April 2016: General Motors Co.

[smk4565]

Crossovers aren't enough of an MPG penalty for people to stay way.  And even more so, buyers are choosing an Escape over a Fusion at the same price point.  The buyers are taking the smaller vehicle on the inferior chassis (in theory) with not as nice an interior but all is ignored because it is a crossover.  Fusion is larger, more luxurious, better platform, the buyers don't care.  The subcompact crossover will emerge to rob sales from cars like Corolla, Civic and Focus.  Ford and Toyota both have sub compact SUVs in the works, Chevy has Traxx, Honda has HR-V.  

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

As far as luxury, my point was that the lines are blurred now.  15 years ago, when a mainstream sedan had sunroof and a leather power heated seat as the only options and that was about as good as it got, it was easy to see.  Luxury cars had nav systems, cooled seats, automatic climate, bose stereos etc.  But today, you can get cooled seats, heated steering wheel, sat-nav, and a panoramic sunroof in a Kia Optima.   I think the luxury aspect now is more in the quality of the materials on the interior, and how the car drives.   This is where the luxury brans separate themselves from the mainstream.  

 

The quality of the materials in the interior is exactly my point.  A Cadenza has nicer materials than an Optima.  An Avalon has nicer materials than a Camry. A Maxima has nicer materials than an Altima... etc.  A Lacrosse has nicer materials than an Impala and a Regal has nicer materials than a Malibu.

 

Agreed.  And a Lexus ES nicer than an Avalon, and Infiniti Q50 nicer than a Maxima, etc.  You can get luxury features like a heated steering wheel in a Kia Forte, doesn't make the Forte a luxury car.  It is harder to say what is more luxurious a Cadenza or an A4 the Cadenza probably has more equipment and features, the A4 better build quality or materials.   In that overlap price point in the mid $30s buyers could have different opinions of luxury.

 

I still think materials and driving experience are what set the true luxury cars apart, which is why I think a rear drive chassis is important, because you can create that premium feel, long wheel base for smoother ride, 50/50 weight balance for better handling.  These are the things a Toyota Avalon can't do, the Avalon will still drive like a Camry.  

 

 

Comparing base to base... yes.  But a loaded Avalon is about the same as an ES (I'm not all that impressed with the ES anyway, so there's that), I'd take a Maxima Platinum over a Q50 any day all day, the Maxima is just that good.  The Cadenza... eh, it's a half hearted effort from Kia, so I wouldn't go there, but a K900? Sure!  The Lacrosse over an Impala for the same price? No contest.  The lower model Audis have not been impressing me at all lately. I see a lot of VW in them.  I'd love an A8L, but that isn't the level of effort Audi is putting into the A3/A4 these days.  I really dislike the A3, the automotive writer in me can see all of the Jetta hardpoints in it and it does not feel premium to me at all... it's a premium over a Jetta... but not premium over other cars for its price.

 

And no, the Avalon doesn't drive like a Camry... Toyota tried too hard to make it a "sport sedan" so now it doesn't have any of the cushiness it was once known for. The suspension is stiff and it slams over the pavement... the ES is equally as bad... but that's a Toyota engineering decision, not anything else. 

[smk4565]

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

[Stew]

4 cylinder fwd Cherokee:  22/31, Dart GT auto is the same

This one is a bit odd, but had to be done to get the same powertrain. 

Buick Verano 2.4:  21/32/25

Chevy Equinox 2.4 FW 22/32/26

 

Chevy trax FWD:  26/34/29 

Sonic sedan 1.4t/auto  27/37/31

 

Toyota Rav4 2.5:  23/30/26

Camry 2.5:  25/35/28

 

just a few direct on comparisons and the midsize would be most likely to be cross-shopped with the small utes and honestly compacts with the miniutes on price and space alone.  I also added the EPA c0ombined for each.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Stew

[Cmicasa the Great]

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

[surreal1272]

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps.

Because his second job is bar moving where it doesn't apply.

Face it. He got busted pages ago with his sales post and has been backtracking and bar moving ever since.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star. 

 

 

 

His ideas come off as screwy as a stripped bolt

[smk4565]

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

ATS and LaCrosse are the same price.  That is why I brought those two up for the gray area that exists between mainstream brand and luxury brand.  Same comparison could be made with an Avalon and an IS250.

[smk4565]

 

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star. 

 

Do people not read?  I would prefer an ATS over a LaCrosee, but I prefer performance over length and interior dimensions.  I said you can argue one over the other.  If your view of luxury is leg room and a soft ride and some tech gadgets, you may want a Kia Cadenza or similar.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Suaviloquent]

Uhhh... question? What is this thread about again?

