backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by SAN-Man.. on Dec 19 at 5:22 PM

Consumer Reports finds little justification for the Cadillac ELR's high price

Consumer Reports has laid its hands on the 2015 Cadillac ELR plug-in hybrid and spent ten days testing out the high-end hybrid vehicle. The publication says that after ten days of driving the car, it's hard to categorize.
 
While the Chevrolet Volt costs around $34,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, the Cadillac ELR with the same drivetrain starts at $75,000. Consumer Reports says that the massive sticker price for the ELR doesn’t add up.
 
The publication says that the rear seats in the ELR are much tighter than the rear seats in the Volt, which were already nearly too small for adults. Consumer Reports does say that the ELR is much nicer to drive than the Volt, and that you can barely hear the gas engine when it turns on.

 
The interior is also "sumptuous" and beautifully finished according to the publication. In the end, Consumer Reports felt that the car was "rather ordinary" and lacks the "zip" you expect in a high-end coupe. The publication says they would rather be rolling around in the roomier and better performing Tesla Model S, granted the Model S can be much more expensive than the ELR and is hindered by the range of its battery pack and reliance on recharging.
 
The ELR can go for 35 miles thanks to its 16.5 kWh battery and has an 84hp gas engine to assist on longer trips.
 
GM wants people to compare the Cadillac ELR to the BMW 6-Series Grand Coupe that carries a price of $88,000.

Source: Consumer Reports



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Newsflash
By Spuke on 12/11/2013 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People in the market for a $75k passenger car aren't all that interested in the cost-effectiveness of their purchase.
Yes they are actually. How do you think wealthy get/keep their wealth? BTW, I suggest everyone read Millionaire Next Door. The vast majority (and I mean WELL over 90%) of America's wealthy DON'T drive Veyron's and live in $20m mansions. Hint: the average price of a home of the rich is $750k.


RE: Newsflash
By Motoman on 12/11/2013 1:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.

If you were concerned with the cost-effectiveness of your car purchase, you wouldn't be looking at $75k cars...period.

Indeed, this is how "rich" people get rich...well, one way anyway...is being wise with their money.

Buying a $75k car is never a "wise" use of money, because a vastly cheaper car will perform that function every bit as well.

People will, of course, buy this car...and other $75k cars. They buy it for cache. For looks. For a "luxurious interior." Etc. The one thing they won't be buying for, though, is cost-effectiveness.


RE: Newsflash
By Spuke on 12/11/2013 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The one thing they won't be buying for, though, is cost-effectiveness.
I didn't say THIS car was cost effective. I DID say rich people DO figure in cost effectiveness when buying cars. MOST rich people are not "ballin out of control". Turn off the friggin TV.


RE: Newsflash
By Motoman on 12/11/2013 2:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're in agreement. But I'm not sure.

I would assert that even if you were a zillionaire, you couldn't possibly buy a $75k car and say that you made a cost-effective purchase. Cost-effectiveness is getting the most bang for your buck, to paraphrase a bit.

The $34k Volt (before tax subsidy) could fairly easily be described as cost-effective - at least if you presume the market requirement is a hybrid passenger vehicle. The "bang for your buck" is just about 100% more on the Volt than on the Cadillac.

The same could be said about the Cavalier vs. the Cimmaron - although it needn't necessarily be the same base model. A Hyndai Elantra is vastly more cost-effective than a Corvette too.

At the end of the day, cost-effectiveness disappears once you get past the first few models in any given manufacturer's lineup. After that, you're no longer concerned with cost-effectiveness - regardless of how much disposable money you have.


RE: Newsflash
By Arkive on 12/11/2013 3:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, not sure why you're so offended by his response. If this car wasn't cost-effective in your mind why even make the comparison? You're both right to a degree. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.


RE: Newsflash
By Murloc on 12/11/2013 1:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
well-off people accumulated wealth because they prioritize their spending correctly.

I don't think this car does that, but maybe some rich people hate traveling and will spend money on this instead.


RE: Newsflash
By Motoman on 12/11/2013 2:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
well-off people accumulated wealth because they prioritize their spending correctly.


Yes.

quote:
I don't think this car does that, but maybe some rich people hate traveling and will spend money on this instead.


Well...no. You can't declare purchasing this Cadillac to be cost-effective if you did it instead of taking a vacation to Maccu Pichu. Because spending $75k on the car is, in and of itself, not a cost-effective transaction. Doesn't matter if you "saved" money by not buying something else. That might justify getting it into whatever budget you're working with - but that doesn't magically make it cost-effective.


RE: Newsflash
By rountad on 12/12/2013 1:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
You can't possibly know that.

Maybe the person is a real estate agent for a wealthy area and clients just feel more at home or affinity with the agent who drives a premium car.

You kind of seem to be slipping into a judgmental, I know best, phase lately with some of your tirades :-)


RE: Newsflash
By Motoman on 12/12/2013 2:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe the person is a real estate agent for a wealthy area and clients just feel more at home or affinity with the agent who drives a premium car.


That doesn't magically make the car cost-effective. What you're pointing out is that the Cadillac may appeal more to people who aren't all that concerned with cost-effectiveness. Like the people shopping for real estate in a wealty area.

You're fundamentally not addressing the issue. There's not a judgement call being made here...either something is cost-effective, or it isn't. That fact doesn't change with whether or not a real estate agent thinks she should buy a non-cost-effective car in order to cater to the Stepford Wives types.


RE: Newsflash
By rountad on 12/12/2013 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, I think that I am.

Good value and cost-effectiveness do not equal cheap. It means that it delivers what you need and want at a good price (and maybe the best price when ALL costs and benefits are considered).

If something costs twice as much, but lasts three times as long and you want to use all of that extra lifespan, then it's a better value and more cost-effective.

In the same way, if the person's business is adversely affected by the wrong choice of car, then the right choice of car might be completely logical and cost-effective.


RE: Newsflash
By rountad on 12/12/2013 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
If the agent makes twice as much money based on her clothes and car, then spending that extra money might very well have been cost effective.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki