View Full Version : Audi S4 test drive (v. long)
I took a 2005 Audi S4 6 speed for a drive today.
Positives:
The Recaro seats are fantastic. They are easily the best seats in this class of car, providing a great deal of shoulder and upper body bolstering and offering a nice backrest contour. It always amazes me how much better the sport seats in VAG products are than their competitors.
The interior materials are very nice; this is an oft-mentioned Audi strength, for good reason. This feels like a substantial and expensive car. The reach adjustable wheel allows you to find a good driving position, and even with the moonroof there’s plenty of headroom.
The V8 has a lot of midrange torque, assisted by what feels like very short gearing. This car really pulls hard in pretty much any gear at nearly any RPM. I was concerned that a “mere” 4.2 liters of displacement wouldn’t provide a lot of easily accessible power, but that isn’t an issue with the S4.
The trunk is enormous, and you get a full size spare along with a warning triangle and an emergency kit. Nice attention to detail.
Negatives:
Alas, there are some pretty serious shortcomings with this car. The first is just space-related. Interior space up front is good, but the rear seats are very tight, both in terms of leg- and shoulder-room. The interior is nice, but while the materials are first-rate, the ergonomics are questionable. Cupholders above the stereo? Seat heaters controlled by fiddly knobs way down low on the dash? Why?
Dynamically, the first thing you notice is that the clutch is *very* jumpy; it make the E46 M3’s clutch seem like a marvel of progressivity and feel. The brakes similarly require a deft touch to avoid excessive jerking. Once you get the car moving, it becomes clear that the steering has a Jekyll and Hyde variable assist mechanism that runs from Buick light at parking lot speeds to stick-in-molasses stiff at highway speed. While the steering runs the gamut of stiffness, it always feels artificial and strange.
The short gearing that’s nice around town is rapidly tiring on the highway. You look for a seventh gear, as even in sixth the car feels like its working at 70 mph. There’s a pronounced amount of what might be driveline whine, too.
I couldn’t find any good high speed curves on the test loop, but a quick excursion onto a poor man’s skidpad (aka, a roundabout) hinted that this car will plow just as much as you think it would at the limit. Later, a glance under the hood reveals an engine cantilevered well out over the front axle, almost inside the front bumper. Weight distribution is not this car’s strong suit.
Bottom Line:
This car doesn’t do it for me. Around town, the touchy clutch and grabby brakes make driving a chore, but the tight gearing keeps the car from being in its element on the highway, too. Handling is good at low speeds, and the suspension does a decent job of dealing with the ground-pounding weight, but the nose-heaviness is a flaw that 340 hp and AWD can’t disguise.
I can’t help but compare this car with the CTS-V, and in nearly every area the comparison is not favorable. The LS6 feels like an ENGINE, the way a V8 should—even with super tall gearing, it has explosive power and a great soundtrack. The S4 is nice, and quite fast, but it doesn’t have much of a sense of occasion about it. The CTS has a lot more interior space, being a bigger car overall, but the weight difference is negligible and the Cadillac’s better balance makes it seem like a lighter car. The CTS has better, more communicative steering and better brakes, and other than the lack of a reach adjustable wheel, better ergonomics. About the only things the Audi wins on are a) nicer materials, b) a full size spare and no run-flats, c) Recaro seats, and d) AWD winter traction.
In a performance sedan, that ain’t enough.
Jason C
12-18-2004, 05:32 PM
About the only things the Audi wins on are a) nicer materials, b) a full size spare and no run-flats, c) Recaro seats, and d) AWD winter traction.
In a performance sedan, that ain’t enough.
I'm sure TD would add e) Styling to your list.
In the 11/2004 C&D issue, they had a comparison of which I'm sure TD would like very much. I'll post the relevant segment, since it appears no one here cares about the slushie Benz.
Read from the comparison as you'd like. Here is is, unedited:
Jason C
12-18-2004, 05:35 PM
Second Place
Cadillac CTS-V
At a glance, the Cadillac looks out of place here, like a junior-high kid elbowing his way into the kindergarten sandbox. There's no denying the dimensional differences. The upstart Detroit sports sedan is longer, wider, taller, and heavier than either of its German opponents. It's also substantially more powerful, with 400 horsepower and 395 pound-feet of torque on tap from its 5.7-liter pushrod V-8, an engine that also sees service in Corvettes.
