SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: 2009 Vette ZR1 or 2009 Benz SL65???
04-14-2008, 06:44 PM
#51
Senior Member
It looks to me that this thread has been beaten to death but I still want to add my two cents. Regarding this comment:
"I've had two friends get into pretty hard accidents in MB's and walk away, helped by the structural integrity.
Sadly, one acquaintance with a Z06 wrapped himself and his girlfriend around a tree a few months ago. The car literally exploded into parts and the skin melted, killing them both. I know one of the emergency responders on the scene, and even he was freaked out by the mess."
While I'm terrible sorry for your loss, blaming the quality or structure of the vehicle without knowing all of the variables regarding the accident as someone has already stated earlier is just plain wrong IMO.
On a personal note, my father-in-law walked away from a horrible accident while driving a 1998 Vette (not a scratch on him). The car was totalled after a moving truck had a 90 foot sofa fall out of the back of the truck bounce off the pavement and onto my father-in-laws car crushing the hood, roof and back of the car. Once could say, "Thank God he was driving such a "sound" car while someone else might say, "Boy he was really lucky - thinking the "stereotype" that Vette's are "flimsy" cars. Looking at the remains of the car one would have thought it was a fatality.
The reason for his accident not ending in a tradgedy was given by the police and more importantly by the insurance company after an investigation was done that explained the accident this way, it had nothing to do with who the car manufacturer was, but simply how and where the sofa hit the various parts of the car.
On another personal note, when I was a teenager, a friend of mine and her mom were driving an 87' 420SEL (which back in the day were considered "tanks" for cars) and were hit from behind by a truck who's speed was estimated at about 40mph when it hit them, killing my friend's mom (she flew through the windshield of the car) Later we found out that the seatbelt "malfunctioned" at the time of impact.
Regarding the interiors of the Vette, certainly nothing wrong with the quality. In comparison to the MB, if anything I think it's a matter of taste, design and functionality.
Anyway, my point being is that in 2008, cars are made to be as safe as the "rules and regulations" dictate them to be. Are some cars considered "safer" than others? Yes of course, but to say that the Vette specifically the ZR1 is structurally a piece of junk, I think is a very ignorant statement to make:
"This is true, but GM products including the Chevy Corvette has been nothing but junk for years and they're just now starting to build something worth owning. Mercedes built quality cars before GM had a clue. Since 2005 Mercedes has gotten a lot better. The 2007 S, CL and other recent Mercedes prove they aren't living off their past reputation, they're building quality cars again. Something GM is just now learning to do. You've got to be kidding to come here with that GM bs lecturing Benz owners about quality. A Corvette is one of the flimsiest cars going..a plastic hell inside and out, but admittedly a lot of fun to drive, but quality. PLUHEASE."
I've driven and owned a plethera of american and foreign cars in my 22 years of legal driving - two of them being "older generation Vettes an 87' and a 94' (my husband had a 99' hardtop/coupe before he got his Viper) and as far as functionality and durability go the Vettes were hands-down two of the most reliable cars I have ever owned.
I am done with my venting....sorry
"I've had two friends get into pretty hard accidents in MB's and walk away, helped by the structural integrity.
Sadly, one acquaintance with a Z06 wrapped himself and his girlfriend around a tree a few months ago. The car literally exploded into parts and the skin melted, killing them both. I know one of the emergency responders on the scene, and even he was freaked out by the mess."
While I'm terrible sorry for your loss, blaming the quality or structure of the vehicle without knowing all of the variables regarding the accident as someone has already stated earlier is just plain wrong IMO.
On a personal note, my father-in-law walked away from a horrible accident while driving a 1998 Vette (not a scratch on him). The car was totalled after a moving truck had a 90 foot sofa fall out of the back of the truck bounce off the pavement and onto my father-in-laws car crushing the hood, roof and back of the car. Once could say, "Thank God he was driving such a "sound" car while someone else might say, "Boy he was really lucky - thinking the "stereotype" that Vette's are "flimsy" cars. Looking at the remains of the car one would have thought it was a fatality.
The reason for his accident not ending in a tradgedy was given by the police and more importantly by the insurance company after an investigation was done that explained the accident this way, it had nothing to do with who the car manufacturer was, but simply how and where the sofa hit the various parts of the car.
On another personal note, when I was a teenager, a friend of mine and her mom were driving an 87' 420SEL (which back in the day were considered "tanks" for cars) and were hit from behind by a truck who's speed was estimated at about 40mph when it hit them, killing my friend's mom (she flew through the windshield of the car) Later we found out that the seatbelt "malfunctioned" at the time of impact.
Regarding the interiors of the Vette, certainly nothing wrong with the quality. In comparison to the MB, if anything I think it's a matter of taste, design and functionality.
Anyway, my point being is that in 2008, cars are made to be as safe as the "rules and regulations" dictate them to be. Are some cars considered "safer" than others? Yes of course, but to say that the Vette specifically the ZR1 is structurally a piece of junk, I think is a very ignorant statement to make:
"This is true, but GM products including the Chevy Corvette has been nothing but junk for years and they're just now starting to build something worth owning. Mercedes built quality cars before GM had a clue. Since 2005 Mercedes has gotten a lot better. The 2007 S, CL and other recent Mercedes prove they aren't living off their past reputation, they're building quality cars again. Something GM is just now learning to do. You've got to be kidding to come here with that GM bs lecturing Benz owners about quality. A Corvette is one of the flimsiest cars going..a plastic hell inside and out, but admittedly a lot of fun to drive, but quality. PLUHEASE."
I've driven and owned a plethera of american and foreign cars in my 22 years of legal driving - two of them being "older generation Vettes an 87' and a 94' (my husband had a 99' hardtop/coupe before he got his Viper) and as far as functionality and durability go the Vettes were hands-down two of the most reliable cars I have ever owned.
I am done with my venting....sorry
04-14-2008, 10:13 PM
#52
No matter what you do with it, a fiberglass car is nowhere near as strong as a steel car. Fiberglass shatters on impact, unlike steel, that bends and contracts on impact. Look at 5:45 at this clip, it shows pricesly why fiberglass is not a good material from a safety stand point. You can actually push it in with your hand by gently tapping on it, now imagine what an impact would do! Sure its light... but safe? No way.
Look at 5:45:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=scRYrrUcB9A
Look at 5:45:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=scRYrrUcB9A
04-15-2008, 12:28 AM
#53
Senior Member
No matter what you do with it, a fiberglass car is nowhere near as strong as a steel car. Fiberglass shatters on impact, unlike steel, that bends and contracts on impact.
Advanced structural composites featuring carbon fiber are bonded to the aluminum structure. The construction incorporates composite and carbon-fiber body panels, hydroformed aluminum frame with aluminum and magnesium structural and chassis components. (Just because one can find a flexible effect to the panels does not imply that this is the end-all of the aspect of safety. The design and structuring of the framework behind the outer panels is the real factor.) Besides, I don't think the original poster was searching for data on the safety scope for these cars. Again, MB has few equals here.
On the performance/value, timing and collectors angle, ZR1 is tough to beat at any price, but especially given its price. But its not a heavy luxury GT cruiser and this point has been effectively established.
Last edited by c2jones; 04-15-2008 at 12:30 AM.
04-15-2008, 01:37 AM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
I'm not lecturing anybody. I am a Mercedes owner. I am reading posts and threads.........lots and lots of them. If thier recent quality has improved than I applaud them. In looking for a decent repair shop on this forum I have discovered that there are no positive posts recommending any where I live. Not particularly reassuring. If you haven't owned a recent Corvette than you would do well to stick to the facts since your opinion lacks credibility. Back to my statement that he ZR1 is unmatched in both PRICE AND PERFORMANCE I'll stick to that assertion. You don't agree, that's certainly your right. Stop reading between the lines and re-read my post. It IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm a big fan of many high performance cars. I'll leave the brand fanatacism to the Harley crowd, of which I own several.
Here is the thing I don't have to "own" a Corvette to know that they're cheaply made, have wobbly bodies (yes driven one) and have an interior more suitable for a tupperware party. The seats in particular are pathetic. GM excuse makers and apologist kill me with this "you must own one" crap. Like you can't tell a cheapo car when you sit in or drive one, unless you own it.
You don't know what the ZR-1 is capable of yet so how would you know. If it can put some distance between it and the GT-R then you can make that claim. There are no "facts" in yet on the ZR-1 seeing as how no one has driven it yet.
Regarding your other posts....I've never seen so much GM excuse making on these boards.
Problems, cheapo build quality and "setbacks" aren't acceptable on ANY car, especially one with the pricetag of a Corvette. I love it how one minute the Vette is a "Chevy" and the next one it isn't. To excuse Chevy on quality because its cheaper than competing cars is just plain excuse making BS. I pay 50K for a Vette I want an interior better than a Malibu. Period.
