You cannot compare Hondas to Cadillacs. It's like comparing bicycles to mopeds or mopeds to motorcycles. Even thought they are 2 wheel vehicles, there is a huge difference; likewise, with Hondas and Cadillacs. There are also different levels of Cadillacs. I have what I consider to be a Cadillac. Many Deville owners would disagree because of the different platfroms.

The Honda gets better mileage, and it can weasel into parking spots that most Cadillacs cannot. Other than those issues, that is the things Hondas have on Cadillacs. Also, my factory Bose will blow away any factory Honda sound system.

In addition to cranking the volume, the rest of the solution to the problem is solved on the road. My STS is bone-stock factory with 62.3k on the clock. Without looking at specks for g-froces in the corners, braking distance, or whatever other compatitives, through my 120k miles of STS driving experaince, I know for fact that no Honda can match the ride or match any aspect relating to whatever performance.

There is a rule that usually holds true. You get what you pay for: I have a 30' Proline W/A Cuddy Cabin Offshore fishing boat, wiht twin 260 hp 350's. Its value is somewhere in the 55-60k range. When I pulled into a new marina, I had a guy try to explain to me why his 21' Bayliner with a 275 was a better boat. (When you factor in the 2-cycle oil, I got/get better mileage than he does. I can live in my boat, including cooking, bathing, bathroom. He wizzes in a bucket, stored in an empty hatch. I guess that he could crap in it too. Bathe? Cook? Refridigation? Forget it.)

You get what you pay for. Despite the fact that my boat is a Cadillac compared to the other, it pounds your teeth out in moderate seas. One of my buddies has a 30' Albermarle Express, with twin Cat 3126 Cats. His boat is valued at about 150k. Mine has a more elegant interior quarters. In ride quality, speed, and overall, seaworthyness, however, his boat is a major Cadillac compared to mine, and the feul bill is less than half of mine. To take it a step further, there is an aquatinace of mine--of whom I have been out on his boat twice--who has a 35' Carolina Classic @ a cost of 420k new. I don't recall what engines, but they are twin Cummings. That boat smokes the lessor boats. Let's take it further with a 50' custom built. (What happens here is that we are getting out of my soical ecomonic class; as a result, I not fortunate enough to interact with such people, but it's a good guess that it becomes even a higher level.)

The problem is that you're sitting in the 21' Bayliner with a 225 outboard, and trying to say that it's comprobal to the 50' custom. You cannot do it because, yes, they are both boats, but they are 2 different things.

You cannot compare Hondas to Cadillacs.


I agree!

That's why Hondas are called economy cars and Cadillacs are called luxury cars.

All I know is, My stepdads honda can beat every caddy, cept for one, which it matches. And thats the CTS-V. But to be back on topic, Its like apples and oranges. Completely different.

All I know is, My stepdads honda can beat every caddy, cept for one, which it matches. And thats the CTS-V. But to be back on topic, Its like apples and oranges. Completely different.

Is that the S2000 you have to rev to 8 grande to get any kind of power out of? :devil: What's the 0-60time on those?

The 0-60 is less than the v and they are about equal on the 1/4 mile. Not really, It has balls over 5 grand, but what do you expect. The V is almost 3 times the engine.

first i would like to know...who started this honda cadillac comparison??? and secondly i'd like to know if they are on CRACK. WHo the hell compares a honda and a cadillac????? THEY ARE IN TWO DIFFERNT CLASSES. I am not sayin Honda is bad, but they are two differnt cars. If u wanna compare, compare Cadillac and Acura. Thats why acura is there, to challenge the luxury market. makin the abusurd camparo of honda to cadillac is makin a comparo to mercedes and Ford. IT JUST DOSNT WORK. :banghead:

HA HA its like compairing my 4-wheeler to a cadillac. Number 1 thing, a big caddy motor can smoke a honda doors clean off. Number 2 if my car and a honda got in a fight, my car would smash it. Number 3 Alot more passenger room in a caddy. Number 4 thing the cad looks more fancy of course. Number 5 thing the caddy rides better. Thats about it. The only things honda has on caddy is gas milage, and you can parrellal park it easier.

Yea but the S2K will handle your pants off. And i bet it could beat some big blocks.

