBES review: Forbes is generally kind to Cadillac. I'm surprised they were quite that critical of the XLR.
|
- #2011 of 6098
-
Re: Life. Liberty. And the Pursuit. [Mr_Shiftright]
by sls002
-
Jan 19, 2007 (10:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 19, 2007 10:46 am)
I looked at that September 1986 Motor Trend article more than once, and both times I looked it said something like 6.8 seconds for the SL and 6.5 for the Corvette I think. All three cars were under 7 seconds, with the SL slowest. The SL's tires were commented on as limiting the SL's skidpad performance.
|
- #2012 of 6098
-
Re: Ehhh [lokki]
by bumpy
-
Jan 19, 2007 (10:57 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Jan 19, 2007 9:35 am)
Ha!
I believe that the only time any wood should be present in an automobile is as a structural member. I wonder how far I'd get at the Mercedes dealer if I asked about the "wood-trim-delete" option?
|
- #2013 of 6098
-
Re: Ehhh [bumpy]
by sls002
-
Jan 19, 2007 (11:01 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jan 19, 2007 10:57 am)
It has been sometime since wood was a structural member in cars.
|
- #2014 of 6098
-
Re: Ehhh [bumpy]
by fintail
-
Jan 19, 2007 (11:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jan 19, 2007 10:57 am)
I've seen some sport model late W202 cars with "carbon fiber" in place of the wood, I am sure it was a factory job. I think the C32 and C55 also had no wood.
|