balthazar

^ It's HEAVILY discounted and HEAVILY fleeted, that's where the volume comes from, not retail demand.

^ You are incorrect and ignore the Eldorado Brougham Drew posted, leaps & bounds over any Rolls that decade or the following TWO. World's better car with a better image to boot. In the '30s Cadillac had V8s, V12s and V16s while all Rolls offered was a 6. "Competed" then? More like 'blew out of the water'. Rolls existed sheerly on quality of craftsmanship, but that's hardly enough to be 'competitive'. Which it wasn't. Image is made on the back of product. Build the product and the image always follows, not the other way around. You know Pontiac & their image circa 1954, and what occurred over the next 10 years, right?

"Rolls" has enjoyed some true longevity in the cache of the name, but the factual matter is that the brand slipped far behind being any sort of class leader sometime in the 1920s. Rolls didn't get an 8-cylinder until 1959 IIRC, or FORTY-FIVE YEARS after Cadillac introduce theirs. A/C didn't appear until sometime circa the mid '50s, or around 15 years after Cadillac. By the mid '60s, a Rolls had circa a whopping 215 HP and couldn't lumber out of it's own way. Most of the styling was a full decade behind the industry and there was no engineering department... at all. It was a well built car; well built but boring, archaic and spartanly-equipped with poor performance in every metric. The only buzz up to that point was the short-lived appearance of the ungainly Camargue in the late '70s. Google up a pic of the interior and gape at that black rubber school bus steering wheel (finish/design, not diameter). Whew. To state it accurately, Rolls first ceased to be competitive with Cadillac about 85 years ago. But, as with the case with Rolls today, a proper product can turn things around 180 degrees. I actually like the current Rolls (via pics; I've yet to see one in person). A proper Cadillac could absolutely compete in the ultra-lux / Rolls level... but whether now is the time, is another matter. Agree that the s-class level is much more important, now & long-term.

Of course, the Crown Vic & it's trim variants had something close to a 60-yr run (or 20-some years more than the s-class). And in that it generated huge volumes over it's lifespan, absolutely was that segment 'gone after' by others. The delicious (yet unpopular with da fanbois) irony here is, mercedes is likewise a heavy fleet brand pushing volume... or MUCH like the Crown Vic in that respect.

It's not like the vehicles we're talking about are 70/30. The XTS is 58/42, the 550 is 53/47, and the way both are driven, owners are very unlikely to see any plowing differences during braking in turns. These are NOT hard-driven sedans and are very close in spec, esp vs. decades ago. I'd be very interested to see how the XTS with it's MRC 'feels' vs. the older suspension tech on the 5-series.

Ride & handling are 2 different criteria. Ride has zero to do with which wheels are driven and everything to due with suspension/rolling stock. No problem to have a worse-riding RWD car than a FWD car. Handling is another matter, which -all else being equal- is generally true (that RWD will handle better). CTS is already on par with the 5-series & e-class in handling & ride and is notably lighter, so your theoretical backpedaling to the handling of your nebulous, so-called 'dressed up Impala' isn't even a legitimate concern.

b-b-b-but they cannot remotely compete with each other, because -as you have illustrated ad nauseum- one is FWD(/AWD) & one is RWD(/AWD).

^ same platform (stretched), same engines; you're kidding yourself. Unfortunately, they made it look like a melted edition of a 10-yr old s-class, with a sappy 1970's 2-tone paint job. Or maybe it was simply the ancient 5-spd automatic that torpedoed it... you know how you like to attribute an entire car's market performance on a singular feature, so that must be it. Any way you color it, a flop. And now they're going to try and pass off maybach 2.0.

^ HA, you also said 'no one will buy the XTS' and you were quite wrong there. Consumers don't buy cars on the singular factoid of which wheels are driven. Most mercedes & BMW owners have no idea which do.

merecedes already tried the market with a thinly-veiled stretched s-class, it was a fantastic flop they just pulled from the market. "Interesting to see what it is" - we've already seen their effort here... and the rear seat was already 'like a jet'. It needs to be a fresh, ground-up car, not just another badge job with a hopped-up interior and a stolen pedigree.