On the other hand, its pricing is right in step with die Deutschen, and so is its straight-line performance, despite a substantial edge in engine output. Thanks to its relative heft, at 4.8 seconds the Caddy was a 10th slower to 60 mph than the bad-boy Benz and nudged the Mercedes by a mere bumper in the quarter-mile: 13.2 seconds at 109 mph. However, these numbers are substantially better than the ones we recorded for a very early production CTS-V last March. Although rear-wheel hop is still a problem in all-out launches, it was easier to manage in this car, knocking 0.4 second off the 0-to-60 time and a half-second off the quarter-mile performance. Cadillac ads claim 4.6 seconds to 60, but this is the best we've managed so far.
There were some other welcome improvements over that first test car. For example, Cadillac finally has the calibration squared away on the car's oil-temperature gauge, a source of erroneously high readings in early cars. Even more welcome, the programming for the stability-control system isn't as intrusive as it was in our first test, and we also know the secret of shutting it off completely: Hold down the control switch for five seconds. However, another anomaly prevented us from comparing on-and-off performance at the track. We recorded a series of laps with the system on and were pleasantly surprised to find that the stability control allows the driver some liberties—a little oversteer mitigated by a nice sense of balance. But by the time we got around to trying some laps with the system switched off, we were plagued by an engine stumble exiting Nelson's carousel turn, a very long right-hander with a decreasing radius preceding the exit. The stumble showed up in our first traction-off lap, got much worse in the second lap, and the engine quit altogether in the third, whereupon we coasted all the way back to the pits. After sitting for a minute, it started right up, but our hot lapping was over.
With the gas gauge reporting just under a half-tank, we found it hard to believe that fuel starvation could be the culprit, but this was indeed the case, something confirmed by one of the CTS-V owners who experienced the same problem during this year's One Lap of America track events.
Nevertheless, fuel stumble and all, the Cadillac's first traction-off lap—1:20.52, 89.4 mph—was a 10th quicker than the best with the system on, and also the best of the day. What was left on the table is something we'll explore some other time. Still, we emerged with a unanimous sense of the CTS-V as the road-course champ. There was a little more vertical motion in the suspension than expected, the shifting of the six-speed gearbox wasn't as crisp as the Audi's, and the oversize bucket seat won't keep the driver centered behind the wheel, but for all that, the Caddy's Nürburgring racetrack development showed through.
The real world is not a racetrack, though, and on public roads, the Cadillac's logbook began accumulating black marks. The absence of a telescoping feature for the steering column, for example, makes it hard for tall testers to find an optimal driving position. A high cowl reduces forward sightlines. Clutch effort became tedious in stop-and-go traffic. A power point—for radar detectors, etc.—interfered with shifting into fifth or reverse.
The dashboard's discordant festival of textures, angles, and contours was a turnoff to some, and for all its size, the Caddy's rear seats didn't offer any roominess edge. We were particularly surprised at the limited headroom back there, since the Caddy's roofline, at apogee, is 1.1 inches higher than the Audi's and 1.7 inches taller than that of the Benz. And we still haven't learned to love this car's angular styling.
Although the CTS-V's value rating was strong, it fared worse in areas related to refinement: driver comfort, ergonomics, and engine noise, vibration, and harshness. It was by far the noisiest at wide-open throttle, prompting one tester to write that it came across as "the muscle car of the group," which in this case is a tepid accolade.
Highs: Muscle-car throttle response, sure-footed in agility events, roomy up front.
Lows: Reluctant shifting, noisy at wide-open throttle, relaxed-fit bucket seats, hard-to-love styling.
The Verdict: A linebacker among running backs: longer on muscle than on grace.
Jason C
12-18-2004, 05:37 PM
First Place
Audi S4 Quattro
A racetrack is the ideal environment for establishing a car's absolute limits. It eliminates potentially problematic encounters with civilian traffic and/or lame explanations to law-enforcement types. But it would be a mistake to base a verdict solely on a car's track performance.
The S4 makes an excellent case in point on this score. Although it posted the second-best lap time (1:20.60, 89.3 mph), it was achieved at the expense of severe punishment to the left-front tire and one hair-raising 120-mph off-track experience at Nelson's famous kink, a right-hand turn that can be taken flat-out in some cars, and in others not. The Audi was one of the nots, as your narrator learned in a lengthy slide for life that was a consequence of overconfidence and no fault of the Audi.
Like most all-wheel-drive cars on dry pavement, the S4's defining dynamic trait is understeer. In addition to the limits imposed by all-wheel drive, the S4 is held back by a hefty curb weight—3837 pounds, just 70 pounds less than the much bigger Cadillac—and a pronounced forward weight bias: 61.9 percent of the mass is on the front wheels.
