Return to Index  

Re: Costly?

July 1 2011 at 8:46 PM
Dino944  (Login Dino944)
AP Discussion Group

Response to Costly?


As I stated in my original post "the 6.9 was the ultimate expression performance, engineering, exclusivity, and quality when money was no object." Saying, "They were built to a standard, not to a cost" is an interesting way of putting things. Although, as mentioned, several years ago I read in a Mercedes based magazine, that these cars used materials and workmanship that was so costly that it would be prohibitive to for Mercedes to build cars in such a manner again.

It should be noted that quality and reliability are not necessarily interchangeable terms. Back in the 1990s, my father had an Acura and my father-in-law had a Lexus. Both cars never broke down nor left their owners stranded so they were reliable transportation. However, the leather interiors in both were garbage. Both my father and my father-in-law had to have the drivers seats replaced at least 3 time in each of their cars (during the 1st three years of ownership) because within 8-12 months the drivers seats would wear so poorly that the leather would wear away, and there would be holes in some areas of the seats. Those were reliable cars buy the matterials used were of poor quality. I've seen leather seats in Mercedes that were 25 years old that still looked to be a pretty good shape.

As for the sterile description of your family's BMW 2500, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If you are saying it was somewhat austere, I would accept that. BMW's were generally sportier than MBs, but far more austere. Still as for my saying they felt "made by hand" or feeling like they were made at a time when MB, BMW and Porsche were smaller some degree its a feeling I've had usually when inspecting or sitting in some of these older cars. I'd suggest you take a look at a BMW 3.0CS , specifically one with a leather interior. The leather looks sumptuous, yet sturdy as though stitched together by a German grandmother intending it to last a long time. Then look at the frames to the front seats which are fitted with beautiful chrome trim around the sides and back. Thats not done by a machine. Then compare that to the 70's disco lounge interiors of Cadillacs or Lincolns of the same period. I'd also suggest taking a look at the interior of a Porsche 930 Turbo. Look at the way the dash and door panels fit. Feel the leather on the door panels and look at the stitching. Then open and close its doors. For a small sports car the doors never felt cheap and tinny. They close solidly, and the materials are high quality. Then look at the interior of a Porsche 996. The 930 seems built to last a life time, while the 996 seems built to be made as inexpensively as possible.

As for engine output its all relative. Back in the late 1970s the Jaguar XJ12, Maserati Quattroporte (series 3), and Aston Martin Lagonda were the only other sedans with output on par with or greater than the 6.9. But those cars had reputations for spending the majority of their lives in repair shops rather than on the road. That's a rather special crowd of competitors. Don't forget that although we now think of Corvettes producing 400+ HP, Ferraris and Lamborghinis producing 500+ HP, and Porsche 997s producing around 345-385 HP, however it wasn't always that way. 1984 was a big year here in the USA...the C4 Corvette was released with 205HP, the Ferrari 308GTB/S QV was released with 240HP and the Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 was released with 200HP.

Best regards,

 Respond to this message   
Responses Home Page