I think you are giving the automotive press too much credit/blame for the ride of modern cars. Could it just be an evolving change in consumer preferences for these modern vehicles?? I fit the gramps profile and do not long for the days of floating boats that have trouble getting out of their own way.

 

Both your opinion and Fizzboy's noted....and respected. But, no, I don't think I'm giving the auto-press too much credit. I've read most of their main-line auto mags for decades, and, judging from most of their editorials/reviews, can see pretty much where they are coming from. Most of those auto-journalists have poured scorn on traditional American luxury cars for many years. And, because of their strong day-to-day influence in how new cars are viewed (especially at the major auto-shows), and how that influence has steadily grown in recent years, auto-designers have been deferring more and more to their pressures. That often means making sport-oriented cars out of those that aren't supposed to be sport-oriented....yes, like Cadillac/Lincoln flagships.

In fairness, not ALL auto jornalists hate big traditional Cadillacs and Lincolns. One of the rare exceptions is Road & Track's Peter Egan. He writes the monthly "Side Glances" column (which I read regularly) and restores old sports cars. He does a lot of driving around the country for the magazine, and recently bought a used Cadillac DTS for long road trips in comfort for him and his wife Barb. As expected, he gets some rapping from the other guys at the magazine, but felt that the DTS's comfort was worth it.

Of course some things evolve....I'll be the first to admit that. I, for one, would not want to go back to carburators, breaker-point ignition, non-clearcoat paint, drum brakes without self-adjusters, non-synchro manual transmissions, or recirculating-ball steering, for all the rice in China (I had too much experience myself with old cars like that). Some things on a car obviously change for good reason. But that doesn't mean, though, that a company has to engineer out ride-comfort, especially on vehicles where ride-comfort is expected, just for the sake of having better skidpad/slalom figures. Many of those who buy traditional comfort-oriented luxocars simply don't care about sharp handling....they don't drive aggressively enough to use it. But the auto press wants it.....and their views on suspension/tires have generally dominated in recent years. The auto-press, though, joins with many others (including me) in complaining about excessive complexity in the electronic controls in today's cars. That's thr next problem automakers are going to have to tackle.

You might (?) be longing for them in a few more years.....especially if you start to get aching backs/joints/legs. I obviously don't wish them on you (I'm not a vindictive person like that) ........but none of us are immune from the consequences of aging.

 

I'm old enough that the consequences of aging have begun and still don't yearn for the good old automotive days. If I do, I'll buy an old car and take it to our Thursday night cruise in.

I maintain that the boomers who are aging and retiring are used to different dynamics in their vehicles and their retirement vehicles will reflect the ride, handling etc. of the vehicles that they are used to vs. what my parents preferred.

 

Good review, my thoughts exactly about the XTS. I loved the XTS when I looked at it, the interior is *really* nice, feels very upscale. But, it fell apart for me when I drove it. You're right it rides hard and is loud, without being sporty or fun to drive. I think the big wheels are to blame. I considered going back and driving one with the 19s, but I never did.

 

I just drove a new Impala and was very surprised at how much better the ride was than on the XTS. They are on the same platform, yet the much cheaper Chevy has a more luxurious ride. I still think most of the poor low speed ride in the XTS is due to the oversize wheels and low profile tires they use. They may look good to some, but result in a harsher ride.
Steve

 

Marshall, the DTS was never the flagship for Cadillac, even when the STS went out of production, the CTS would of become the flagship for Cadillac simply based on default. The vehicle price and size does not always give you an accurate idea of what the flagship is. Just because it is the biggest car does not mean it truly is the flagship or is a flagship. It most cases the flagship is the highest priced but not with the DTS.

While there is no doubt the A8, 7 series and S class are all flagships. Cadillac technically does not really have one at the current moment.

 

I think you guys are putting a little too much stock in this idea of a "flagship" vehicle.

Is the S Class the "flagship"? I don't know that someone who buys an SL63 would agree.

 

OK...we just look at it two different ways. I'll respect your view of it, but, in my book, the DTS was Cadillac's best definition of a flagship after the STS/SLS was dropped.

Well, on that note, I WILL agree with you.

We'll see if they do a version of the upcoming full-size Holden RWD platform or not.

 

Well, that's where opinions differ. Technically, in the Mercedes line, the Maybach would have been my definition of a flagship....at least while it was around. Now, I would probably consider it the S600....possibly the S65 if engine power is a factor.

 

The Maybach was not a Mercedes. It was a Maybach. Thats like saying Toyota's flagship is the LS...they don't look at it that way nor do any consumers.

You have to understand that, you may feel like thats the "flagship" but Mercedes likely doesn't look at it that way, and nor will most Mercedes consumers. The auto industry is different today, you don't have a clear model lineup where any one vehicle is the "ultimate" of that brand. Using Mercedes as the example, for me the ultimate Mercedes would be the S Class. But, I have a friend who has an SL63 and would never be caught dead in an S Class. So for him thats hardly the "ultimate" Mercedes. So the discussion of "which car is the flagship" is completely meaningless.

Even Lexus is that way. Is it clear that the LS is the "flagship" anymore? Looking at how Lexus decided to revamp every model but the LS basically, and for the first time ever they refreshed the same generation LS for a third time...I would argue they aren't focused on the LS as the flagship anymore.

 

Some Lexus vehicles, however, are badged AS Toyotas outside of North America and a few other countries. The former IS300/Altezza was one of the best examples (I owned one myself). As to the current Lexus flagship, I'd consider it the LS600HL (long-wheelbase). But, yes, the majority of Lexus and Toyota products ARE different in several areas. (I'd probably get tossed out of CL if I claimed any differently)

 

For Lexus, I would still consider the LS as the flagship car, the LS600h is not the flagship, it is the whole Lexus LS line. For Mercedes it would be the S class, not an individual S class model.

Back to Cadiilac, there simply is no flagship in the sense of the way S class and LS are flagships.
In some ways people might say the Escalade is flagship, and in some ways it could be.

Maybach was definitely NOT the flagship of Mercedes Benz in any way.

The XTS for Cadiilac is not a flagship either.

 

Engine options and price points are not the defining factor of a flagship. Neither is the size of the vehicle.

 

In your opinion, what is the flagship vehicle for Lexus?

 

These are your opinions...what bearing do these opinions have on the automotive industry though? What makes the XTS "not a flagship"?

Like I said, I don't really think car companies have a defined "flagship" anymore because they have such differing lines of vehicles. For me the "ultimate" Lexus is the LS, but thats not going to be the case for everyone. What makes the LS "superior" to the LX for instance?

Then what makes something a flagship? Because you say it is?