M
Last edited by Germancar1; 04-15-2008 at 01:46 AM.
04-15-2008, 01:58 AM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
I've driven and owned a plethera of american and foreign cars in my 22 years of legal driving - two of them being "older generation Vettes an 87' and a 94' (my husband had a 99' hardtop/coupe before he got his Viper) and as far as functionality and durability go the Vettes were hands-down two of the most reliable cars I have ever owned.
There is a difference between quality and reliability. Any car can be reliable, but that doesn't mean that it has high build quality. A Corvette has never, ever been a car that inspired any kind of confidence in its build quality or fit and finish. The body, interior, seats and nearly everything that wasn't related to the drivetrain has been up until very recently some of the cheapest mess GM could come up with. Reliable yes, quality build, materials, fit and finish...not by a mile. GM still hasn't fixed this. Over an option that covers everything in leather for 2008 doesn't fool anyone.
This is the reason why some of GM's older cars (certain Buicks in particular) used to top reliablity surveys in the recent past...a Buick using a pushrod engine and a 4-speed automatic (antiques) should be reliable to a fault since most of that hardware was developed 20+ years ago. Nevermind all the rough, ill-fitting edges in the interior.
A Toyota Camry doesn't have the same build quality as a VW Passat or Jetta. Don't believe me? All you have to do is drive the VWs and then do the same with the Toyota...but the Toyota is way more "reliable". There is a distinct difference between quality and reliability.
M
Last edited by Germancar1; 04-15-2008 at 02:01 AM.
04-15-2008, 11:59 AM
#56
Senior Member
so much GM excuse making
Problems, cheapo build quality and "setbacks" aren't acceptable on ANY car, especially one with the pricetag of a Corvette.
Does your intended point not directly fly right in the face of your argument? You infer that there is bias from some for GM (apologists you say - which may not at all be the case - only fairness and relativity), yet you don't see how you are doing this all the same for MB. You say that things are getting better (problems with MB), which we can only hope is true, while you feel this suffices or is somehow different that those referencing setbacks with GM. Can you help me with the difference? Honestly.
There is a difference between quality and reliability.
Toyota Camry doesn't have the same build quality as a VW Passat or Jetta.
You title yourself GermanCar1 and by the number of posts you've had (a whopping 2,149 since December '05!), you are accurately categorized within the "fanatic" description. It shows. I wish I had that kind of spare time, most respectfully, of course. Can you not see how you take annoyance in the bias of others but fail to detect your own? Would you not see this as a fair and honest observation? Is ZR1 really trying to compare lush interiors with SL65 whatsoever - is this truly the point?
The original premise was about helping one make a choice (and we don't even know how qualified and realistic this potential purchaser truly is) between the ZR1 and the SL65, as if they were not two totally different cars for different experiences altogether. Since then, certain people (MB loyalists) are taking emotional biases into this and pilling on about "cheapo interiors" as if this is a principal part of why one would consider a ZR1 - a true supercar, and not a luxury heavy cruiser. (And now, the GT-R is being thrown into the mix which was not the premise of the topic. If one likes the bang for buck angle of the GT-R, then MB is completely out of the topic.)
Can't we just appreciate the merits of both of these cars for what they're designed and proposed to do?
Are there not pros and cons of all makes despite the pricing? Are setbacks so much more tolerable for one make over another? These two cars are unique and different and have their niche consumers. Some of us are turning this into a "my favorite car is ____ and anything else sucks" trivial arena. This is actually unnecessary.
Last edited by c2jones; 04-15-2008 at 12:25 PM.
04-15-2008, 01:33 PM
#58
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 300CE
Ditto! Why some people feel the need to go full tilt on defense about a car is beyond me. As with other things in life, perception and reality rarely coincide.
I'ts like wine. Is that $100.00 bottle of wine REALLY 5 times better than the $20.00 bottle of wine? Or is it perceived to be because it cost 5 times as much? It is a widely accepted tenet of marketing that price, whether it be low or high, affects one's perception of the item they purchased. So If one assumes something is better because it cost more, and there is no conclusive evidence to support that assumption, then they are likely to be fools who deserve to be seperated from their money. High price also equates to exclusivity, which to some is all that really matters in life. I want what everyone else can't afford. Owning it elevates me above everyone else. Insecurity run amok.
I've owned some fun cars over tha past 4 decades. None have produced as many smiles per gallon as my C6 Corvette. None! And I don't care if the interior is made of cardboard. It doesn't matter. If somebody disagrees, let them write the check and then maybe I'll listen. Until then, there's only one vote, MINE!
I'ts like wine. Is that $100.00 bottle of wine REALLY 5 times better than the $20.00 bottle of wine? Or is it perceived to be because it cost 5 times as much? It is a widely accepted tenet of marketing that price, whether it be low or high, affects one's perception of the item they purchased. So If one assumes something is better because it cost more, and there is no conclusive evidence to support that assumption, then they are likely to be fools who deserve to be seperated from their money. High price also equates to exclusivity, which to some is all that really matters in life. I want what everyone else can't afford. Owning it elevates me above everyone else. Insecurity run amok.
I've owned some fun cars over tha past 4 decades. None have produced as many smiles per gallon as my C6 Corvette. None! And I don't care if the interior is made of cardboard. It doesn't matter. If somebody disagrees, let them write the check and then maybe I'll listen. Until then, there's only one vote, MINE!
04-16-2008, 02:03 AM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
Does your intended point not directly fly right in the face of your argument? You infer that there is bias from some for GM (apologists you say - which may not at all be the case - only fairness and relativity), yet you don't see how you are doing this all the same for MB. You say that things are getting better (problems with MB), which we can only hope is true, while you feel this suffices or is somehow different that those referencing setbacks with GM. Can you help me with the difference? Honestly.
Over the last several years there were many reports rating "Initial Quality," which would include fit and finish as well, comparable between the two makes. This isn't focusing merely upon interior appointments alone. There are other aspects that define the category as well. As one can see with MB, lush interiors have nothing to say about cosmetic mishaps even within the same interior, according to various reports and user experiences. Then there is the matter of how one will translate or regard what one observes in these reports - and there the bias (or neutrality) will rule the day.
I knew some people that had Jettas that would beg the differ. They had numerous quality and reliability issues with them.
Toyota, and its luxury derivative Lexus, have an ever-enhancing reputation for build quality. In fact, Initial Quality has been one of their stronger suits.
Driving the LS460 and S550 back to back a Lexus sponsored even bore this out immediately. Dark beige plastic and acres of light beige leather don't a quality interior make. Lexus goes for car that impresses more on a 15 minute test drive than something longer like a BMW or Mercedes-Benz...whose true talents remain hidden until some time passes by with the car.
I'm not taking a side here, but merely reflecting what perceptions can do to one's digestion, sometimes despite the information published on the topic. Simply test "driving" them both is not an indication of the build quality beyond one's immediate personal perception - its hardly scientific or universal.
You title yourself GermanCar1 and by the number of posts you've had (a whopping 2,149 since December '05!), you are accurately categorized within the "fanatic" description. It shows. I wish I had that kind of spare time, most respectfully, of course. Can you not see how you take annoyance in the bias of others but fail to detect your own? Would you not see this as a fair and honest observation?
Is ZR1 really trying to compare lush interiors with SL65 whatsoever - is this truly the point?
The original premise was about helping one make a choice (and we don't even know how qualified and realistic this potential purchaser truly is) between the ZR1 and the SL65, as if they were not two totally different cars for different experiences altogether. Since then, certain people (MB loyalists) are taking emotional biases into this and pilling on about "cheapo interiors" as if this is a principal part of why one would consider a ZR1 - a true supercar, and not a luxury heavy cruiser. (And now, the GT-R is being thrown into the mix which was not the premise of the topic. If one likes the bang for buck angle of the GT-R, then MB is completely out of the topic.)
Can't we just appreciate the merits of both of these cars for what they're designed and proposed to do?
Are there not pros and cons of all makes despite the pricing?
Are setbacks so much more tolerable for one make over another?
These two cars are unique and different and have their niche consumers. Some of us are turning this into a "my favorite car is ____ and anything else sucks" trivial arena. This is actually unnecessary.
M
04-16-2008, 02:25 AM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
c2jones - so you'll know that I'm not making excuses or excusing Mercedes-Benz, I want you to see a post I made in another thread:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....5&postcount=17
M
Well first off, all of the vehicles you've listed are previous generation vehicles. There is nothing Mercedes can do to "fix" their reputation with those vehicles. All they can do is repair them as they break. The darkest period for Mercedes is from 1998-2005/06 depending on the model series in question.
The new S-Class and CL have proven (so far) be a complete turn around for Mercedes compared to the previous S-Class and CL models.