Autoweek got it to do 0-60 mph in 5.75 seconds and the standing 1/4 mile in 14.27. They had professional drivers dumping the clutch at probably 8000-8500 rpm in order to get enough torque to achieve that kind of acceleration. They are fast, but you really have to know what your doing and how to drive it properly. Plus it weighs next to nothing.Its a nice little car, but it's still a Honda. I would much rather have my STS instead.

If a four banger will beet a big block well a three cylender geo metro will beet them all. HA HA. Cubic inch and torque is everything. But you are 100% right on one thing a little honda will out handle a big Cadillac.

a little honda will out handle a big Cadillac.

Not an XLR? :shhh:

Yea but the S2K will handle your pants off. And i bet it could beat some big blocks.

You like that s2000 a bit too much. It's Honda's fast car, it's not God's fast car.

The fact is that whatever tricks you can do to a small engine to squeeze power out of it, you can do to a big engine and squeeze more power out of it.

I,m not saying a honda is a bad car, I have a honda 4-wheeler, all i'm saying is a honda civic, accord, etc cannot be compared to a cadillac, shoot a oldsmobile cant be compared to a cadillac hardly, thats why its a cadillac. No honda is going to outrun a cadillac, unless they make a 460 or 70 cubic inch engine. Its like trying to compare a toyota to a three quarter ton or 1 ton chevy, ford, or dodge with a big block motor.

After shopping cars and driving many, my wife got a 2004 Honda EX Coupe, w/ V6 240 hp. She loves the car and it is definately fast. My ol 95 sls can run with her in a roll on. :want: She is not into drag racing starts lol. She is happy as hell and the sound system in the Honda is better than that in my 95, but then it oughta be.

It has always been about enjoying yer ride. Make mine Cadillac.

Sorry but there is no way a s2000 could even give a CTS-V a race in any situation. Those s2000 are way over rated. Though it is fun watching my wife try to race me in the V vs. my STi. Thats just a no contest!!! :lildevil:

why are we even comparing honda to cadillac??? :banghead: there is more to a car than how fast it goes. :rolleyes2

The only reason the speed/handling thing came into being is that it's the only thing Honda has going for it, well not really going for it, but it's the only comparison to be made.

This may in fact be the most sophmoronic debate in the history of automobiles. However I accept the challenge of trying to make some sense out of it. Cadillac is, and always will be, the most comfortable automobile for your money. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to go fast, get a Corvette or a Porsche. Besides, I find that fast cars are a waste of time and money. If you're important enough, people will wait.

"Speeding don't bring nothin' but accidents and tickets"-Micheal Vick, Dub Magazine.

Don't try to impress me with numbers and stats of an S2000. It's a Honda. That's all it'll ever be. What I, and many of the other people on this forum, want is comfort. The Northstar V-8 is the greatest internal combustion engine on the planet right now. It delivers the optimium power and torque for the vehicles it's applied to, as well as excellent gallonage (talk to me about mileage vs. gallonage sometime) for the size and weight of vehicle it moves.

For those of you that would be inclined to pass a Cadillac off as unreliable, think of this. My Coupe deVille is twenty-five years old, with 125,000 miles on it. I'd like you to call me when your Honda turns 25 and let me know how the old girl is doing.

Hondas have no history, no attitude. Think about how many songs that you've heard Cadillacs mentioned. These cars have been there through everything. How many times have you heard about a Honda in a song? A Cadillac's history alone is worth its weight in gold...

1905-1st fully closed body
1908-Dewar Trophy, 1st car w/interchangable parts
1909-1st stnd closed body
1912-1st self-starter
1915-1st mass-produced V8
1929-Synchro-Mesh transmission, eliminating gear clash, 1st to offer security glass stnd
1930-1st V16
1934-1st ind front suspension
1940-1st automatic trans
1954-1st power steering stnd
1957-1st quad headlamps, 6-way power seats w/memory, auto door locks, air suspension
1964-Industry 1st climate control
1965-Automatic load leveling steering
1969-1st closed cooling system
1978-1st digital engine management
1980-1st microprocessor to control ignition, fuel injection and vehicle diagnostics
1992-1st 32-valve V8
1997-OnStar
1998-Adaptive Seating
1999-Night vision
2004-Electro-magnetic adaptive suspension
2005-1st car w/Dolby 5.1 Surround sound

Cadillac...Break Through

Gallonage vs mileage... well mileage means miles per gallon, gallonage is a word you made up that seems to serve no purpose.