All today: 1973 Eldorado convert, whote over white, top up, nice shape, parked by the local upholster shop. 1971 Buick Riviera, gold, split bumper treatment, super sano, 22" donks, parked. 1970 Cadillac deVille convert, white on white, top down, great shape, rollin. 1968 Buick Skylark 4-dr sedan, silver, a bit rough, rollin. 1966 Ford Mustang convert, black over yellow, minty, some sort of circular sticker on the doors, rolling, right behind a 1970 Buick full size convert, maybe a Wildcat, gold, minty fresh, some sort of circular sticker on the doors, rolling, right behind a 1956 Chrysler Newport 2-dr hardtop, turquiose-y over white, super minty, some sort of circular sticker on the doors, rolling.

'80s SLs are built really cheap. One could do much better in product/investment. South of the 560, you are looking at 0-60 times around 12 seconds. According to NADA, an '87 560SL, originally MSRP of $55K, is worth an average of $11K today. Frankly, you look the car over in person, and you won't think it's worth 1/2 that. You want a good '80s car for collectibility/investment, get a Buick Grand National. GNX was 29K new, average retail today is 72K. That's one vehicle (and from the '80s too) that may have never averaged lower than it's MSRP, ever. Plus it'll blow a 560Sl into the weeds (on the straights & the curves). I like this era Rivieras, never see them around anymore tho. I'd only look at a T-Type, tho.

I see no 'sport trim' package... I bid $3500... $1500. It's certainly not collectible or museum-worthy. Use it up & toss it.

Yeah- the narrative talks like it's an even, or even close, exchange. Reminds me in a way of the hilarity surrounding 'Buick was picked to survive because Buicks sell so well in China' (just ship 'em Opel parts). At some point the brand will be completely hollowed out, but that's "branding" for you.

Too bad the pipeline only flows one-way.

and

Malibu :: MSRP 21995 / average trans 19927 altima :: MSRP 21760 / average trans 21123 camry :: MSRP 22235 / average trans 21038

http://autos.yahoo.com/photos/steve-mcqueen-s-1969-baja-1000-racing-truck-slideshow/steve-mcqueen-s-baja-racing-truck-photo-800075986.html

The 7 series is just a bigger, more expensive 5 series, but that seems to work fairly well. Audi runs the Volkswagon 2.0 4-banger in the A2, A3, A4, A5 AND the A6 aaaaaand that seems to work fine, too. The way you spin things, you give the impression audi couldn't move more than a few dozen A6s annually based on that lil' factoid. Most consumers --and this certainly includes the average dolts that buy bmw/mb on badge alone-- have very little car knowledge. In other words, the fact that this 3.6L is the same basic motor as that 3.6L over there doesn't register.

Buick is flat May vs. May and solidly up 2013 vs. 2012.

The thing this approach does, tho, is erode the price tag difference 'legitimacy' between models. IOW, once the vast majority of equipment/features is found on entry-level-esque models, why would anyone buy the mid-market or top-end models? IMO, it's a bit of auto-cannibalism. The only way I see this working long-term is lessen the number of lines within a brand and increase the degree of 'tailoring' one can do within the fewer lines.

RE the manual, I can see that. However, since only like 5% of the vehicles sold are manuals, not sure that should be a guiding principal. The floor brakes I'm used to, like in the prior gen Malibu- have no separate release; it's push on, push off. I believe a lot of recent cars are this way, I could be wrong. Easy fix tho. AFA debris, people don't ususally shed french fries & general detritus under their dash NEARLY as much as over the console. Besides, that pedal is... under the dash- with the ubiquitous console, only the right rear passenger has a chance to see such. My bottom line is it's not used that much on average, it performs the exact same function in either location at identical speed & ease, yet one is tucked into an area where it's out of sight & by the (95% of the time) idle left foot, and other other is under the elbow of both front occupants. I guess it's just me. It is nicely trimmed, tho.

An under-dash pedal is going to be cheaper than any console lever with it's leather boot, nicer handle etc., so the console lever has to be costlier. Why spend more for the exact same function AND less space- I can only conclude it's the fashion-ality of being more "sporty". If it's standardization for the rest of the markets, boo I say. As to standardizartion; the more you make yourself like everything else, the less compelling your pitch to buy your widgit is. However, show a real advantage to your approach (more room/storage in the console area) and you've earned yourself notice.

The console E-brake lever is fine in a sports car, but in a mid-size sedan it's just a fashion (??) trapping. Space is a premium here, and an electronic or under-dash e-brake makes imminently more sense. That space could've been a small lidded compartment. A console lever certainly doesn't add functionality or ease of use or any other positive. And frankly, that leather boot is just a difficult-to-keep-clean debris catcher. The rest of the console does add function & looks pretty good- just eliminate the brake handle.

Wow on that P-68! Tough to find '60s Pontiac wagons!