Thread: Bad Cad
View Single Post
  #9  
Old 06-18-2004, 01:44 PM
MT_Merc MT_Merc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Posts: 98
I suppose the XLR (one letter different from XJR, maybe the SL isn't the only thing they're trying to rip off) is somewhat impressive to me performance-wise. It is, of course, Corvette-based, so I'm sure the performance isn't too far off. My main complaint with Caddilac is that in my lifetime, while they have produced a few cars that were more or less mechanically sound, they have not made anything that I have found impressive. Cadillac used to be at the top of the heap, it used to be that you knew you had 'made it' when you could afford a Cadillac or Lincoln. Now very few people want them, and even if you like how they look anymore, the quality seems to be long-gone. GM's front-drive frenzy was foolish. At least Ford/Lincoln had enough sense to keep building a rear-driver, and Lincoln built a very nice luxury coupe until '98.
Quite simply, I find new Cadillacs to be quite ugly, and I don't think the quality is there either.
__________________
Once and future king:
'64 Ford Fairlane w/approx 238,000 - looks rough, but amazingly reliable if you know how to look after it; I will soon begin work to totally restore and modernize it.
Family vehicles that I lay some claim to:
'78 300D w/approx 350,000 original, '62 Ford F100 4x4, '90 Ford E150 w/171,000 original
Reply With Quote