You know the Geo metro had 11.5:1 compression ratio in that dinky little three cylinder it had.

I have seen first hand what happens to an S2000 when the driver doen't know what he's doing. There was a guy a my school who brought his in for a day, and he almost ended up in a ditch exiting the parking lot. I haven't seen the car since.

I think the fact that the S2000 redlines at about 9000rpm says something. You might as well be riding a motorcycle. The car really isn't very practical for street use. It's really belongs on the track where you can keep a relativley constant rpm level between gears. You can't do that on a road with traffic lights. Plus, if you wanted it to be fast all of the time, you would end up beating the living hell out of the car. The high revving V-TEC engines that those cars use, cannot be pounded on like that all of the time. My northstar on the other hand can take it. I can spend my whole day just flooring it from light to light. I'll need a new set of tires, before I'll need a new engine.

My friend has an Integra GS-R which redlines at 8000rpm. I've never seen anyone leave a traffic light so slowly in my life, than this guy in his integra. When I asked him why he shifts so slowly, he quickly replied, "Cause I don't want to beat the s**t out of my car, OKAY!". That says it all. They are great for short, but sweet runs around town. Not very practical at all.

You also have to remember, that if you drove a golf car into it by accident, you insurance would probably have to total it. It may be fun, and it may be fast, but it's certainly not safe. It wasn't designed to be a safe car in the first place though. Just look at the miata. You could die in that thing if a bike messenger ran into you.

It's all about what the car was built for. The S2000, in a sence it the peppy little Jaguar of the late fifties and early sixties against the classic american muscle. It's the small, light, and powerful car, that is competitively priced amd very unsafe. Thats what it was deigned for.

I agree that Honda in no way could ever be coompared to Cadillac. I wouldn't count Acura either. Until they can build a car like the 1995 Twin Turbo Supra, the Skyline GT-R, or any of thse great import sports cars, they will always be a ricer. Plane and simple. Oh yeah, the NSX doesn't count cause that thing is a POS.

All in all, I think the S2000 is more closely compared with cars such as the Neon SRT-4, the Saturn Ion Redline, and even the new Cobalt. That's the type of car it has to comptete with, not a Cadillac. I'd like to see someone in an S2000 race the new STS-V. That would make for quite a show :D

Lol, I've got best of both worlds. I have my reliable, economical Acura for everyday street driving and my gas-guzzlin', tire-shreddin' big ass boat Caddy for weekends! Damn, I got it made :bouncy: :D

Hells Yeah! Now all you need is a big truck to drive off road. :D

Gallonage vs mileage... well mileage means miles per gallon, gallonage is a word you made up that seems to serve no purpose.

First off, I'd like to thank "davesdeville" for giving me the chance to explain this sadly ignorant misconception, as well as setting himself up for utter intellectual disaster. Second, I'd like to tell everyone to read this entire post before replying, as I can embarass you as well. ;)

Since 1978, the EPA has measured mileage in the lab. Yet most true car guys will say those EPA city and highway numbers are totally bogus when compared to what customers will actually see. The city route simulates a 7.5 mile stop-and-go trip with an average speed of 20mph at a temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The EPA actually drops this figure by 10% to make their measurement realistic to actual numbers. However, your mileage will be different. Your trip may be shorter, your outside temperature may be higher or lower, maybe you accelerate or brake harder than the test pace, and maybe you're stopped longer in traffic, etc... To give an idea of how these factors may effect you actual mileage, just a change in trip length can change your number 10 to 15 percent. For exceptionally fuel efficient vehicles, cooling loads are high compared to those of propelling the car. They suffer larger drag on fuel consumption in higher temperatures. At 85-95 degrees, the smaller engine vehicles could lose maybe 20-25% fuel economy(that means our big Cadillacs can actually get better gas mileage than Hondas if the conditions are right). Mileage is a dream. It's lab results. They don't hold true in the real world.