Secondly you simply can't use a lame review from CNNMoney to give you the entire picture on a Mercedes, or any car for that matter. For one they aren't car experts, only automotive "writers". Ditto for Consumer Reports. Their reliability data is what it is, but all they can do is "project" what the reliability will be for the new S-Class based on the old model. Pretty dumb IMO. Everyone in the known world already knows that the new S is way different from the old S, but at Consumer Reports they don't acknowledge this in their reliability stats, only to say that it is "projected". I am dying to see what Consumer Reports says in their data this spring which will include actual hard data on the 2007 S and CL models, not some projection crap. The upcoming data will give the stats on the first year of ownership, not the first 90 days like J.D. Powers does.
The new S/CL does just what you ask, gets a handle on the problem and their image and it has done so (so far) with smashing results. You also have to realize that people with older troubled Benzes are going to harp about it forever and forever until they either get a newer and have a better experience. After a while it just becomes meaningless drivel because their cars are no longer relevant or related to the current crop in quality, design, reliability.
I have a W208 CLK430 Cabriolet, one of the troubled cars from the darker years of Mercedes' quality woes so I know first hand about this to a certain degree, but I also have the sense to know a W221 is a different car. There comes a time where you have to make up your own mind and use more than one (bitter) source.
There is no denying that Mercedes-Benz suffered (or suffers depending on how you look at it) a severe drop in quality. Generally the worst offenders were/are:
1998-2005 ML (W163) - Worst vehicle Mercedes-Benz has made in the last 25 years!
1998-2003 CLK (W208)
2001-2007 C-Class (W203)
2000-2006 S-Class (W220)
1996-2002 E-Class (W210)
Then you have some cars that were iffy at the start, but seemed to have improved greatly:
2003-2008 E-Class (W211) - The 2003-2005 models were worst, but from 2006 onward things seem to have gotten better, but the real improvement came with the 2007 facelift. The initial data (JDP) suggest a complete turn around, but I'm still waiting to see is Consumer Reports mirrors it.
2003-2008 SL (R230) - Like the current E-Class, the 2003-2005 models were problematic, but the 2007 facelift seems to have turned things around.
Then you have some that still seem to be problematic:
2003-2008 CLK (W209) - Still seems to be more problematic than any of the above cars. Not sure why at this point. Still better than the W208 cars, but not yet straightened out it seems.
2006-2008 GL, ML, R-Classes. All share the same chassis and most parts, still seem to be problematic going by the boards here. These being built here seems to have a lot to do with it, but that is a whole different story.
Overall I'd say MB's quality is on the mend, but they still have a long ways to go. Ideally everything they make would be as trouble free as the W221 is proving to be. We'll see if the new C-Class can repeat this in the hands of far more consumers in much greater number than the S-Class.
M
The new S-Class and CL have proven (so far) be a complete turn around for Mercedes compared to the previous S-Class and CL models.
Secondly you simply can't use a lame review from CNNMoney to give you the entire picture on a Mercedes, or any car for that matter. For one they aren't car experts, only automotive "writers". Ditto for Consumer Reports. Their reliability data is what it is, but all they can do is "project" what the reliability will be for the new S-Class based on the old model. Pretty dumb IMO. Everyone in the known world already knows that the new S is way different from the old S, but at Consumer Reports they don't acknowledge this in their reliability stats, only to say that it is "projected". I am dying to see what Consumer Reports says in their data this spring which will include actual hard data on the 2007 S and CL models, not some projection crap. The upcoming data will give the stats on the first year of ownership, not the first 90 days like J.D. Powers does.
The new S/CL does just what you ask, gets a handle on the problem and their image and it has done so (so far) with smashing results. You also have to realize that people with older troubled Benzes are going to harp about it forever and forever until they either get a newer and have a better experience. After a while it just becomes meaningless drivel because their cars are no longer relevant or related to the current crop in quality, design, reliability.
I have a W208 CLK430 Cabriolet, one of the troubled cars from the darker years of Mercedes' quality woes so I know first hand about this to a certain degree, but I also have the sense to know a W221 is a different car. There comes a time where you have to make up your own mind and use more than one (bitter) source.
There is no denying that Mercedes-Benz suffered (or suffers depending on how you look at it) a severe drop in quality. Generally the worst offenders were/are:
1998-2005 ML (W163) - Worst vehicle Mercedes-Benz has made in the last 25 years!
1998-2003 CLK (W208)
2001-2007 C-Class (W203)
2000-2006 S-Class (W220)
1996-2002 E-Class (W210)
Then you have some cars that were iffy at the start, but seemed to have improved greatly:
2003-2008 E-Class (W211) - The 2003-2005 models were worst, but from 2006 onward things seem to have gotten better, but the real improvement came with the 2007 facelift. The initial data (JDP) suggest a complete turn around, but I'm still waiting to see is Consumer Reports mirrors it.
2003-2008 SL (R230) - Like the current E-Class, the 2003-2005 models were problematic, but the 2007 facelift seems to have turned things around.
Then you have some that still seem to be problematic:
2003-2008 CLK (W209) - Still seems to be more problematic than any of the above cars. Not sure why at this point. Still better than the W208 cars, but not yet straightened out it seems.
2006-2008 GL, ML, R-Classes. All share the same chassis and most parts, still seem to be problematic going by the boards here. These being built here seems to have a lot to do with it, but that is a whole different story.
Overall I'd say MB's quality is on the mend, but they still have a long ways to go. Ideally everything they make would be as trouble free as the W221 is proving to be. We'll see if the new C-Class can repeat this in the hands of far more consumers in much greater number than the S-Class.
M
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....5&postcount=17
M
04-16-2008, 12:57 PM
#61
Senior Member
Note to any newly arriving onlookers: This thread was supposed to be about a fair choice between these two vehicles, even as they are two completely different cars by design, but as one can see, now the merits of perceived quality, etc., has taken the mantle. Please bear with us.
See what I mean about perceptions? To be clear and accurate, I never concurred that Corvettes were "junky" in the first place (such use of terms are beneath me), and, while no one dismisses that Corvettes are built with less focus upon interior appointments and the same luxury wow-factor as MB, they were never intended to. The point here is about relativity to price and value, especially when one is comparing a supercar to a luxury car. The build quality of Corvette (especially for current models and upward as to be expected for ZR1, which was the premise of this discussion) is not so demeaning per ratio that its performance numbers should be disregarded, especially when compared to '65, where MB has had a plethora of problems. Quality has a broader definition than I feel you propose. You feel that quality is purely a mark of how well wrapped in fine leather versus lesser materials, while missing duration/usefulness of applicable components and onward. Otherwise, we generally agree.
I covered all this previously in this thread... https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....4&postcount=45
Precisely. Especially given their lofty pricing and presupposed quality, refinement and reliability. When one buys a luxury car, more is expected of it than one should duly expect for the lowest tier of GM, etc. This is the difference. Yet, I am moved by your firm acknowledgment of this. Honestly.
I don't think there is an interest in lobbying for Corvette as necessarily a "quality piece," only that its quality is again, not so off the mark as to have it labeled as "junk" especially when these luxury cars with pricing in deep levels of orbit are not fairing a whole lot better all things considered. You seem too caught up with the smell and euphoria of wood and leather in your cabins. If only this was enough to offset the rest. For many of us it is surely not. When comparing supercars cars which are intended for their performance, the focus on those interior appointments fades. However, if one wants ultra luxury and ultra performance in the same vehicle, perhaps SLR or Veyron would be their fancy. Just don't complain about pricing and value. (ZR1 for its part is trying to do this for you.)
MB should have never lost their way in the first place given their pricing and previous reputation towards validating said pricing. MB took full advantage of its former reputation and laxly waned its pride and interest in top user experience. And as sales stayed steady despite rising mishaps, they had no incentive to change and stuck it to us good. (They must have seen us silly Americans as vanity obsessive fools and had scarcely an anxious moment all the same.) Inexcusable. Corvette by contrast, never claimed to be interested in enamoring you with 'fine motor carriages' etc. It was always, and remains, a pure sportscar. And GM, Corvette included, as you rightly acknowledge, are also enhancing their standards rapidly and ZR1 should be no exception, especially as purpose-built supercars go.
Unless its your comments about Corvette, then your "junky" build impressions should rule the day and anyone who denies it has a deficiency somewhere. No divergent opinion allowed, relative or otherwise. Right?
General yes, but not necessarily non-useful. Multiple experiences in various conditions, release dates, options, and multiple reflections help rule out premature personal assessments or emotional quarks speaking for everyone. There is no substitute for one's own impressions, but anyone, including ourselves, can jump the gun and allow personal (often immediate) moods to overly factor. In some degree of contrast, I would contend that surveys help equalize things and counter the personal, non-universal, sometimes impulsive effect. (How many times have you heard of someone who thought one thing initially only to totally change their minds on the same aspect as time went on? I've witnessed this a million times.) Surveys help smooth this out.