In addition to retarding progress around a road circuit, the S4's mass also held it back in straight-ahead sprints. The willingness of the Audi's 4.2-liter aluminum V-8 is a treat, but at 340 horsepower and 302 pound-feet of torque, it yields the least advantageous power-to-weight ratio in this group, which adds up to the slowest acceleration times: 0-to-60 in 5.1 seconds and the quarter-mile in 13.7 seconds at 102 mph. It was also slowest in our lane-change test and posted the longest stopping distance from 70 mph—177 feet, 10 feet longer than the Cadillac, 12 more than the Benz.
However, all these small numeric deficits are race- and test-track data and don't reflect what this car is like to live with in the real world. Put the S4 on a wandering back road, and its statistical shortfalls become nonissues. The seductive baritone of the V-8, the superb fit of the beautifully bolstered leather bucket seats, the sweet precision of the six-speed gearbox, the absolute certainty that goes with every move—the Audi satisfies all the driver's senses.
And that includes the senses that trigger the adrenal gland. Yes, the S4 was a half-step slow at the test track versus its competition, but 5.1 seconds to 60 is brisk by most standards, and the V-8 delivers more than enough punch to make short work of passing in tight situations. Similarly, the Audi's persistent understeer translates as unflappable poise in decreasing-radius turns and the other little surprises that make southeast Ohio highways so entertaining.
As with any car, there are small irritations. The S4's styling distinctions include brightwork on the side mirrors and peculiar ground-effects strakes along the lower body-side panels. Both touches seem out of place on this otherwise clean shape. The rear seats were the tightest in this trio, although quite tolerable for two adults; the climate controls are hard to see through sunglasses; the foot-pedal arrangement doesn't lend itself to heel-and-toeing as well as the Cadillac's layout; and at least one test driver was outraged at the absence of a nav system in a car with a price of 50 grand.
Still, we saw the Audi's value quotient about the same as the Caddy's, and the S4 drew winning marks in major scoring areas such as driver comfort, ride quality, and steering feel—categories that say a lot about what a car will be like to live with day in, day out, all roads, all traffic situations.
In the same vein, the Audi dominated our two distinct subjective categories—fun to drive and gotta have it, first in the former, tied with the C55 in the latter.
In our 2003 comparo, we called the S4 "a rising star." This time around it seems clear that the new star has fully risen. As one logbook writer observed, the S4 is "a thoroughly lovable sports sedan. How often do we get to say that?" Not often enough.
Highs: V-8 audio, V-8 flexibility, world-class shifting, unswervingly user-friendly, all-day comfort.
Lows: Quirky exterior styling details, heft-to-size ratio needs work, snug back seat, no nav system for $50,000 price.
The Verdict: Just your humble little everyday Olympic gold medalist.
rumatt
12-18-2004, 05:41 PM
Who gives a crap about rear legroom.
The driving experience sounds bad though. Why the hell would they put such short gearing in a car with so much torque? :?
Their assesment is pretty much spot-on with mine--I want the muscle car of the group. Loud during acceleration? That doesn't seem like a drawback.
I don't know which backseats they were sitting in, but the CTS IMHO has a lot more space than the A4--I wouldn't mind putting a grown up couple of friends in back of the CTS on the way to dinner. I'd be hesitant to do that with the A4, unless they were small.
In the end, is this what you want?
Like most all-wheel-drive cars on dry pavement, the S4's defining dynamic trait is understeer. In addition to the limits imposed by all-wheel drive, the S4 is held back by a hefty curb weight—3837 pounds, just 70 pounds less than the much bigger Cadillac—and a pronounced forward weight bias: 61.9 percent of the mass is on the front wheels.
I don't.
rumatt
12-18-2004, 05:51 PM
I don't.
TD does. :kekeke:
Who gives a crap about rear legroom.
The driving experience sounds bad though. Why the hell would they put such short gearing in a car with so much torque? :?
Here are the ratios from C/D--check out the difference between 4th and 6th:
gear ratios:1
Audi
3.67, 2.05, 1.46, 1.13, 0.92, 0.78 FD: 3.89:1
Cadillac
2.97, 2.07, 1.43, 1.00, 0.84, 0.56 FD: 3.73:1
mph/1000 rpm
Audi:
5.1, 9.2, 12.9, 16.6, 20.4, 24.1
Cadillac:
7.0, 10.1, 14.6, 20.8, 24.8, 37.2
At 80 in 6th the Caddy is turning 2150 RPM. The Audi is spinning at 3300.