There's also another illusion in mpg numbers. If you drive one of those big 500ci(8.2L) V-8 engines as those seen in the Eldorados of the mid-70's, your might be rated at 10 mpg by EPA standards. Now if in real life you only get 9 mpg you can shrug it off by saying "That's only 1 mpg". If you drive a hybrid that drops the same 10% to 45, you complain of bad mileage. Where gallonage comes in is that the mileage statistic tricks you into thinking how far you can get rather than how much fuel you actually burn. When the hybrid drops to 45-mpg instead of the listed 50, a 100-mile trip consumes less than a quarter of a gallon more than expected. Compare that to the Eldorado that got 9 mpg instead of 10, it's 100-mile trip burns 1.1 more gallons.

If the EPA started rated fuel economy in gallons consumed over 100 miles of travel, as the Canadians and Europeans do (see, I didn't make the word up, it does serve a purpose. I'm also aware they would use litres consumed over 100 kilometers, so don't try to be smart by calling me out on that either), everyone could see that 11 gallons per 100 miles of travel for the Eldorado is a big deal next to the 2.2 gallons used by the hybrid. That's gallonage for you.

Thank you for trying to act smart Dave, but now you should go and hide from the people in this forum who will no doubt laugh at you.

This knowledge proudly brought to you by a sophomore in mechanical engineering at RPI in Troy, NY.

Cadillac...Breakthrough

So it's mileage stated in terms of gallons per mile. It doesn't embarass me when you claim to have all the answers and spit out the same data in a differant format. :rolleyes2

If the EPA started rated fuel economy in gallons consumed over 100 miles of travel, as the Canadians and Europeans do (see, I didn't make the word up, it does serve a purpose. I'm also aware they would use litres consumed over 100 kilometers

What do you mean by we "would use?" Our rating system, as far as I know and have seen on every new car, uses litres per 100 kms. Unless you are referring to some sort of laboratory testing that the general public is not aware of?

No need to be a wise ass either, feel free to share your info but we are not here to spite others in the quest to feel superior in some way or start a flame war because we have some knowledge on somebody.

p.s. Since you're into bragging, I've got a Psychology Degree, want to try to outwit me? :devil:

Go ahead, lecture me on the Canadian system of measurement, but lighten up a bit.

The way you word your sentences, the measurement could go either way! Just state one or the other.

I can't believe this stupid thread is still active. :helpless: It was supposed to be about Honda.

So it's mileage stated in terms of gallons per mile. It doesn't embarass me when you claim to have all the answers and spit out the same data in a differant format. :rolleyes2

It's not the same data in a different format. It's not even close to the same data. Like I tried to explain, mileage is a sick dream invented by the EPA. It does not apply to actual driving. Mileage doesn't factor in so many things that I don't even have time to list. For example, the fuel burned to heat the engine is fuel that doesn't take you any miles. Look, if you measure with gallonage, you have one engine warm-up over 100 miles, instead of one per 7.5 miles on the EPA cycle.

Gallonage is a much more accurate measurement of fuel efficiency. It's not mileage stated in terms of gallons per mile. It's how many gallons an engine burns over a 100 mile trip. As one gear head to another, I think people need to stop regurgitating what has been taught to them by ages of backwards thinking and think for ourselves for once. Do your own research, maybe I'll see you in Detroit someday. :)

The comments about embarassment were all made in jest, I just wanted to make sure I'd get a reply from you.:halo:

Cadillac...Breakthrough

The ***liters/100kilometers is an excellent point. If I switch to the MPG instant on my DIC and then switch to metric, thats exactly what it says.

What do you mean by we "would use?" Our rating system, as far as I know and have seen on every new car, uses litres per 100 kms. Unless you are referring to some sort of laboratory testing that the general public is not aware of?

No need to be a wise ass either, feel free to share your info but we are not here to spite others in the quest to feel superior in some way or start a flame war because we have some knowledge on somebody.

p.s. Since you're into bragging, I've got a Psychology, want to try to outwit me? :devil:

Go ahead, lecture me on the Canadian system of measurement, but lighten up a bit.

The way you word your sentences, the measurement could go either way! Just state one or the other.

I can't believe this stupid thread is still active. :helpless:

"Litres consumed over 100Km" is the same thing as saying litres per 100 Km.