I can sympathize. If I had just a nickel for every time I had to make alibis to neighbors and friends as to where my MB's were while they were out washing their (sometimes much more modest) cars while my MB's were missing from the driveway, or event I was attending, etc., because in truth the MB was in the shop (again and again), I could have bought another spare car just like theirs with the money to drive while mine were in the shop. I was getting too embarrassed to hear their snickering (towards what seemed the purchase of a terribly unreliable "luxury" car with great "build quality"), so I rehearsed many rebuttals to use. "A special advanced treatment to the paint, wheels, or interior" seemed to be the norm. Boils down to whether one needed the prestige and imagery (and fanciful interior) of the MB and would suffice for rentals (mind you, the dealership frequently ran out of C-Class or ML rentals and you got the Galant or Civic) and saving face to others from time to time to have one.
Yes. Thus why I specfically included both words in the very statement.
Precisely. This is why I place less value on select personal impressions (like "junky"), flawed as they may be. This is where the usefulness of the survey plays a role.
Would not at all agree here. The former has surely passed the longterm tests while the latter is still failing them. At least BMW retains a solid message to the consumer with their scheduled maintenance program. Let's hope MB improves to the degree you state they are.
I still think you're reacting to resistance to your biases, but okay. And no one started a conversation about Corvette quality. The input on the Corvette side was strictly reactionary to the (often blind MB loyalists) unfairly taking shots at Corvette, while in the dark on their own makes. Talk about misinformation.
Granted. But notice how you'll "give a pass" to numerous reliability issues just as long as the interior is not "junky" and looks plush and elegant. The reliability issues seem to be of less importance to you than the smell of premium leather. My goodness does MB need consumers like you - you're just what their doctor ordered. Vanity Magazine should add you to their automotive editorial section. You're seemingly too easily enamored with cosmetic refinement in that it seems to blind you or make you indifferent elsewhere, where it is far more important (at least to most of us).
Again, clear confirmation upon my point above with you. Reliability (nevermind value and performance) are of far less importance to you than initial visual refinement, and, if you regard something as second-rate in interior perspective, then the overall build quality is deemed to be low and you cannot tolerate the pricing. Yet if the interior is fine leather, but yet plagued with mechanical problems, then you still deem this good build quality and somehow more worthy of pricing twice that of another. Whew. Real study there. Like I said, you're perfect for MB. Did Daimler-Benz send you to a private boarding school as a child?
In conclusion, currently, as long as they both are cleaning up their quality act, then the ZR1 should not be inclusive of this "mess" thing and the comparison should not remain in that regard. I would think this fair enough.
Your excuse was that because a Corvette costs so much less than say a Porsche or Ferrari that is ok for it to junky in its construction.
I covered all this previously in this thread... https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....4&postcount=45
This in no way excuses Mercedes-Benz for the clunkers they've heaved onto the road from 1998-2005.
My point about trying to say that the Corvette is somehow this quality piece, when everyone who isn't a blind GM fans know that it wasn't, while trying to lump it in with Mercedes is just plum ridiculous.
Mercedes' have been and are returning to that standard now. Big difference.
Which is why I wouldn't buy a car based on one what someone says about the interior or build...
A survey can only give you (or me) a general idea, not even close to giving you the whole picture. They also get skewed on emotions.
Most Toyota buyers wouldn't admit a problem with their Camry if their life depended on it
Boils down to whether one needed the prestige and imagery (and fanciful interior) of the MB and would suffice for rentals (mind you, the dealership frequently ran out of C-Class or ML rentals and you got the Galant or Civic) and saving face to others from time to time to have one.
Did you read my last post? Quality and reliablity isn't the same thing.
When you start adding the "I knew some people" stuff to the conversation we can go on and on with those types of experiences.
Lexus goes for car that impresses more on a 15 minute test drive than something longer like a BMW or Mercedes-Benz...whose true talents remain hidden until some time passes by with the car.
Oh I definitely take "annoyance", but not at bias per say, but mis-information. A Corvette? You simply can't start a quality discussion with such a car relative to a Mercedes-Benz, especially now.
but why should it get a pass when being compared to other 100K sports cars? That is my point. You pay 100K for all that performance yet you have to stare at a Malibu steering wheels and plastic-wrap dash...simply not acceptable today no matter the performance when you're plunking down 100K.
I just find a quality argument armed with a Corvette on a Mercedes-Benz board to be too much, its hilarious. The GM car in quality has been one of their cheapest builds going for years and years. Reliable yes, quality build...not even close.
Like I said, you're perfect for MB. Did Daimler-Benz send you to a private boarding school as a child? In conclusion, currently, as long as they both are cleaning up their quality act, then the ZR1 should not be inclusive of this "mess" thing and the comparison should not remain in that regard. I would think this fair enough.
Last edited by c2jones; 04-16-2008 at 01:11 PM.
04-16-2008, 01:02 PM
#62
Senior Member
so you'll know that I'm not making excuses or excusing Mercedes-Benz, I want you to see a post I made in another thread:
04-17-2008, 02:22 AM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 4,846
Received 290 Likes
on
203 Posts
2013 650i Coupe, 2010 IS250 AWD, 1999 S500
See what I mean about perceptions? To be clear and accurate, I never concurred that Corvettes were "junky" in the first place (such use of terms are beneath me), and, while no one dismisses that Corvettes are built with less focus upon interior appointments and the same luxury wow-factor as MB, they were never intended to. The point here is about relativity to price and value, especially when one is comparing a supercar to a luxury car. The build quality of Corvette (especially for current models and upward as to be expected for ZR1, which was the premise of this discussion) is not so demeaning per ratio that its performance numbers should be disregarded, especially when compared to '65, where MB has had a plethora of problems. Quality has a broader definition than I feel you propose. You feel that quality is purely a mark of how well wrapped in fine leather versus lesser materials, while missing duration/usefulness of applicable components and onward. Otherwise, we generally agree.
Precisely. Especially given their lofty pricing and presupposed quality, refinement and reliability. When one buys a luxury car, more is expected of it than one should duly expect for the lowest tier of GM, etc. This is the difference. Yet, I am moved by your firm acknowledgment of this. Honestly.
I don't think there is an interest in lobbying for Corvette as necessarily a "quality piece," only that its quality is again, not so off the mark as to have it labeled as "junk" especially when these luxury cars with pricing in deep levels of orbit are not fairing a whole lot better all things considered.
You seem too caught up with the smell and euphoria of wood and leather in your cabins. If only this was enough to offset the rest. For many of us it is surely not. When comparing supercars cars which are intended for their performance, the focus on those interior appointments fades.
However, if one wants ultra luxury and ultra performance in the same vehicle, perhaps SLR or Veyron would be their fancy. Just don't complain about pricing and value. (ZR1 for its part is trying to do this for you.)
MB should have never lost their way in the first place given their pricing and previous reputation towards validating said pricing. MB took full advantage of its former reputation and laxly waned its pride and interest in top user experience. And as sales stayed steady despite rising mishaps, they had no incentive to change and stuck it to us good. (They must have seen us silly Americans as vanity obsessive fools and had scarcely an anxious moment all the same.) Inexcusable.
Corvette by contrast, never claimed to be interested in enamoring you with 'fine motor carriages' etc. It was always, and remains, a pure sportscar. And GM, Corvette included, as you rightly acknowledge, are also enhancing their standards rapidly and ZR1 should be no exception, especially as purpose-built supercars go.
True and true...but in today's market there is no excuse for cheap interiors and shody build, especially on a car that can costs anywhere from 50-100K (projected). There simply is no way around it. If Hyundai can at least build a car with great percieved quality for those who don't really dive too deep into the subject than survey GM can give the Corvette an interior worthy of its performance. A few more dollars in the price isn't going to hurt it considering the performance it puts up against cars that cost 2-3 times more. They have the room to improve it now.
Unless its your comments about Corvette, then your "junky" build impressions should rule the day and anyone who denies it has a deficiency somewhere. No divergent opinion allowed, relative or otherwise. Right?
General yes, but not necessarily non-useful. Multiple experiences in various conditions, release dates, options, and multiple reflections help rule out premature personal assessments or emotional quarks speaking for everyone. There is no substitute for one's own impressions, but anyone, including ourselves, can jump the gun and allow personal (often immediate) moods to overly factor. In some degree of contrast, I would contend that surveys help equalize things and counter the personal, non-universal, sometimes impulsive effect. (How many times have you heard of someone who thought one thing initially only to totally change their minds on the same aspect as time went on? I've witnessed this a million times.) Surveys help smooth this out.
Precisely. This is why I place less value on select personal impressions (like "junky"), flawed as they may be. This is where the usefulness of the survey plays a role.
