mmarshall

I don't quite understand the CLA's popularity. By M-B standards, it is cheaply made, unrefined, and has unimpressive road manners. Consumer Reports has a generally low opinion of it.

SW17LS

It's because it's the cheapest way to get the Mercedes badge.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

That's one reason, the other reason is because turbo cars are very easy to squeeze a good chunk of extra power out of without dumping your life savings into it.

SW17LS

I might accept that's the reason for 1-2% OF CLA sales lol

mmarshall

Using that logic, though, the BMW 1-series would probably outsell the 3-series. In actuality, though, that doesn't even come close. But, I agree the CLA is the one of the cheapest ways to get the three-pointed-star....and you certainly give up a lot for that lower price.

TangoRed

I'm not really seeing how you made that logic leap. The CLA doesn't outsell the C-class either. The point is the CLA is a cash grab model for Mercedes; the CLA is doing relatively well because it's low hanging fruit for people who want the badge. Those who want a great car to go with the badge go for the C-class, which sells in far higher numbers.

mmarshall

That part I agree with.....I wasn't arguing that. The point I was making is that, with BMW, when you DO buy a 1-Series, you get a vehicle that, IMO, may be a little more cramped inside than a 3, but otherwise, in most areas, is nearly as good. IMO, that is not the case with the CLA......it cannot be compared with a C-Class in almost any way.

Anyhow, it's not worth going on all night about.....and somehow, we all got off the thread-topic Cadenza.

How do you feel about the issue of the Cadenza being an entry-level FWD sedan for the Genesis Division, in the same mold that the ES350 is for Lexus? Do you think it would work? You haven't weighed in on that issue yet.

SW17LS

Where did I say that the CLA was the highest selling Mercedes? I said that the reason people buy it is because its the cheapest way to get the 3 pointed star. The car really doesn't have any other redeeming qualities, its ugly, poorly built with a crummy interior, FWD...

The 1 Series BMW actually has a good many positive attributes....

Actually he did, he agreed with me that he hopes Genesis will remain RWD.

davyjordi

i think i'd rather be driving the a3. in any case, though, there are competing models made by marques with far more brand cachet, the accord with the sport package or the tlx, for instance.

mmarshall

Brand-cachet, though, does not always translate into a credible vehicle underneath that upmarket-logo on the hood. Earlier in the thread, for instance, we were discussing how disappointing the Mercedes CLA was, even with the three-pointed star on the grille. And as for Acura, for instance.....yes, the TLX you mentioned is a nice vehicle, but the ZDX was an absolute disaster...an eyesore almost as bad as the Pontiac Aztek. And six-figure Range Rovers, perhaps the highest-cache nameplate in the SUV world, have been notoriously unreliable.

That's been part of the problem with Kia.....public perception of the brand (and, hence, potential depreciation) is mostly 15 years behind reality, though the Soul and Sportage have been good successes. But, IMO, it's time to look at Kia's reality instead of its old stereotype.

SW17LS

If the brand of the car is more important to you than the substance of the car, then that doesn't surprise me.

Its not that brand doesn't matter to me, it does, it just doesn't matter to me more than the substance of the car itself. Take my Kia Sedona minivan, had I found the Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna to be as attractive a van as I found the Sedona, I would have chosen them and been willing to pay more. But, in order to go with a brand with "cachet" I would have had to pay more for a vehicle I didn't like nearly as much...which makes no sense.

Now, am I going to go out and trade my Lexus in on a Kia? I would have a very hard time doing that. But another mainstream brand like a Honda or a Toyota or a Ford? Thats like being proud that your plastic bins are made by "Rubbermaid"...

davyjordi

perhaps because we can both afford to purchase cars of prestigious marques it's acceptable to trivialize more pedestrian brands, but for the vast majority of americans, purchasing from a mainstream brand is the best that can be done and in comes brand cachet once again. i think it's rather important to consumers shopping in every price bracket. brands matter. kia and hyundai, while they provide for decent offerings now, just haven't earned enough respect for many. it's hard to shake a terrible stigma when the stigma was entirely the fault of brand itself -- making terrible automobiles for decades will do a number on any manufacturer's reputation.

mmarshall

That part, I dont agree with. They (now) do as good or better a job, for the money, as virtually any competing nameplate. They have indeed earned respect, yet don't always receive it.

Agreed to an extent....but consider that they have building good products now for at least as long, if not longer, then they did lemons. Even former hard-core prisoners have the right to earn parole with good behavior.

That's also not just restricted to Hyundai or Kia. While still facing occasional reliability problems, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example, has improved enormously in recent years, and IMO has become a pleasure to sit in and drive.

davyjordi

i'm not saying it's rational, i'm simply saying that the phenomenon exists.

mmarshall

OK...understood. I'll agree with that.

I recently ran into that myself with a neighbor.....in fact, someone on our condo-board. She asked me for advice and a range of recommended vehicles for her needs, and when I mentioned (among others) a couple of Hyundai/Kia products, she looked at me like I was a ghost, and said "No Kias...period". Wouldn't even give me a reason.