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star. 

 

Do people not read?  I would prefer an ATS over a LaCrosee, but I prefer performance over length and interior dimensions.  I said you can argue one over the other.  If your view of luxury is leg room and a soft ride and some tech gadgets, you may want a Kia Cadenza or similar.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

You have argued consistently over the years that the Lacrosse is not a luxury car in your view simply because you value other factors more. Are you changing your argument to say that the Lacrosse IS a luxury car, but just not your style?

[ccap41]

Uhhh... question? What is this thread about again?

German vs. American luxury.

 

oh...wait.. uhh... sales..? 

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

ATS and LaCrosse are the same price.  That is why I brought those two up for the gray area that exists between mainstream brand and luxury brand.  Same comparison could be made with an Avalon and an IS250.

 

 

 

 

ATS and Lacrosse do meet in the price range. But in reality the ATS starts about $2K more than the LaX 1SV. My question to U is why the bias? VW's Touareg is $2K MORE than the Audi Q5. Yes the VW is  slightly larger by 6 inches.. but the LaX is also larger than the ATS by about 3X that. Does that mean that U think the VW strategy is wrong?

 

While we are at the level of stupidity that once made me put fools in their place to the point of me being banned from forums.. I will add that at your precious $h! of a car company BENZ.. why would I buy a $100K GWagon.. when I could get a more useful $32K Sprinter, with more modern equipment no less.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

 

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps. 

 

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star. 

 

Do people not read?  I would prefer an ATS over a LaCrosee, but I prefer performance over length and interior dimensions.  I said you can argue one over the other.  If your view of luxury is leg room and a soft ride and some tech gadgets, you may want a Kia Cadenza or similar.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

You have argued consistently over the years that the Lacrosse is not a luxury car in your view simply because you value other factors more. Are you changing your argument to say that the Lacrosse IS a luxury car, but just not your style?

 

 

 

What's nuts is that the LaX is as luxury as a his E-Class depending on the trim. I am at a loss as to which year and trim he has. Anyone who has been in a LaX Premier and doesn't agree with what I'm saying seriously hasn't been in a pre-2016 EClass. 

[Drew Dowdell]

He's got the V8 E-class which was the big selling point for him.  I can understand the desire for a V8 instead of a NAV6, so I can't knock him on that. I'd prefer a 300c Hemi over a 300c Pentastar every day of the week. 

[ccap41]

I wanna say 08-10 gen.. 5.5L ? Does that sound right? 

[Drew Dowdell]

I wanna say 08-10 gen.. 5.5L ? Does that sound right? 

 

I'm sure he'll be along soon enough... but it doesn't really matter.  He wanted what he wanted as long as it had a pointy star and a V8.  The same way I want something with a peace symbol and a V8.

[ccap41]

 

I wanna say 08-10 gen.. 5.5L ? Does that sound right? 

 

I'm sure he'll be along soon enough... but it doesn't really matter.  He wanted what he wanted as long as it had a pointy star and a V8.  The same way I want something with a peace symbol and a V8.

 

lol I think we all WANT a V8... Even if it is for 90% the sound and 10% performance. 

[surreal1272]

Agree with all that, except for the Q50, they have that new 400 hp V6, although that would cost a lot more than a Maxima.  

 

Where you get the gray areas are LaCrosse vs ATS.  Depending on your view of luxury, you could argue either one over the other.  I would say the ATS is more luxurious though due to the badge, material quality, driving experience.  Small interior, but I don't think size = luxury like it did in the 80s.    Once you get to $50,000 and up cars, you start to get the materials, build quality, performance, size, etc, you get it all.  That $32-42k range has a lot of gray area of bottom end luxury brand cars and loaded up mainstream brand cars.

 

 

Why would U compare the LaX with the ATS anyway? The LaX should be viewed as a step down from the CTS. The ATS more in line with the Regal or even Verano in terms of steps.

 

Because he seems to think that anyone with $40k to spend is going to go the same direction he is... that RWD trumps everything else including size, or that someone looking for the size and comfort of a Lacrosse is going to downsize in to a really small CLA because glowing-pointy-star.

Do people not read?  I would prefer an ATS over a LaCrosee, but I prefer performance over length and interior dimensions.  I said you can argue one over the other.  If your view of luxury is leg room and a soft ride and some tech gadgets, you may want a Kia Cadenza or similar.  Different strokes for different folks.