Would not at all agree here. The former has surely passed the longterm tests while the latter is still failing them. At least BMW retains a solid message to the consumer with their scheduled maintenance program. Let's hope MB improves to the degree you state they are.
I still think you're reacting to resistance to your biases, but okay. And no one started a conversation about Corvette quality. The input on the Corvette side was strictly reactionary to the (often blind MB loyalists) unfairly taking shots at Corvette, while in the dark on their own makes. Talk about misinformation.
Granted. But notice how you'll "give a pass" to numerous reliability issues just as long as the interior is not "junky" and looks plush and elegant.
The reliability issues seem to be of less importance to you than the smell of premium leather. My goodness does MB need consumers like you - you're just what their doctor ordered. Vanity Magazine should add you to their automotive editorial section. You're seemingly too easily enamored with cosmetic refinement in that it seems to blind you or make you indifferent elsewhere, where it is far more important (at least to most of us).
Again, clear confirmation upon my point above with you. Reliability (nevermind value and performance) are of far less importance to you than initial visual refinement, and, if you regard something as second-rate in interior perspective, then the overall build quality is deemed to be low and you cannot tolerate the pricing. Yet if the interior is fine leather, but yet plagued with mechanical problems, then you still deem this good build quality and somehow more worthy of pricing twice that of another. Whew. Real study there. Like I said, you're perfect for MB. Did Daimler-Benz send you to a private boarding school as a child?
Like I said, you're perfect for MB. Did Daimler-Benz send you to a private boarding school as a child?
In conclusion, currently, as long as they both are cleaning up their quality act, then the ZR1 should not be inclusive of this "mess" thing and the comparison should not remain in that regard. I would think this fair enough.
M
Last edited by Germancar1; 04-17-2008 at 02:29 AM.
04-17-2008, 09:40 AM
#64
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1991 300CE
I'm sorry, but a Corvette doesn't get a pass just because it cost less than a Benz. Forget Mercedes-Benz. A Corvette isn't put together as the average sports car in its class. I really don't care how elegantly you put it. A 100K car is a 100K car and a certain amount of build and material quality should be present. A ZR-1 isn't going to have a different interior from a regular Corvette with the new interior option for 2008 that wraps everything in leather. Quality is a broad subject for sure, but you were trying to say that a Corvette had comparable quality to a Benz and that simply isn't the case, not by a long shot. Forget Mercedes-Benz comparisons. A 100K Corvette won't have the same build quality as a 60K Porsche Boxster. That fact is simply unacceptable even if it will blow the Boxster off the road. Spend 100K on a 911 and you feel that 100K in everything you touch, see and feel, no junky construction there.
Lowest tier of GM? Come on guy, cut the bull here. A 100K car is a 100K car no matter who is selling it. Sorry but this is nothing but an excuse to let GM off the hook for selling a car that doesn't cut the mustard (build quality wise) for a 50K car, much less the proposed/rumored 100K of the ZR-1. Sure people don't expect much of a Corvette in this area because they've been of such low-rent build for years. People who buy a 100K Porsche, Jaguar, Aston-Martin, etc. etc. expect a 100K car to be made and feel like one.
Again you're lumping reliabity surveys in with sheer quality of build. They are 2 different things. One can make a car cheap in build and make it reliable and vice versa has Mercedes-Benz has embarrasingly shown from 1998-2005, their darkest years. A Benz "fairs" much better than a Corvette in the build aspect of quality...which is my point. Didn't say a Benz had Toyota-like reliability.
Not at all, that isn't the only thing that gives at least the impression of a solidly built car. True supercars aren't judged on interior appointments, but to sit here and say that is acceptable to have a cheapo interior and ragged edges and poor fit and finish just because the car performs is IMO ridiculous, especially when plunking down 100K for a ZR-1. That said I don't expect a Benz/Audi/Bentley/Aston-Martin interior, but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't. I expect it to be at least comparable to other sports cars of the same ilk, which it isn't. A Porsche Boxster shouldn't have a better interior for almost have the cost. Again, you're giving GM a pass for what has been quite frankly up to now, really ****-poor interiors as far as Vettes go.
Different matter altogether from what I'm talking about. Pricing and valure rule out a SLR or Veyron. There is no "value" in those cars as people generally equate the term. Those cars are emotional purchases.
Agreed. When I first sat in the 1998 ML I thought the salesman was showing me a rough prototype from the factory. I couldn't believe how cheap it was inside and out. A true embarrassment.
True and true...but in today's market there is no excuse for cheap interiors and shody build, especially on a car that can costs anywhere from 50-100K (projected). There simply is no way around it. If Hyundai can at least build a car with great percieved quality for those who don't really dive too deep into the subject than survey GM can give the Corvette an interior worthy of its performance. A few more dollars in the price isn't going to hurt it considering the performance it puts up against cars that cost 2-3 times more. They have the room to improve it now.
I have never seen a U.S. magazine outright call in any car junky until the Corvette. No matter how much they love imports they've never come right out and used that word "junky" before. To deny that the Corvette was/is lacking in this area is denial itself. Sure "junky" might not describe it fairly as a total package for 2008, but the C4 and C5 models were just that. The seats in the current car still are. My main problem here is that you seem to think that because the Corvette is a performance bargain that it can be excused for not having an interior any better than any other GM car, or in the case of the CTS, a worse one than another GM car. That will never be acceptable on the world stage which is why the Corvette gets trashed when trying to compete anywhere outside the U.S.
General yes, but not necessarily non-useful. Multiple experiences in various conditions, release dates, options, and multiple reflections help rule out premature personal assessments or emotional quarks speaking for everyone. There is no substitute for one's own impressions, but anyone, including ourselves, can jump the gun and allow personal (often immediate) moods to overly factor. In some degree of contrast, I would contend that surveys help equalize things and counter the personal, non-universal, sometimes impulsive effect. (How many times have you heard of someone who thought one thing initially only to totally change their minds on the same aspect as time went on? I've witnessed this a million times.) Surveys help smooth this out.
A survey can't tell you anything if the people filling them out are so caught up on performance that they overlook gaping door panels and other issues that a more objective person might notice. It goes both ways. Surveys aren't filled out by robots.
You missed the point. I'm talking about the experience, the driving difference between a Lexus and a German car, not that reliability survey nonsense. Totally different point I was trying to make here. A Lexus is one of those cars that is a 'nice' car, rides nice, filled with leather and gadgets, but at the end of the day it doesn't look like anything, doesn't drive like anything (IS-F excepted) and really doesn't do anything for a car enthusiast. If this is the same group that fills out the surveys singing their praises (which they are) then I'll pass. If you like Corvettes you should understand what I'm talking about here.
Sure they did go back and look through the post. There is nothing blind about stating the fact that a Corvette has a less than acceptable reputation when it comes to build/material/finish quality. Those aren't shot, they're facts. No one (or at least I didn't) said anything to deride its performance or value, only that it isn't built worth squat compared to a Benz.
Clearly you typed this before you read my last post. Even if you hadn't read my last post at no point did I give MB a pass on anything. You won't find one example of such a thing anywhere on this board in any thread from me. I post in the ML and other forums all the time, clearly acknowledging that the problems the people on those boards face are clearly unacceptable. So you couldn't be more wrong here.
BS guy. Reliability is very important, but I don't want a raggedy car just because it is reliable either. There has to be a balance and GM sees this because they've been constantly trying to improve the Corvette as a whole, not just its "peformance". People who get off on leather would be happy in any car so equipped so please don't lump me in with that rather cluless crowd. Lether and wood do not a luxury car make anymore. It is far more than that...including reliability.
Ditto. Complete and utter nonsense because I've said nothing of the such. If I'm doing this then you're doing the opposite, willing to ride in bucket of bolts wrapped in plastic because it doesn't cost much relative to the competition and it performs on the road. See what a ridiculous position that would be if you made it? You didn't though and neither did I about MB.
I see no evidence of the GM cleaning up anything regarding the Corvette's lack of a decent interior for its price. That 11K interior package option for 2008 will have to work wonders in order for credit to be given there.
M
Lowest tier of GM? Come on guy, cut the bull here. A 100K car is a 100K car no matter who is selling it. Sorry but this is nothing but an excuse to let GM off the hook for selling a car that doesn't cut the mustard (build quality wise) for a 50K car, much less the proposed/rumored 100K of the ZR-1. Sure people don't expect much of a Corvette in this area because they've been of such low-rent build for years. People who buy a 100K Porsche, Jaguar, Aston-Martin, etc. etc. expect a 100K car to be made and feel like one.
Again you're lumping reliabity surveys in with sheer quality of build. They are 2 different things. One can make a car cheap in build and make it reliable and vice versa has Mercedes-Benz has embarrasingly shown from 1998-2005, their darkest years. A Benz "fairs" much better than a Corvette in the build aspect of quality...which is my point. Didn't say a Benz had Toyota-like reliability.