Jason C
12-18-2004, 06:02 PM
Audi
3.67, 2.05, 1.46, 1.13, 0.92, 0.78 FD: 3.89:1
:?: :? :?:
First manual car I've seen that didn't have a 1:1 gear ratio for fourth, or any gear for that matter.
That means the Audi's gearbox has the clutch gear, driven gear, and one additional gear just for 4th? Weeiiiiiiiiirrrrrd... :?
I need to make myself look more like an affluent, serious car buyer. Hard to do when you own a Focus and you know you can't buy anything for a few years yet.
But anyway, your impressions are about what I expected of this car. Even the last generation S4 had similar flaws compared to the E36 M3; when I drove it, I noticed a nearly perfect interior and driver cockpit mated with a middling rear seat, rubbery shifter, and disappointing (stock) performance. In the S4's segment, I really think the CTS-V is hard to beat.
On top of that, you know the CTS-V has a plethora of performance mods in the wings. It's just such a brilliant idea to put a popular and well-established powerplant into a sedan chassis. The possibilities are limitless.
Audi
3.67, 2.05, 1.46, 1.13, 0.92, 0.78 FD: 3.89:1
:?: :? :?:
First manual car I've seen that didn't have a 1:1 gear ratio for fourth, or any gear for that matter.
That means the Audi's gearbox has the clutch gear, driven gear, and one additional gear just for 4th? Weeiiiiiiiiirrrrrd... :?
Isn't 5th the 1:1 gear on the 330?
Masskrug
12-18-2004, 07:51 PM
I've never understood the appeal of the V8 S4 myself, basically based on everything that's already written above. If one is objective about this car, these observations become quite self evident. Add on a 50K pricetag, and I want to run far away from it.
lemming
12-18-2004, 08:01 PM
i've never understood the current generation S4.
dynamically, it shouldn't be called an S car. it should just be called an a4 4.2. that corporate v8 is "okay" but i find it underwhelming for a niche vehicle. who wants to say that they have an engine that's shared with an a8, an allroad or a vw toureg? is that "special"? for a DOHC design, i think it could easily see more HP.
at least the CTS-V owner can say "corvette". but not just corvette, but "zee oh six RPO".
i'm not really understanding the weight issue, either, since audi's new quattro totally lacks mechanical LSDs. it's all EBD-based.
blech.
I'm glad you didn't like it.
I didn't get a chance to drive it today because my parents showed up in Boston unexpectedly. I don't think I want to lease anything either.
I'll just push this whole idea aside and be happy with my car for the time being.
Thanks for doing the dirty work for me.
Jason C
12-18-2004, 08:58 PM
Audi
3.67, 2.05, 1.46, 1.13, 0.92, 0.78 FD: 3.89:1
:?: :? :?:
First manual car I've seen that didn't have a 1:1 gear ratio for fourth, or any gear for that matter.
That means the Audi's gearbox has the clutch gear, driven gear, and one additional gear just for 4th? Weeiiiiiiiiirrrrrd... :?
Isn't 5th the 1:1 gear on the 330?
I said "or any gear, for that matter." I know that on some gearboxes (especially the older 3-speeds), 3rd is the 1:1. There may be some that use the fifth gear as well, like the one you mentioned. However, note that the Audi completely lacks a 1:1 ratio anywhere in the gearbox - on a 6-speed, no less!. That's a very strange decision by the engineers. :?
clyde
12-18-2004, 11:03 PM
5th in the RX-8 is 1:!
lemming
12-18-2004, 11:37 PM
to be fair, i'm sure, if you are accustomed to an e46m3, that htere are many things about the CTS-V that you may find tiresome, also.
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive than the S4. i haven't had extensive seat time in the S4. i think the shifting is okay. it really did feel exactly like an a4 3.0 with more punch to me. but it is my humble opinion that the audi corporate v8 is too cammy and weak below 3500 rpms; the weight is something that even an aggressive final drive cannot overcome.
i think people who buy the audi s4 are people who want a nice interior, a decent automatic transmission and some panache.
i really don't see any s4 drivers on this board. that car has zero edge and i think almost all of us are seeking a car with that edge. some sharp area where the car does something well.
to be fair, i'm sure, if you are accustomed to an e46m3, that htere are many things about the CTS-V that you may find tiresome, also.