"Do you not read?"

The same thing could be said for you across this entire site.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

I wanna say 08-10 gen.. 5.5L ? Does that sound right? 

 

I'm sure he'll be along soon enough... but it doesn't really matter.  He wanted what he wanted as long as it had a pointy star and a V8.  The same way I want something with a peace symbol and a V8.

 

lol I think we all WANT a V8... Even if it is for 90% the sound and 10% performance. 

 

 

For me, it's the low end torque.  Even my wheezy 35 year old carbed V8 has great off the line torque that I love. 

[rougeriver]

Low end torque is also augmented by twin valve OHV designs in that the smaller total valve area along with more modest lift flows better at lower rpm levels than a four valve OHC engine. Yes, an OHC can have more HP/L at peak rpm levels, but down low where most engines spend their life, no replacement for displacement has meaning. Keep in mind that an "ancient" OHV configuration allows for more cylinder displacement per engine volume/weight than an OHC, when both utilize "V" opposed banks. 

 

Also, a split-crank V8 creates exhaust pulses that are not evenly spaced, thus being like a syncopated beat - music to the ear.

[smk4565]

I don't think the Maxima, LaCrosse, Avalon or Cadenza are luxury cars.  But I can see why people would chose one of those over a 328i, CLA, ATS, IS250 etc.  If you want full size, V6, some niceties, those first 4 cars fit the bill.  Likewise with the Chrysler 300.  Where that gray area is, is that the features, horsepower, performace of those cars is what luxury cars had 10 years ago.  At the same time the luxury car makers have made smaller cars to get into that low $30s segment.

 

When I was shopping to replace my Aurora, I wanted to be $20-25k with tax, fees and everything.  I considered a 09 Jaguar XF, 08-10 CTS, 09-10 Hyundai Genesis 4.6, even drove a 2 year old MKZ, and I had driven the STS V8 before, but those were getting older at the time.  So I wasnt' dead set on a Mercedes, the Genesis was my front runner for a while, but  I wanted more midsize, and the Genesis was pretty bland.  I drove a Mercedes, liked it the most.

 

My car is a 2008 with premium 1 and premium 2 package, AMG sport package, the Designo paint and leather package, panoramic roof and power trunk closer.  Since it is a V8 it has Airmatic. 

My car makes 391 lb-ft at 2,800 rpm, which I think is quite good for a naturally aspirated engine.

[Cmicasa the Great]

As I said before.. the Lacrosse interior is as luxury if not more so than the E550. $h!.. my Impala blows this away

 

[Drew Dowdell]

As I said before.. the Lacrosse interior is as luxury if not more so than the E550. $h!.. my Impala blows this away

 

 

A foot pump parking brake? How quaint! The Lacrosse's is electric.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

As I said before.. the Lacrosse interior is as luxury if not more so than the E550. $h!.. my Impala blows this away

 

 

A foot pump parking brake? How quaint! The Lacrosse's is electric.

 

 

 

 

I'll give Benz props where its due, but never on the E-Class outside of the REAL.. I said REAL.. AMG models. Seriously.. they are so common in my area that they are on the same level as the OLD Impala. The new Impala gets more props than people who driving E-Classes. 

[ccap41]

^ Hahahaha nice eye! I didn't know those were a thing still..or even in '08. 

 

Personally, I think my C350 looks a little better(of the same era) Also, note the foot actuated parking brake... 

 

Oh yeah.. GM or something.. 

[G. David Felt]

As I said before.. the Lacrosse interior is as luxury if not more so than the E550. $h!.. my Impala blows this away

 

Interesting how this quality is glaring with a lowly ugly spot. Look at the door fake wood or at least it looks fake to me and how it is a good noticeable drop over the dash. I thought MB built better auto's than america with better fit n finish?

 

Guess Not!

 

[Drew Dowdell]

I could never abide the interiors of Benzes from this time period aside from the S-Class.

[Cmicasa the Great]

for comparison.. this is pretty much what my OLD 2009 and 2012.. Cadillac CTS-V interior looked like.. 

 

[smk4565]

My car has the Ash Maple wood, but it does have the black dash and sand color seats.  On the E550, the leather on the door panels is real, all the wood is real, the metal trim is real metal. 

[surreal1272]

My car has the Ash Maple wood, but it does have the black dash and sand color seats.  On the E550, the leather on the door panels is real, all the wood is real, the metal trim is real metal. 

Maybe you missed the part where they said it "looked" fake (and it does but I feel that way about most wood trimmed interiors).

for comparison.. this is pretty much what my OLD 2009 and 2012.. Cadillac CTS-V interior looked like.. 