Writing my reply in a "smart ass" manner was just my way of making sure I'd get a response.

What was I bragging about?

What does psychology have to do with systems of measuring fuel efficiency?

You spent at least $100,000 on an education you could have got for about $900 ordering books on amazon.com.:rolleyes:

Where I go to school, psychology courses are the ones we take when we want to take an easy break from engineering. Half my classmates will have minors in psychology. Just think about applying for a job...major in chemical engineering, minor in pysch. The employer would just be thinking "What do you do?"

I'm just joking with you, your profession is a difficult and much needed one. Sorry you read me wrong.

If the EPA started rated fuel economy in gallons consumed over 100 miles of travel, as the Canadians and Europeans do

I am well aware that litres CONSUMED over 100 kms is the same thing as litres per 100 kms. but the statement in question is the one I am quoting, and I believe it to be false.

It clearly states that Canadians use the measurement of gallons and miles, which is false to the best of my knowledge, as you know, we use litres and kms. That's what I'm discussing because your statement is in absolution.

I see now that you meant no disrespect to Dave, and the way you worded that, one might "think" that you liked labelling people as "ignorant" and prefer to "embarass" others from your post #24 in an attempt to feel superior. I would simply advise you to be more careful in the future.

When I was in Psychology classes, I would often work on my car and figure out my mileage to relax. :devil: Like I said, lighten up sparky. ;)

I wasn't labeling people as ignorant, I was labeling the MPG system as ignorant.

Speaking of gasoline, octane and mileage, I've heard and occasionally read that our "regular" grade is equivalant to your "premium." Supposedly Canadian fuel is more greater refined or something so it is cleaner burning for our tough emissions testing, etc.

Are you aware of this?

High sulpher (sp?) content is supposedly in U.S. gasoline.

In Ireland they use only 93 octane. I don't know about Canada, but the U.S. regular is 87, premium is 93. It does burn cleaner and more efficiently. I guess most Americans are too concerned with keeping a few pennies per gallon rather than help save their environment and keeping their engines and fuel systems cleaner :p .

I'm joking, but it is one reason I can't wait to move back to Ireland after college. They also buy more diesel cars back home (about 50% of the cars sold there are diesels), which I really hope catches on this side of the pond. You'd be surprised in the improvements made with diesels over the years. They don't smell bad anymore, and they're almost whipser quiet.

...and when I hear people complain about the way gas prices are getting I just think of the people of Eire. At around 1.75 euro a liter...change it to US$ and it's around $3.50/L...change liters to gallons...you're looking at close to 6 or 7 dollars a gallon!! :bonkers:

In Ireland they use only 93 octane. I don't know about Canada, but the U.S. regular is 87, premium is 93. It does burn cleaner and more efficiently. I guess most Americans are too concerned with keeping a few pennies per gallon rather than help save their environment and keeping their engines and fuel systems cleaner :p .

I'm joking, but it is one reason I can't wait to move back to Ireland after college. They also buy more diesel cars back home (about 50% of the cars sold there are diesels), which I really hope catches on this side of the pond. You'd be surprised in the improvements made with diesels over the years. They don't smell bad anymore, and they're almost whipser quiet.

...and when I hear people complain about the way gas prices are getting I just think of the people of Eire. At around 1.75 euro a liter...change it to US$ and it's around $3.50/L...change liters to gallons...you're looking at close to 6 or 7 dollars a gallon!! :bonkers:

Our regular is 87 as well. 93 is premium.

Currently regular is 76.9 cents per litre, and that's LOW compared to the last few years! I believe that works out to $3.46 per gallon.

This knowledge proudly brought to you by a sophomore in mechanical engineering at RPI in Troy, NY.

Would you like a cookie fo your great achievments?

Yes I would...thankyou


...would you like to post a relevant reply?

Hehe, nice illumina. Hey Guinness4h2o, give me a call when your car needs fixing. I'll hook you up. This offer is proudly brought to you by a student at UTI. :D

Just kidding. :thumbsup:

f'ing americans...:helpless:

:p

Mileage means miles per gallon plain and simple, if you have associated it with EPA testing of mileage you've made a mistake. Mileage was not invented by the EPA, measuring how many miles you get with a gallon of gas has been around much longer than the EPA. Your word "gallonage" does the EXACT same thing as mileage does, it tells someone how much gas they'll use to go a distance or how much distance they can get from an amount of gas.