Not at all, that isn't the only thing that gives at least the impression of a solidly built car. True supercars aren't judged on interior appointments, but to sit here and say that is acceptable to have a cheapo interior and ragged edges and poor fit and finish just because the car performs is IMO ridiculous, especially when plunking down 100K for a ZR-1. That said I don't expect a Benz/Audi/Bentley/Aston-Martin interior, but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't. I expect it to be at least comparable to other sports cars of the same ilk, which it isn't. A Porsche Boxster shouldn't have a better interior for almost have the cost. Again, you're giving GM a pass for what has been quite frankly up to now, really ****-poor interiors as far as Vettes go.
Different matter altogether from what I'm talking about. Pricing and valure rule out a SLR or Veyron. There is no "value" in those cars as people generally equate the term. Those cars are emotional purchases.
Agreed. When I first sat in the 1998 ML I thought the salesman was showing me a rough prototype from the factory. I couldn't believe how cheap it was inside and out. A true embarrassment.
True and true...but in today's market there is no excuse for cheap interiors and shody build, especially on a car that can costs anywhere from 50-100K (projected). There simply is no way around it. If Hyundai can at least build a car with great percieved quality for those who don't really dive too deep into the subject than survey GM can give the Corvette an interior worthy of its performance. A few more dollars in the price isn't going to hurt it considering the performance it puts up against cars that cost 2-3 times more. They have the room to improve it now.
I have never seen a U.S. magazine outright call in any car junky until the Corvette. No matter how much they love imports they've never come right out and used that word "junky" before. To deny that the Corvette was/is lacking in this area is denial itself. Sure "junky" might not describe it fairly as a total package for 2008, but the C4 and C5 models were just that. The seats in the current car still are. My main problem here is that you seem to think that because the Corvette is a performance bargain that it can be excused for not having an interior any better than any other GM car, or in the case of the CTS, a worse one than another GM car. That will never be acceptable on the world stage which is why the Corvette gets trashed when trying to compete anywhere outside the U.S.
General yes, but not necessarily non-useful. Multiple experiences in various conditions, release dates, options, and multiple reflections help rule out premature personal assessments or emotional quarks speaking for everyone. There is no substitute for one's own impressions, but anyone, including ourselves, can jump the gun and allow personal (often immediate) moods to overly factor. In some degree of contrast, I would contend that surveys help equalize things and counter the personal, non-universal, sometimes impulsive effect. (How many times have you heard of someone who thought one thing initially only to totally change their minds on the same aspect as time went on? I've witnessed this a million times.) Surveys help smooth this out.
A survey can't tell you anything if the people filling them out are so caught up on performance that they overlook gaping door panels and other issues that a more objective person might notice. It goes both ways. Surveys aren't filled out by robots.
You missed the point. I'm talking about the experience, the driving difference between a Lexus and a German car, not that reliability survey nonsense. Totally different point I was trying to make here. A Lexus is one of those cars that is a 'nice' car, rides nice, filled with leather and gadgets, but at the end of the day it doesn't look like anything, doesn't drive like anything (IS-F excepted) and really doesn't do anything for a car enthusiast. If this is the same group that fills out the surveys singing their praises (which they are) then I'll pass. If you like Corvettes you should understand what I'm talking about here.
Sure they did go back and look through the post. There is nothing blind about stating the fact that a Corvette has a less than acceptable reputation when it comes to build/material/finish quality. Those aren't shot, they're facts. No one (or at least I didn't) said anything to deride its performance or value, only that it isn't built worth squat compared to a Benz.
Clearly you typed this before you read my last post. Even if you hadn't read my last post at no point did I give MB a pass on anything. You won't find one example of such a thing anywhere on this board in any thread from me. I post in the ML and other forums all the time, clearly acknowledging that the problems the people on those boards face are clearly unacceptable. So you couldn't be more wrong here.
BS guy. Reliability is very important, but I don't want a raggedy car just because it is reliable either. There has to be a balance and GM sees this because they've been constantly trying to improve the Corvette as a whole, not just its "peformance". People who get off on leather would be happy in any car so equipped so please don't lump me in with that rather cluless crowd. Lether and wood do not a luxury car make anymore. It is far more than that...including reliability.
Ditto. Complete and utter nonsense because I've said nothing of the such. If I'm doing this then you're doing the opposite, willing to ride in bucket of bolts wrapped in plastic because it doesn't cost much relative to the competition and it performs on the road. See what a ridiculous position that would be if you made it? You didn't though and neither did I about MB.
I see no evidence of the GM cleaning up anything regarding the Corvette's lack of a decent interior for its price. That 11K interior package option for 2008 will have to work wonders in order for credit to be given there.
M
PORSCHE? Yup!
BMW? Yup!
CORVETTE? Yup! For 7 straight years.
You need to pass your thoughts on the their editors because they apparently overlooked the interior issue that you find so all consuming when they made those 7 consecutive awards. Don't forget to ask why MB missed the list and get back to all of us when you find out. Inquiring minds want to know.
Last edited by michbenz; 04-17-2008 at 09:46 AM. Reason: spelling
04-17-2008, 11:56 AM
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
I replaced my CLK500 with a Corvette Z06. I can't find one thing that the Benz had over the Vette. Sound system pisses on the h/k in my CLK. Seats are just as comfortable, if not more. Heads up display kicks ***. 9/10 people look at my car whearas only about 1/5 would look at my blinged out CLK. The suspension on the Z06 actually takes bumps better than my CLK, yet take it around a turn and you're shocked at what you can do. Acceleration...don't need to go into that. And price? Only about $15k more than my CLK500. Keep in mind, I drove an SL55 maybe 50 times. I also have much experience with the 997TT, Bentley Continental GT, Lambo Gallardo, and a slew of luxury sedans. I know cars. For the price, the Corvette is exceptional. The ZR1 must be one hell of a car. I'd say between the Corvette Z06/ZR1 and the Nissan GTR/GTR V-spec...those are just incredible cars for the money.
Maybe the SL65 Black Series will be a much more hardcore car that is comparable with the ZR1 and GT-R. Otherwise, the SL65 is in a different category than real sports cars like the ZR1, Viper, GT-R, etc.
Maybe the SL65 Black Series will be a much more hardcore car that is comparable with the ZR1 and GT-R. Otherwise, the SL65 is in a different category than real sports cars like the ZR1, Viper, GT-R, etc.
04-17-2008, 01:48 PM
#66
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
CLS63, GLK350
I replaced my CLK500 with a Corvette Z06. I can't find one thing that the Benz had over the Vette. Sound system pisses on the h/k in my CLK. Seats are just as comfortable, if not more. Heads up display kicks ***. 9/10 people look at my car whearas only about 1/5 would look at my blinged out CLK. The suspension on the Z06 actually takes bumps better than my CLK, yet take it around a turn and you're shocked at what you can do. Acceleration...don't need to go into that. And price? Only about $15k more than my CLK500. Keep in mind, I drove an SL55 maybe 50 times. I also have much experience with the 997TT, Bentley Continental GT, Lambo Gallardo, and a slew of luxury sedans. I know cars. For the price, the Corvette is exceptional. The ZR1 must be one hell of a car. I'd say between the Corvette Z06/ZR1 and the Nissan GTR/GTR V-spec...those are just incredible cars for the money.
Maybe the SL65 Black Series will be a much more hardcore car that is comparable with the ZR1 and GT-R. Otherwise, the SL65 is in a different category than real sports cars like the ZR1, Viper, GT-R, etc.
Maybe the SL65 Black Series will be a much more hardcore car that is comparable with the ZR1 and GT-R. Otherwise, the SL65 is in a different category than real sports cars like the ZR1, Viper, GT-R, etc.
04-17-2008, 04:04 PM
#67
Senior Member
Germancar1: Careful that you don't include my words (per quote) as part of your own. You are presenting my paragraphs as your writing, by mistake. Check for this. Thanks. 
Word of Note to others: Please do not mistake me for a basher of MB or any other car. In fact, I'm trying to be as honest and as evenhanded as possible. I have never owned a Corvette, but am considering the ZR1 for its remarkable value for what it offers. I have had extended close-up evaluations of a ZR1 (via affiliates in the business). I have owned several MB's and will own others in the future. I belong the MBCA (Mercedes-Benz Club of America) and not to any other automotive club. I am just relaying what I feel is a fair and equitable consideration for both makes, all things considered. c2jones.
Okay. All cars are the same then; there are no luxury cars and bargain cars. One should expect the same features, appointments and premium luxury in all cars even if one costs twice as much or more than another. I was thinking that luxury cars came with lush appointments because they're looking to distinguish themselves from non-luxury cars and acquire higher expenditures upon said cars. Silly me. Wonder then why people would pay more for one over another and find status in one over another if they are all presented to be the same... 