 

I have always been a fan of the 2nd gen CTS interiors. I do not get the gripes (after spending some time in a 2012 3.6L recently). Love that it looked like nothing else at the time and had a very driver centric feel to it. Tis why I want the wagon variant (yes I know I'm a wagon weirdo). 

[cp-the-nerd]

Surreal - I look for V6 Wagons on used car listings all the time! SO RARE. If I could find a RWD 3.6L V6 I'd probably trade in my Malibu tomorrow. Most of them are 3.0L and/or AWD. Both are deal breakers for me.

[Suaviloquent]

Benz redid the E-Class for 2010.

 

We can all go into the past to find newer cars that match or exceed the interior quality either in fit, finish or materials, or all of them all at once. 

 

But I will say, it`s only recently I think I have even liked Benz interiors. 

 

I liked the Cadillac V interiors because you could get the saffron seat inserts. But for a luxury sedan at that time, I would probably say I like the Lexus GS interior the most. It was quite simple and straightforward.

 

[ccap41]

 

My car has the Ash Maple wood, but it does have the black dash and sand color seats.  On the E550, the leather on the door panels is real, all the wood is real, the metal trim is real metal. 

Maybe you missed the part where they said it "looked" fake (and it does but I feel that way about most wood trimmed interiors).

 

 

I completely agree. I don't like how wood interiors look at all because no matter what, if they're glossy, they look fake. Some of the matte finishes look pretty good but I'd prefer an aluminum, carbon, piano black wood(solid gloss black) over wood all day long. The gloss just doesn't look real in any way to me. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Benz redid the E-Class for 2010.

 

We can all go into the past to find newer cars that match or exceed the interior quality either in fit, finish or materials, or all of them all at once. 

 

But I will say, it`s only recently I think I have even liked Benz interiors. 

 

I liked the Cadillac V interiors because you could get the saffron seat inserts. But for a luxury sedan at that time, I would probably say I like the Lexus GS interior the most. It was quite simple and straightforward.

 

 

That's about as cheery as a churchyard on a wet Sunday.... 

[Suaviloquent]

Well, it`s a really nice interior. I`ve spent plenty of seat time in Lexus cars from before this decade, and they were probably the last few where it was pretty clear from a fit perspective you could not find a single seam out of place in Lexus interiors. And this Navi setup shared with Toyota was way ahead of Command or iDrive at the time. And I like the brushed metal look of the guage faces.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

Benz redid the E-Class for 2010.

 

We can all go into the past to find newer cars that match or exceed the interior quality either in fit, finish or materials, or all of them all at once. 

 

But I will say, it`s only recently I think I have even liked Benz interiors. 

 

I liked the Cadillac V interiors because you could get the saffron seat inserts. But for a luxury sedan at that time, I would probably say I like the Lexus GS interior the most. It was quite simple and straightforward.

 

 

That's about as cheery as a churchyard on a wet Sunday.... 

 

 

 

 

with the rain that made it wet... coming from $h!clouds.. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Well, it`s a really nice interior. I`ve spent plenty of seat time in Lexus cars from before this decade, and they were probably the last few where it was pretty clear from a fit perspective you could not find a single seam out of place in Lexus interiors. And this Navi setup shared with Toyota was way ahead of Command or iDrive at the time. And I like the brushed metal look of the guage faces.

 

It just baffles me that that was considered luxury..... a giant heap of gray plastic for a dashboard.  My '04 Honda has that. 

[Suaviloquent]

If it makes you feel any better this was the CTS interior just one  model year prior.

 

The Lexus interior was not without faults. But I think out of all of them, it was the cleanest looking. Yeah some may call it surgical, but ehhh....this just the interior. The rest of the GS was just a comfy luxo cruiser that happened to be RWD, nothing more.

[Drew Dowdell]

If it makes you feel any better this was the CTS interior just one  model year prior.

 

The Lexus interior was not without faults. But I think out of all of them, it was the cleanest looking. Yeah some may call it surgical, but ehhh....this just the interior. The rest of the GS was just a comfy luxo cruiser that happened to be RWD, nothing more.

 

I know what the CTS was... I had an '04 for 4 years.  That looks like an '03, but also could be optioned with a lot more wood trim.   The Lexus was also about $15k more. 

[Suaviloquent]

Well, price isn't something to consider, but then again, I would rather Cadillac be the one to get over the luxury interior hump, and then be the one charging $15k more than Lexus or any other competitor.