HOW exactly mileage and gallonage is tested depends on the standards of whoever is doing the test. If you say your way of doing the test is better, fine, but it's testing to find out the same thing.

The EPA might use a 7.5 mile test for city driving because that's around what people usually drive doing errands in the city. I'm sure they use a longer test for measuring highway mileage.

You might say the test conditions at the EPA aren't real world conditions... well that point is moot because the EPA aims to give numbers to compare between cars when you purchase them, NOT real world numbers you could expect to get driving.



It's not mileage stated in terms of gallons per mile, It's how many gallons an engine burns over a 100 mile trip.

You obviously know basic math says you can find the number of gallons an engine burns over a 100 mile trip from a rating of 25mpg. You divide 100 by 25 to get 4, thats how many gallons you'd burn. It's testing the same thing.


The comments about embarassment were all made in jest, I just wanted to make sure I'd get a reply from you.:halo:

Cadillac...Breakthrough

You almost had me real pissed but I'm getting mellow in my old age :p

...would you like to post a relevant reply?

Are you implying that i am ignorant like all of the others that you have accused as being ignorant on this forum?

Dude, you're 19 freakin' years old and you have the answers to life. I envy you. Oh, wait, that was sarcasim.

You're a sophmore with no real world experience, just some kid who learned a few lines from those great mechanical engineering textbooks so that you could "embarrass" some people you don't even know. Go forward it tiger, you're halfway to nowhere.

Here's a clue from my great expertise on fuel economy: who gives a shit. Can you equate that into your great and "utterly" powerful brain, smartass?

If you have something decent to contribute to this forum like several hundred others have done, then by all means, get off of your high chair and help people out, Otherwise SHUT THE HELL UP!

Wow, this s**t got way out of hand. Guinness4h2o, illumina only said that with the intentio of being funny, not being offensive. I myself, being 19 also know that I'm not one to boast of being all knowledgeable of every technical aspect of automobile engineering and design, but I help when I can. The fact that you may be more articulate than some, does not give you the reason to boast about your vast wealth of information on the subject. Since you are 19, this also means that you have not experienced in life what illumina has. You also, haven't graduated from this fine establishment that you are currently enroled in.

illumina, you just have to let it go. I find myself speaking in a manner that most would find extremely rude and obnoxious some times. I've been told so, on more than one occasion. People get carried away, and that leads to comments that would normally not arise in a situation such as this. It happens. Everyone at one point or another has been told to shut up, mainly for mouthing off, or acting like a know it all. The best thing you can do is disagree and get on with things.

Sorry for the long post, but I've seen to many arguments and nasty, unwarranted comments on this forum. Just look at what I posted on the thread about that Taurus beating the CTS-V. I was a total ass on that one.

In the future, just let it slide you two. :thumbsup:

Yes, I may be 19...but I've done more in my life than most people twice my age.

Real world experience? I just spent two years all over the world...do you speak French? Italian? German? Spanish? Portuguese? Irish? Have you ever even left the country? There's more culture in my little finger than your whole body. :p

I'm just joking with all of you, everybody here needs to relax...when did I ever claim to know all the answers? and I never said anyone was ignorant...I said the MPG system was ignorant. Besides, you're taking offense to something someone said on a forum that nobody reads anyway. Relax, grow up...breakthrough :)

Yes, I may be 19...but I've done more in my life than most people twice my age.

Real world experience? I just spent two years all over the world...do you speak French? Italian? German? Spanish? Portuguese? Irish? Have you ever even left the country? There's more culture in my little finger than your whole body. :p

I'm just joking with all of you, everybody here needs to relax...when did I ever claim to know all the answers? and I never said anyone was ignorant...I said the MPG system was ignorant. Besides, you're taking offense to something someone said on a forum that nobody reads anyway. Relax, grow up...breakthrough :)

have you ever been in combat mother****er?

have you ever been shot at multiple times?

what kind of hood' did you come from?

who the **** are you to tell me you have more experience in life?

you're the one who needs to grow up.