FWIW, the E46 M3 is a far better dynamic proposition than the S4. The only thing that the S4 has over the M3 is torque--after driving the CTS-V and the S4, I can really appreciate how despite it's brutally effective performance, the S54 is a bit torque-deficient. Overall, though, If you don't absolutely need 4 doors, there is no reason to buy the S4 over the M3.
SARAFIL
12-19-2004, 11:02 AM
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
lemming
12-19-2004, 11:47 AM
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
GMS is 44168, if you can get. (less than the BASE price of the e46m3).
we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
Ouch. That guy must be taking a serious financial beating on that deal!
SARAFIL
12-19-2004, 02:00 PM
we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
Ouch. That guy must be taking a serious financial beating on that deal!
I don't think he's ever kept a car for 6+ months. And, he's gotten out of much more expensive (and heavily depreciating) cars before (S550, S55, S600, CL55, SL500, SL55-- just about everything expensive that M-B offers), so I doubt it'll bother him. As for the Caddy, he drove it twice. Once home from the dealer, and another round-trip somewhere that made up the rest of the mileage. It has since been sitting in his garage-- he hates the car.
We haven't determined a value on the Caddy yet-- we've got to call around tomorrow and see what we can get someone to pay for it.
Any guesses on what he is buying? Only hint is that it's a BMW.
we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
Ouch. That guy must be taking a serious financial beating on that deal!
I don't think he's ever kept a car for 6+ months. And, he's gotten out of much more expensive (and heavily depreciating) cars before (S550, S55, S600, CL55, SL500, SL55-- just about everything expensive that M-B offers), so I doubt it'll bother him. As for the Caddy, he drove it twice. Once home from the dealer, and another round-trip somewhere that made up the rest of the mileage. It has since been sitting in his garage-- he hates the car.
We haven't determined a value on the Caddy yet-- we've got to call around tomorrow and see what we can get someone to pay for it.
Any guesses on what he is buying? Only hint is that it's a BMW.
New M5?
SARAFIL
12-19-2004, 02:08 PM
we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
Ouch. That guy must be taking a serious financial beating on that deal!
I don't think he's ever kept a car for 6+ months. And, he's gotten out of much more expensive (and heavily depreciating) cars before (S550, S55, S600, CL55, SL500, SL55-- just about everything expensive that M-B offers), so I doubt it'll bother him. As for the Caddy, he drove it twice. Once home from the dealer, and another round-trip somewhere that made up the rest of the mileage. It has since been sitting in his garage-- he hates the car.
We haven't determined a value on the Caddy yet-- we've got to call around tomorrow and see what we can get someone to pay for it.
Any guesses on what he is buying? Only hint is that it's a BMW.
New M5?
He's buying a new car, not a used car. And, it's something in stock, not something that isn't here yet (M5, etc.)
Guess again. ;)
lemming
12-19-2004, 02:11 PM
645Ci?
that's my guess.
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
GMS is 44168, if you can get. (less than the BASE price of the e46m3).
Wish I could, but I have no angle.
SARAFIL
12-19-2004, 02:27 PM
645Ci?
that's my guess.
Damn, you're good.
Yeah, I know... there weren't many "good" options other than that one.
Jason C
12-19-2004, 02:35 PM
we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
Ouch. That guy must be taking a serious financial beating on that deal!
I don't think he's ever kept a car for 6+ months.
Did you invite him to sign up here? :roll: :paranoid:
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
GMS is 44168, if you can get. (less than the BASE price of the e46m3).
Wish I could, but I have no angle.
The last email I got from GM Supplier Discount said that I was allowed to give my discount away. Perhaps you know someone...?
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
GMS is 44168, if you can get. (less than the BASE price of the e46m3).
Wish I could, but I have no angle.
The last email I got from GM Supplier Discount said that I was allowed to give my discount away. Perhaps you know someone...?I know the acronyms are similar, but aren't GMS and GM Supplier different levels of pricing? I think my former company offers Supplier but not GMS.
but i think the CTS-V is a much more rewarding drive
I'll see if I can give my $0.02 this week-- we're probably taking a 2005 CTS-V in trade (with 400 miles).
I'm also curious what it's worth. What is invoice/MSRP on a new one anyways?
$49,300/45,603 plus a $695 destination charge.
GMS is 44168, if you can get. (less than the BASE price of the e46m3).
Wish I could, but I have no angle.
