STS pricing announced
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Jason E
Comparing a 300C to an STS is like comparing an apple to an orange...both are nice, but the STS is certainly a class above...and always will be.
Comparing a 300C to an STS is like comparing an apple to an orange...both are nice, but the STS is certainly a class above...and always will be.
1. A loaded 300C is $10k+ cheaper than a base V8-powered STS.
2. Chrysler enjoys a "similar" reputation for "reliabilty" with Cadillac.
3. Both Caddys and Chryslers suffer huge depreciation, but at least the 300C doesn't have as far to fall.
Of course, that leaves the issue of prestige. Before 1975 Chrysler was far closer to Cadillac in prestige than most people would imagine today. Judging by the 300C, Chrysler might just have a better shot at fully redeeming its reputation than Cadillac.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by redzed
Let's see...
1. A loaded 300C is $10k+ cheaper than a base V8-powered STS.
2. Chrysler enjoys a "similar" reputation for "reliabilty" with Cadillac.
3. Both Caddys and Chryslers suffer huge depreciation, but at least the 300C doesn't have as far to fall.
Of course, that leaves the issue of prestige. Before 1975 Chrysler was far closer to Cadillac in prestige than most people would imagine today. Judging by the 300C, Chrysler might just have a better shot at fully redeeming its reputation than Cadillac.
Let's see...
1. A loaded 300C is $10k+ cheaper than a base V8-powered STS.
2. Chrysler enjoys a "similar" reputation for "reliabilty" with Cadillac.
3. Both Caddys and Chryslers suffer huge depreciation, but at least the 300C doesn't have as far to fall.
Of course, that leaves the issue of prestige. Before 1975 Chrysler was far closer to Cadillac in prestige than most people would imagine today. Judging by the 300C, Chrysler might just have a better shot at fully redeeming its reputation than Cadillac.
Point Number 2, however, is not true... Chrysler's satisfaction scores on every Owner Satisfaction and/or Quality Score Report I have seen have been way below Cadillac's.
Point Number 3 used to be true, but the new Cadillac's are holding their value quite well. CTS's are a prime example, as are Escalades. It's a little too soon to judge resale value on SRX and XLR, but I see no reason that they would not follow the same path as Escalade and CTS.
Last edited by Darth Xed; Apr 13, 2004 at 02:34 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
I love it. In a recent thread about Cadillac's recent rebirth, redzed's simple (and idiotic) reply was something along the lines of: "call me when sales approach 1973 (or some similar year) levels, 
"
Never mind that half of the current luxury marques didn't even exist back then.
So, in order to bash the new STS (gotta get a shot in WHEREVER possible, regardless of merit or truth), he brings up Chrysler's nifty new 300C, and mentions that Chrysler used to have a reputation "closer to Cadillac" than me might mention today. In the '70s. Today (you know, the time in which we are living), Chrysler isn't even close to Cadillac. I don't think Daimler really wants that, because then they'd also be too close to M-B.
To quote the mailman in The Ladies' Man: "Dear Ladies' Man: Stop. The '70s are over... Stop."
"Never mind that half of the current luxury marques didn't even exist back then.
So, in order to bash the new STS (gotta get a shot in WHEREVER possible, regardless of merit or truth), he brings up Chrysler's nifty new 300C, and mentions that Chrysler used to have a reputation "closer to Cadillac" than me might mention today. In the '70s. Today (you know, the time in which we are living), Chrysler isn't even close to Cadillac. I don't think Daimler really wants that, because then they'd also be too close to M-B.
To quote the mailman in The Ladies' Man: "Dear Ladies' Man: Stop. The '70s are over... Stop."
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by redzed
Let's see...
1. A loaded 300C is $10k+ cheaper than a base V8-powered STS.
2. Chrysler enjoys a "similar" reputation for "reliabilty" with Cadillac.
3. Both Caddys and Chryslers suffer huge depreciation, but at least the 300C doesn't have as far to fall.
Of course, that leaves the issue of prestige. Before 1975 Chrysler was far closer to Cadillac in prestige than most people would imagine today. Judging by the 300C, Chrysler might just have a better shot at fully redeeming its reputation than Cadillac.
Let's see...
1. A loaded 300C is $10k+ cheaper than a base V8-powered STS.
2. Chrysler enjoys a "similar" reputation for "reliabilty" with Cadillac.
3. Both Caddys and Chryslers suffer huge depreciation, but at least the 300C doesn't have as far to fall.
Of course, that leaves the issue of prestige. Before 1975 Chrysler was far closer to Cadillac in prestige than most people would imagine today. Judging by the 300C, Chrysler might just have a better shot at fully redeeming its reputation than Cadillac.
Darth is right about resale, CTS is doing WAY better than Deville.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
and I think Caddy in a few years will be beyond what Chrysler can do in the same market. Buick will be Chryslers chalenger in 5 years..not caddy..caddy's going for D/C big cars Mercedes...
the CTS will hold its value big time in the next few years...
the CTS will hold its value big time in the next few years...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
1
Mar 22, 2015 07:00 PM