I find your perspective highly erroneous, but you have a right to it. We have fundamental differences here.
The build quality in ZR1 will be more than adequate, especially considering what one is getting for that price. You're altogether too caught up in being bathed in luxury. You should never stray from a luxury car then. But for those looking for a supercar with astonishing performance characteristics similar to exotics costing several times as much, all for $100K, the ZR1 fits this bill perfectly. The car is built with advanced composite and aluminum (racecar like) features and yet is street-legal and has many nice driver-friendly features for the price. Quite a deal indeed. But its not for you. That's fine. But its quality is fine; fit, finish and everything.
Chevrolet is the lowest tier of the GM brands, sir. (You keep throwing in references to Malibu, and expect MB appointments from ZR1 [despite the fact that they're offering a supercar with a factory warranty for that price] so I simply reminded you that Corvette is from Chevrolet - a bargain performance division on the bottom of the GM family, not a luxury brand.)
Yet you write: "I don't expect a Benz/Audi/Bentley/Aston-Martin interior..."
Of course none of these makes offer a supercar for this price. None! These makes (two owned by Ford until just recently) were known for their plush interiors and fit and finish, but don't even mention reliability. The joke with Jaguar and Aston was that one always needed two: one to drive while the other was in the garage. But you give less consideration to all that, just as long as it presents as sweet luxury, you'll make do with the rest. Again, if you want pure luxury and a pure supercar all for $100K, you're asking too much. Go take a C-Class to RennTech or someone and see what they can do for your combined $100K (including cost of vehicle). Maybe they'll install a jet engine into your beautifully lush, premium leather motor carriage. Just kiss your factory warranty goodbye. For most people, what ZR1 offers all inclusive for that price, is rather fair. It will feel every bit worthy of $100K and a whole lot more when you ask it to do what it was designed to do.
I know this and I have fully detailed this to you over and over again. The build quality is not so dissimilar that that the other factors (like reliability) should not weigh in. This was the point and it stands. I mean exactly what I say and say exactly what I mean.
Precisely.
But many of us do not regard the ZR1 interior as "cheapo" whatsoever. This is your personal obsession. Ragged edges and fit and finish issues? Both Corvette and pricey Benzes (costing TWICE as much) have had issues in this regard from time to time. I don't feel that those things are all that bad on Corvette at all. Sure, Corvette has been under par for many years and still has room to improve. But in the case of ZR1 needing to wrap you in plush utopia for the $100K? Nope. Woefully unfair. Its build quality is fine and, considering that it offers all that performance for that price straight from the factory under warranty, my goodness is that a deal. You're truly missing something.
Actually, Europeans have developed quite an appetite for Corvette. When the ALMS teams go over to Le Mans they get huge fanfare with their street parade promotions. Many Europeans can't get enough of the maverick performance icon and its unique growl. When the Corvettes test at German racecourses and elsewhere, the sound draws quite the attention and the soft spot is growing all the time.
You look. My statement stands. (No one started a conversation about Corvette quality. The input on the Corvette side was strictly reactionary to the (often blind MB loyalists...) A comment was made about the quality of MB being better and so on.
I never said that you dismissed MB's culpability for reliability. Only that you regard this as less substantial than the fit and finish aspects and that somehow paying twice the price for fit and finish is a better strategy than getting equal or better reliability for half the price. And, in the case of ZR1, even its performance numbers combined with very respectable reliability all for the $100K somehow does not cut it with you, unless and until it meets YOUR standards in fit and finish, even though the fit and finish angle is far from universal in acceptance and value with most others. If one were a true supercar enthusiast and had the $100K to spend, all that fit and finish stuff would seem overly trivial given what one have underneath them for the price.
Oh really. You wait and see what a marvel the ZR1 is with proper performance enthusiasts. The "wonders" are all in the performance. I would expect GM to fare well with their projected sales with this relentless bang for the buck. Corvettes in general and ZR1 in particular have all improved in the interior aspect and for those who want more, that leather package will easily suffice. This is not a heavy luxury cruiser - it was never intended to be. What it is, however, is a true supercar offering many modern advanced features all under factory warranty, and all for around $100K. Those with the resources are licking their chops and your type of obsession towards (very disputable) "cheapo" seats and the like will pale into triviality. You'll see.
Conclusion:
MB has had mechanical woes of late. We agree.
Their fit and finish is superior. We agree.
Mechanical gremlins are less important than fit and finish. We do not agree.
MB as a luxury car and Corvette as a sportscar should be held to the same fit and finish standards for the same money. We do not agree.
Corvette offers far more bang for the buck. We do not agree.
ZR1 is a better performer. We agree.
Is ZR1 worth the money. We do not agree.
Could Corvette improve? We both say yes.
Can MB improve and should they be ashamed at their poor showing of late? We both agree.
Are the SL65 and the ZR1 of the same cloth; are they proper comparisons? Let's hope we both agree that they are not. The two are totally different cars designed for totally different consumers.
Word of Note to others: Please do not mistake me for a basher of MB or any other car. In fact, I'm trying to be as honest and as evenhanded as possible. I have never owned a Corvette, but am considering the ZR1 for its remarkable value for what it offers. I have had extended close-up evaluations of a ZR1 (via affiliates in the business). I have owned several MB's and will own others in the future. I belong the MBCA (Mercedes-Benz Club of America) and not to any other automotive club. I am just relaying what I feel is a fair and equitable consideration for both makes, all things considered. c2jones.
Corvette doesn't get a pass just because it cost less than a Benz.
I find your perspective highly erroneous, but you have a right to it. We have fundamental differences here.
A 100K car is a 100K car and a certain amount of build and material quality should be present. A ZR-1 isn't going to have a different interior from a regular Corvette with the new interior option for 2008 that wraps everything in leather.
Lowest tier of GM? Come on guy, cut the bull here.
People who buy a 100K Porsche, Jaguar, Aston-Martin, etc. etc. expect a 100K car to be made and feel like one.
Of course none of these makes offer a supercar for this price. None! These makes (two owned by Ford until just recently) were known for their plush interiors and fit and finish, but don't even mention reliability. The joke with Jaguar and Aston was that one always needed two: one to drive while the other was in the garage. But you give less consideration to all that, just as long as it presents as sweet luxury, you'll make do with the rest. Again, if you want pure luxury and a pure supercar all for $100K, you're asking too much. Go take a C-Class to RennTech or someone and see what they can do for your combined $100K (including cost of vehicle). Maybe they'll install a jet engine into your beautifully lush, premium leather motor carriage. Just kiss your factory warranty goodbye. For most people, what ZR1 offers all inclusive for that price, is rather fair. It will feel every bit worthy of $100K and a whole lot more when you ask it to do what it was designed to do.
Again you're lumping reliability surveys in with sheer quality of build. They are 2 different things.
True supercars aren't judged on interior appointments
but to sit here and say that is acceptable to have a cheapo interior and ragged edges and poor fit and finish just because the car performs is IMO ridiculous
which is why the Corvette gets trashed when trying to compete anywhere outside the U.S.
Sure they did - go back and look through the post.
at no point did I give MB a pass on anything
I see no evidence of the GM cleaning up anything regarding the Corvette's lack of a decent interior for its price. That 11K interior package option for 2008 will have to work wonders in order for credit to be given there.
Conclusion:
MB has had mechanical woes of late. We agree.
Their fit and finish is superior. We agree.
Mechanical gremlins are less important than fit and finish. We do not agree.
MB as a luxury car and Corvette as a sportscar should be held to the same fit and finish standards for the same money. We do not agree.
Corvette offers far more bang for the buck. We do not agree.
ZR1 is a better performer. We agree.
Is ZR1 worth the money. We do not agree.
Could Corvette improve? We both say yes.
Can MB improve and should they be ashamed at their poor showing of late? We both agree.
Are the SL65 and the ZR1 of the same cloth; are they proper comparisons? Let's hope we both agree that they are not. The two are totally different cars designed for totally different consumers.
Last edited by c2jones; 04-17-2008 at 04:23 PM.
04-17-2008, 04:51 PM
#68
Senior Member
GermanCar1 when you stated this:
Not at all, that isn't the only thing that gives at least the impression of a solidly built car. True supercars aren't judged on interior appointments, but to sit here and say that is acceptable to have a cheapo interior and ragged edges and poor fit and finish just because the car performs is IMO ridiculous, especially when plunking down 100K for a ZR-1. That said I don't expect a Benz/Audi/Bentley/Aston-Martin interior, but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't. I expect it to be at least comparable to other sports cars of the same ilk, which it isn't. A Porsche Boxster shouldn't have a better interior for almost have the cost. Again, you're giving GM a pass for what has been quite frankly up to now, really ****-poor interiors as far as Vettes go.
