And we score again!
http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/08/Lexus-Mercedes-convertibles-cx_dl_0908show_ls.html
http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/08/Lexus-Mercedes-convertibles-cx_dl_0908show_ls.html
The same argument could be made that it's underpriced, if you sat in one or look at the interior quality, Mark Levinson audio, and nearly everything's a standard on this car. It's quite cheap, as the interior alone is by far one of the most luxurious out of any luxury automobile, open-top or not. I never liked it b/c of how it drives, it's too fat IMO, but the interior, oh... the interior. [][][]taroliw - 9/8/2005 10:50 AM
To me, the SC430 was nothing but an overpriced knock-off, who tried to hide the fact it was overpriced by marketing itself against more expensive cars, who were only similar in that they were priced similarly. []
Yes, I would cede that their materials choices were nice. But I saw a few of these (3 in the PeopleSoft parking lot in Pleasanton, CA) every day, but could never get over the same thought I had when I considered the R170... it's just to small inside.Ynot - 9/8/2005 10:14 AM
I never liked it b/c of how it drives, it's too fat IMO, but the interior, oh... the interior. [][][]
Well put.steve-p - 9/9/2005 12:55 AM
The SC430 is one bland, ugly blob of a car, regardless of anything else.
Read carefully. I used the most common standard in the world, which is 0-100 km/h (which is 62 mph, not 60).bloflin - 9/10/2005 9:41 AM
P.S. Also the 0-60mph time was 5.9sec, stock.
Ummm, roadsta, how 'bout you read carefully. [!]roadsta - 9/9/2005 10:54 PM
Read carefully. I used the most common standard in the world, which is 0-100 km/h (which is 62 mph, not 60).
roadsta
Those are not seats on the back of the new SL. They're meant for luggage space, and if the car were to roll over, the occupants in the rear seat would be decapitated by the pop up roll bar... not a pretty sight []Duo-Art - 9/9/2005 3:46 PM
I think that some buyers of SC430's look at it as a lower priced SL rather than an expensive SLK. Both have folding hard tops and 2+2 seating. The SC430 kind of reminds me of the 356 Porsche.
Well, I won't worry too much about wind swirliness. I drove the SLK350 I rented in July at over 100 MPH (for several miles, not just a quick blip) with the top down and found it quite wind swirly acceptable. []bloflin - 9/9/2005 4:41 PM
I love my SLK55, but I will tell you MB could learn something about quality and usability (i.e. controls) from the Japanese. And wind tunnel design (with the top down). The MB is easily twice as wind "swirly" as the Lex at same speed.
My test for this is always to adjust the front seat so that I can sit comfortably, and then sit behind the seat to judge how much space is really there. In the CLK (W208), I could do this a a little extra knee room. It was impossible for me to do this with the SC430. Did you ever drive around with four adult sized people in the SC430?On the backseat, the continued refrain (first started with the reviewers who drive it for 2 day) is nonsense.
When my kids were young/small (up to preteen) there was NO problem picking up 3 of them (plus me = 4). There is plenty of leg room for the passenger so the seat moves up. There were many times, when I had 5 total (but of course no 5th seatbelt).
taroliw, good questions, let me give it a shottaroliw - 9/10/2005 9:54 AM
Well, I won't worry too much about wind swirliness. I drove the SLK350 I rented in July at over 100 MPH (for several miles, not just a quick blip) with the top down and found it quite wind swirly acceptable. []bloflin - 9/9/2005 4:41 PM
I love my SLK55, but I will tell you MB could learn something about quality and usability (i.e. controls) from the Japanese. And wind tunnel design (with the top down). The MB is easily twice as wind "swirly" as the Lex at same speed.
Though I have inspected them closely (including sitting in it), I've never actually driven an SC430, but I would ask: do you think theese other factors suggest I should spend an extra $20K? Personally, I think it's a nice car... I'm just not sure it's that nice a car. If I was going to entertain $20K over an SLK, I'd likely move to the SL. []
I am curious though. What is your comparison of the controls. I know there are pretty common complaints from many about things like placement of control stalks on the steering wheel (esp cruise control), etc. But what observations did you make, having owned both?
My test for this is always to adjust the front seat so that I can sit comfortably, and then sit behind the seat to judge how much space is really there. In the CLK (W208), I could do this a a little extra knee room. It was impossible for me to do this with the SC430. Did you ever drive around with four adult sized people in the SC430?On the backseat, the continued refrain (first started with the reviewers who drive it for 2 day) is nonsense.
When my kids were young/small (up to preteen) there was NO problem picking up 3 of them (plus me = 4). There is plenty of leg room for the passenger so the seat moves up. There were many times, when I had 5 total (but of course no 5th seatbelt).
To be fair, there are LOTS of cars that have back seats sized so that only very sedate children can ride in them for any time. But these don't typically get marketed against cars that actually do have completely usable rear seats (you know, by people other than small children... or inanimate objects who won't complain). That was always the thing that irritated me about this car... how they positioned it.
Well, I ran across this picture recently and thought I'd share. But, again, this sort of makes my point. I would no more sit in these seats that I would in the back seat of a SC430... and no one would ever claim the SL with these seats is a four seater. I mean.... really. []taroliw - 9/9/2005 1:02 PM
Well, I know that SL's of the past 20 years have had parcel shelves in the back, but actual seats?