Drew Dowdell

cause that would have been a fair fight.

You don't want that 3.2. That was the original engine in the CTS and while it was modestly powerful, it had a weird idle. The best I can describe it would be a "limp".

Fly

If GM or Ford had been in this and come in anywhere but the last two places, I'd have screamed bias!

In Cadillac's the biggest offender was the boat anchor 4100 engine the first year got a 368 <I think>. Olds got a 307 or the 350 diesel <or a gas 350 early years>. Buick got a 307, the 350 diesel, the 3.8 or the turbocharged 3.8. My Toronado was fairly reliable for me. Only towards the end did I start having issues that start cropping up on 160k mile carberated cars. Automatic climate control, digital dash, power everything, even the rear air suspension still worked. A radiator, an alternator <taken out by the radiator>, and a carborator were my only major issues. Brakes were a bastard. edit: Oh yeah, and the FWD? I could plow snow with it if I wanted. Just don't ask me to stop. You even look at the brakes and the rears lock up and around you go.

yeah, sorry, still not convincing. I owned both a 1985 Toronado and a 1985 Continental. Both were more luxurious than this.... 1983 SEC

All other parts of the argument get down to personal preferences. But this part: is the part of all your arguments that I take issue with. The Luxury/prestige buyer don't want the same thing as they did 20-30 years ago. Back then it was: Rich Corinthian Leather Dyna-ride air cushion suspension relaxing, sumptuous comfort roomy bench seats go in any weather traction <fwd> Today it is: firm suede seats how many "G" can it pull strong seat bolsters <for when you're taking your '83 Seville through a hairpin> RWD required bucket seats In short, the people who grew up with GTOs and Mustangs as kids now want modern GTOs and Mustangs with premium appointments and badging NOT modernized '66 Cadillac Devilles. THIS is how the market has changed. It's not evolution anymore than one species dying out and another taking it's place is evolution. The luxury car didn't evolve, it went extinct. The performance car evolved to fill the luxury car's place.

Tell that to GM with a straight face. Better made? sure. Drove <as in handled> better? sure. Road better? eh, you can't really beat an air cushion suspension for ride softness. with a bit of help from the car rags. I own a CTS remember? On long trips I actually prefer using my Avalanche because of the softer ride. The CTS beats me up too much on the PA TPK. I usually end up using the CTS for fuel concerns and the fact that Chas doesn't like to drive the 'Lanche. Not sure how poor Lincoln got dragged into this. Show them some mercy. again, not sure where you're going with this.

I think it has something to do with "you can sell an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man an old man's car".

That was a Seville <cause I couldn't find a decent Eldo pic> v. a 633i. Dunno how much more apples to apples you want it.

not sure who's point you're trying to prove here, mine or yours. that 3-series doesn't look any better or more luxurious than the Cimarron. The Cimarron, I think we'd both agree, is an abortion of style, taste and quality. So it being comparible to the 3-series does what for your argument? the Cimarron was also not typical of Cadillacs of the time. as far as the modern day CTS, I've stated repeatedly that tastes have changed. The reason I use the 1980-1985 range is because there weren't a lot of body changes at Cadillac during those years and Google image search is a bit more forgiving than focusing on one year. Edit: and why are we comparing the lowest common denominators of each company? I compared a Seville with a 633i, though an Eldorado would have worked as well. My only point here is that Cadillac in the 80's was much more luxurious in terms of traditional luxury than BMW, Benz, or Audi. Any by that regard, the '85 Seville deserves to be in the commercial. By the end of the 80's, that was still true, but America's tastes changed to favor the firmer, trimmer appointments of the Euros.

Quite simply, in 1980, this was luxury: This was not: but that was then and this is now... tastes have changed.

Flex fuel simply adds to the "Go anywhere, Do anything" attitude of Hummer. They could add "Burn anything" to it. Needs a soft top model though.

Pontiac Aztec

In don't think I stated, anywhere in my post, that Cadillacs were the fastest or best handling. They, clearly, were not. The 4100 was a boat anchor. and, yes, I have driven, back to back, Cadillacs and Benzes of the same era. Luxury was measured by a different yard stick in 1980. Luxury was having the most sumptuous soft leather seats, wood or plood everywhere, lots and lots of chrome, wire spoke wheels, super smooth ride and as little noise in the cabin as possible. In short, it was meant to feel like you were driving a leather couch in an upscale gentleman's club. I've owned a 1985 Toronado. While I had the advantage of the 307 over the 4100, much of the rest of the car is the same as the Eldorado. I've also driven 79-85 Rivs and Eldorados at the local Lambda car club. At the same time a friend of mine, with a masochistic streak, owns an 85 or 86 <can't remember> Benz 300E. Over all it is a solid car with many, many minor issues, but it is not a luxury car by 1985 standards. The wood is chipped or pealing and the vinyl feels like an upscale version of the stuff used on my dad's old '83 F-150 bench seat. Have luxury "standards" changed since 1985? Youbetcha! Today the luxury is measured in harsh rides, stiff seats, monochrome interiors with as little wood as possible, and cramped spaces. Are 5-series nice cars? yes, but they're premium sport sedans, not luxury cars.

'Remember'?? With a few million on the road, I doubt remembrances are neccessary.I didn't care for the look initially, but it's not haphazard, convoluted & bloated like toyota's body undulations & tacked on bling-supreme grille. 215397[/snapback] I actually always liked that look. It gave it an aggressive appearance without the "big rig" look like the Ram has.

that and the complimentary copy of consumer reports....

Uh, I was primarily comparing to the Ridgeline and my numbers reflected such. The Pilot would be compaired to the GMT-360s or the Tahoe/Yukon.... and again, it gets similar mileage to those trucks while both of the GM models have more power, more towing capacity, equal seating capacity, and in the case of the 900s, more cargo capacity.

The only reason they were still making these two in 1996 is because someone forgot to shut the factory down way back in 1991.

bitter old queen

an electric razor?

The '85 Seville, while stylistically polarizing, was still the epitome of luxury while BMWs and Audis were still minimalistic, quirky, non-luxurious cars that were only desirable because they were expensive and European. It sold in great numbers. The Allante, also stylistically polarizing, has almost a cult car status now.

Why? The base engines of it's competitors are all 4-bangers. While the 3.4 that is currently in there isn't exactly a barn burner, it's no slouch.

It's a South Park joke.

I think the point here Siegen is that the mileage range for Avalanche, Pilot, and Ridgeline overlap yet the Avalanche is a substantially more capable vehicle than either of the Hondas. The Ridgeline has 247hp V6 and 5-speed while the Avalanche has a 310hp V8 and a 4-speed yet both get between 12mpg and 20mpg depending on driving styles.