I'm hoping that you just made this statement to drive home an overly exaggerated point. To make this particular statement: "but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't." is a completely bogus and IMO an ignorant statement. Tell me, exactly how many other GM cars do you or have you owned, driven or been in?
I personally traded in a 07' Pontiac GXP for my MB now and I can tell you that the interior was NOTHING comparable to the regular ole' 89', 94' or the 99' Vette I have personally owned and driven. The GXP's interior was as you would say, "junk/cheapo" in comparison. Also, my husband had an 06' Pontiac GTO, now that car was even worse as far as "quality" is concerned. And he currently has an 07' Chevy truck as his DD that I like but you have to put a gas mask on before entering into the car because of the plastic smell.
I'm sorry but to make a statement that basically ALL GM cars are created equal in the quality department and in particular the lack of quality in the "blue devil" ZR1 is grossly inaccurate.
I would bet that, the ZR1 in particular is going to be a very, very fine piece of machinery inside and out.
Not at all, that isn't the only thing that gives at least the impression of a solidly built car. True supercars aren't judged on interior appointments, but to sit here and say that is acceptable to have a cheapo interior and ragged edges and poor fit and finish just because the car performs is IMO ridiculous, especially when plunking down 100K for a ZR-1. That said I don't expect a Benz/Audi/Bentley/Aston-Martin interior, but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't. I expect it to be at least comparable to other sports cars of the same ilk, which it isn't. A Porsche Boxster shouldn't have a better interior for almost have the cost. Again, you're giving GM a pass for what has been quite frankly up to now, really ****-poor interiors as far as Vettes go.
I'm hoping that you just made this statement to drive home an overly exaggerated point. To make this particular statement: "but I do expect it to be better than any other GM car, which it isn't." is a completely bogus and IMO an ignorant statement. Tell me, exactly how many other GM cars do you or have you owned, driven or been in?
I personally traded in a 07' Pontiac GXP for my MB now and I can tell you that the interior was NOTHING comparable to the regular ole' 89', 94' or the 99' Vette I have personally owned and driven. The GXP's interior was as you would say, "junk/cheapo" in comparison. Also, my husband had an 06' Pontiac GTO, now that car was even worse as far as "quality" is concerned. And he currently has an 07' Chevy truck as his DD that I like but you have to put a gas mask on before entering into the car because of the plastic smell.
I'm sorry but to make a statement that basically ALL GM cars are created equal in the quality department and in particular the lack of quality in the "blue devil" ZR1 is grossly inaccurate.
I would bet that, the ZR1 in particular is going to be a very, very fine piece of machinery inside and out.
04-17-2008, 05:41 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: MI
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2011 Hyundai Elantra GLS
Vette quality is still not up to par with the germans, but it has made strides from its own past quality however. I get to drive a regular 2007 Z51 once in a while, as my friend owns one, and it is one seriously fast machine. It is just that I pull the doors shut very very carefully each and every time, as the flimsy vinyl feels as if it will come off the door at any moment.
04-18-2008, 09:10 AM
#70
Senior Member
Vette quality is still not up to par with the germans
http://autos.yahoo.com/chevrolet_cor...wid=2&show=otf
Reliability, overall dependability and value are important to most. For those whom only regard quality as strictly limited to the finest plush leather interior appointments, then the full definition is restricted. Most Corvette owners whom also own MB's do not report the distinction (with fit and finish and overall reliability) that some MB owners perceive, particularly ones that do not also own other products (like Corvettes). This "quality" angle seems to be largely a personal justification of the added purchase price for those in the MB encampments (not that its limited to MB sole consumers - owners of Range Rover, Bentley, Jaguar, Audi, etc., often also have this impulsive perception). Some of the makes I just cited are totally plagued with mechanical problems far in excess of Corvette.
I pull the doors shut very very carefully each and every time, as the flimsy vinyl feels as if it will come off
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Mercedes-...2/index_10.htm
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/autom...edes_misc.html
Industry Analysis Case Studies » Mercedes-Benz: Quality Concerns
http://www.ibscdc.org/Case%20Studies...is/INA0001.htm
Last edited by c2jones; 04-18-2008 at 09:15 AM.
04-18-2008, 09:09 PM
#71
Agreed. I test drove an SL 65 today with only 14K miles on it for $100K, silver/red. The dealer told me Brabus has one tuned with 1000HP. It did require entire new Brabus tranny in addition to the tune up and other hardware. Kleeman would be a great option too.
So if the OP wants to know more about this car, PM me. I can steer you towards the dealership. If I weren't spoiled with my S600, I'd grab it tomorrow before the birds start chirping. It was a killer car.
04-18-2008, 09:40 PM
#72
This is true, but GM products including the Chevy Corvette has been nothing but junk for years and they're just now starting to build something worth owning. Mercedes built quality cars before GM had a clue. Since 2005 Mercedes has gotten a lot better. The 2007 S, CL and other recent Mercedes prove they aren't living off their past reputation, they're building quality cars again. Something GM is just now learning to do. You've got to be kidding to come here with that GM bs lecturing Benz owners about quality. A Corvette is one of the flimsiest cars going..a plastic hell inside and out, but admittedly a lot of fun to drive, but quality. PLUHEASE.
M
M
I couldn't agree more German. If all would notice, the current S, CL, and C class cars are probably the turnaround cars for MB at the moment. The current SL, CLK and maybe E cars are still leftover problem cars. Until those latter three series cars go into their next generation versions like the S, CL, and C cars have already, you'll probably not see the improvement in quality in the cars of this particular forum.
I've owned several Benzes in the past 13 years. A 96 S420, a 2000 S500, a 2002 E class for 4 months, then traded to a 2002 CL500 for 3 years, wife had a 2002 CLKcabriolet and foolishly traded it for a Chevy trailblazer
, then I later got a 2006 CL500 but only for a short period of time. Loved the CL but couldn't resist the new W221. Finally I bought a 2007 S600 for me and a 2008 C 350 for the wife.The latter two cars are unbelievable in quality, fit and finish, and you can just tell when you first sit in these latter developed vehicles that something is really going in the right direction for Mercedes.
04-19-2008, 09:47 AM
#73
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
CLS63, GLK350
I couldn't agree more German. If all would notice, the current S, CL, and C class cars are probably the turnaround cars for MB at the moment. The current SL, CLK and maybe E cars are still leftover problem cars. Until those latter three series cars go into their next generation versions like the S, CL, and C cars have already, you'll probably not see the improvement in quality in the cars of this particular forum.
I've owned several Benzes in the past 13 years. A 96 S420, a 2000 S500, a 2002 E class for 4 months, then traded to a 2002 CL500 for 3 years, wife had a 2002 CLKcabriolet and foolishly traded it for a Chevy trailblazer, then I later got a 2006 CL500 but only for a short period of time. Loved the CL but couldn't resist the new W221. Finally I bought a 2007 S600 for me and a 2008 C 350 for the wife.
The latter two cars are unbelievable in quality, fit and finish, and you can just tell when you first sit in these latter developed vehicles that something is really going in the right direction for Mercedes.
I've owned several Benzes in the past 13 years. A 96 S420, a 2000 S500, a 2002 E class for 4 months, then traded to a 2002 CL500 for 3 years, wife had a 2002 CLKcabriolet and foolishly traded it for a Chevy trailblazer
, then I later got a 2006 CL500 but only for a short period of time. Loved the CL but couldn't resist the new W221. Finally I bought a 2007 S600 for me and a 2008 C 350 for the wife.The latter two cars are unbelievable in quality, fit and finish, and you can just tell when you first sit in these latter developed vehicles that something is really going in the right direction for Mercedes.
04-22-2008, 09:31 AM
#74
Member
SL vs. ZR1 Vette
No brainer for me, and it has nothing to do with the build quality, preception, heritage, etc.
Rather - the automatic transmission and vario roof - both of which are not available on the ZR1 make the Mercedes Benz the easy choice.
The ZR1 will be a beast of sports car, but the SL should continue the tradition of GT open top motoring that Mercedes Benz has pioneered
Rather - the automatic transmission and vario roof - both of which are not available on the ZR1 make the Mercedes Benz the easy choice.
The ZR1 will be a beast of sports car, but the SL should continue the tradition of GT open top motoring that Mercedes Benz has pioneered
04-22-2008, 09:54 AM
#75
Senior Member
Fact is the quality problem with MB started with the ML and the cheap C class. When MB started building the SUV in the USA and trying to become the General motors of Germany the quality fell.
I would reather (rather) have a later model SL then (than) a new S all the bugs are worked out in the 2007/08 SL versus a new model with new model problems. But with any S series (CLASS) vehicle you will have fewer problems then (than) with the C series (CLASS).
Last edited by c2jones; 04-22-2008 at 10:10 AM.