The last email I got from GM Supplier Discount said that I was allowed to give my discount away. Perhaps you know someone...?I know the acronyms are similar, but aren't GMS and GM Supplier different levels of pricing? I think my former company offers Supplier but not GMS.
I have no idea. I've never really paid any attention to what our program entails.
lemming
12-19-2004, 03:10 PM
i think the two plans are slightly different.
direct employees and direct relatives get employee pricing and GM supplier pricing is slightly less of a deal.
the issue is really whether or not a dealer would let a CTS-v for GMS pricing or not.
i noticed that you can already get c6's at GMS pricing. maybe that is subject to change and will be revoked in the spring and summer, though.
FT@SGP
12-19-2004, 07:39 PM
645Ci?
that's my guess.
Damn, you're good.
Yeah, I know... there weren't many "good" options other than that one.
I bet he won't be disappointed with a 645.
SARAFIL
12-19-2004, 07:49 PM
645Ci?
that's my guess.
Damn, you're good.
Yeah, I know... there weren't many "good" options other than that one.
I bet he won't be disappointed with a 645.
One of the biggest reasons he didn't like the CTS was that he didn't like shifting. His 645 is an automatic (unfortunately, they pretty much all are-- other than a couple of sticks and a couple of SMGs, we've sold exclusively automatic 645s).
FT@SGP
12-19-2004, 08:07 PM
One of the best automatics I have ever driven though, I would not get the SMG in a 645 over the automatic; its a choice of manual or Step IMO.
$49,300 really isn't quite accurate. It's the sticker, but you can't get the car without the gas guzzler tax.
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more. They might be interested in moving the cars. I paid invoice. The difference from invoice to msrp is only about 5% though.
Personally, the S4 never interested me. The last generation didn't handle well imo and the new one isn't any better (again, imo). Power should be in back. It's more fun.
SARAFIL
12-20-2004, 06:57 PM
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
What would you sell it for?
lemming
12-20-2004, 11:48 PM
there are 2 extremes with GM vehicles. you buy 'em and keep 'em for long enough to recoup your money eventually because over the long term, they're pretty inexpensive to maintain (in recent memory).
or you lease 'em and basically lock-in to beat the depreciation curve.
since JeSTer tends to lease anyway & they're languishing on the lots....barter for the best price and get a nice lease. you get your cake and eat it, too, until you get bored, the lease is done and you can slide into the e90 m3 v8.
i think BMW tacitly understands the e46m3 lesson. if they had executed the car correctly, there wouldn't be a burning need to undermine the critics with the CSL car. i firmly believe the e90 m3 will be lighter because it will have more aluminum and plastic fenders (a la 645ci) plus the engine won't need to be an iron block. it will be aluminum with carbon fibre hood and roof panels.
SARAFIL
12-21-2004, 07:51 PM
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
What would you sell it for?
Who knows.... we are having trouble even figuring out what it's worth. I'll see if I can get some real numbers...
There is one guy on the Cadillac forums that just traded in his '04 black one for an '05 silver one. I think he got $36k for it as a trade value. Granted, he was spending $50k, but still . . . The dealer started at 31k though. It had 20k miles and a few chips and dings.
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
What would you sell it for?
Who knows.... we are having trouble even figuring out what it's worth. I'll see if I can get some real numbers...
If you do, PM me.
SARAFIL
01-27-2005, 04:43 PM
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
What would you sell it for?
Who knows.... we are having trouble even figuring out what it's worth. I'll see if I can get some real numbers...
If you do, PM me.
I had forgotten all about this one...
I was browsing ebay and came across the car, so I figured I'd put some closure to this.
He ended up putting the 645 plans on hold, and bought a Cayenne to drive in the winter.
Here's the car:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43903&item=4522105 098&rd=1
As for GMS pricing, I don't know what is happening on the East coast, but the dealers here are starting to accumulate inventory. The last time I was at my dealer, he still had two Vs that he had when I first started exploring the option and three more.
Got that same response from several dealers today. "A used one.... but.... we've already got 3 new ones we can't get rid of!!". :cry:
What would you sell it for?
Who knows.... we are having trouble even figuring out what it's worth. I'll see if I can get some real numbers...
If you do, PM me.
I had forgotten all about this one...
I was browsing ebay and came across the car, so I figured I'd put some closure to this.
He ended up putting the 645 plans on hold, and bought a Cayenne to drive in the winter.
Here's the car:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43903&item=4522105 098&rd=1
Oops. Missed the end of the auction.
What are you asking for that car in a straight sale?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.