Dude, he was just kidding. Plus, I think he's was reffering somewhat to my post.
Like I said before illumina, you just have to let it go. Your not gonna win everybody over. I learned this a long, long time ago. Neither of you know each other personally (I guess), and therefor, cannot judge eachother's character as with someone you've personally met. I hate to see s**t like this happen for no reason.

Dude, he was just kidding. Plus, I think he's was reffering somewhat to my post.
Like I said before illumina, you just have to let it go. Your not gonna win everybody over. I learned this a long, long time ago. Neither of you know each other personally (I guess), and therefor, cannot judge eachother's character as with someone you've personally met. I hate to see s**t like this happen for no reason.

you're right bro. i am just having a very bad day...it just seems like is is trying to get people mad, in which case he succeeded with me.

oh well, im just "joking", guiness or whatever you call yourself.

Yeah, we all have those days where it seems that everyone's out to piss us off. It happens. :rolleyes:

first i would like to know...who started this honda cadillac comparison??? and secondly i'd like to know if they are on CRACK. WHo the hell compares a honda and a cadillac????? THEY ARE IN TWO DIFFERNT CLASSES. I am not sayin Honda is bad, but they are two differnt cars. If u wanna compare, compare Cadillac and Acura. Thats why acura is there, to challenge the luxury market. makin the abusurd camparo of honda to cadillac is makin a comparo to mercedes and Ford. IT JUST DOSNT WORK. :banghead:

Amen!!

Don't Shoot! I am a 64 yearold Coot! I have a 95 sls and wife has a 04 Accord coupe, V6. We like each others vehicles as well as our own. Cars are a lot more than dragracers..LOL. As a Vietvet, I can say that livin in the USA and growing old, is a fffnnn gift.

Your ride may be faster, but Son, this old dude made it home and when I die , I didn't lose.

I wish ya'll Well.

ljk

Cost of owning and operating a Cadillac DeVille (eight-cylinder) for one year:

$17,463

Cost of owning and operating a Honda Civic LX (four-cylinder) for one year:

$7,561

One-year savings:

$9,902

Five-year savings:

$49,510

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5139539.html





Yeah, I like to stir things up once in a while... ;) :p

Saving money.. whats the fun in that?

I'm not saying it surprised me and I'm certainly not saying it makes the Honda any more desirable... but when I saw that, the first thing I thought of was this thread. Take from it what you will.

It is interesting that you could buy a well-optioned CTS or 3 series for the amount of money they claim you save driving a Civic...

Most of that's from depreciation, which you don't get as much on a cheap econobox. Insurance and fuel costs wouldn't be more than $100-300/year depending on how much you drive.

Most of that's from depreciation, which you don't get as much on a cheap econobox. Insurance and fuel costs wouldn't be more than $100-300/year depending on how much you drive.

That is most likely true, but not all luxury cars depreciate like the DeVille and you are definately going to spend more in gas for that Northstar as opposed to the Honda's little 4.


Consider this example within the luxury segment. A BMW M3 has a sticker price of $43,205, while a Cadillac DeVille goes for $42,040, according to Edmunds.com. After five years, however, the BMW is expected to hold onto nearly 50% of its value, or $21,602.50, while the Cadillac should be worth just 29% or $12,191. In other words, it costs a consumer some $8,000 more to drive the Caddy than the Beemer.

http://www.smartmoney.com/consumer/index.cfm?story=20050128

One cause for the DeVille's massive depreciation is what dealers sell them for. Have you ever seen one go for MSRP? I know I have never heard of anyone paying full price for one.


In the latest month the average sticker on a Cadillac DeVille was $54,193 but the net price was $42,211, a 22% difference. This means that the factory gives up that much in potential profit through rebates, dealer cash, or lease or interest rate subsidies. And buyers usually get additional discounts from the dealer.



A Honda Accord has an average sticker $24,186 and a net of $21,589, or an 11% giveback worth $707 in factory incentives.

http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2004/09/21/cz_jf_0921flint.html

You cannot compare Hondas to Cadillacs.

That my friends, was the Cadillac of posts!:yeah:

By reviving this I hope the shyte doesn't get out of hand again and I was hoping it would die out slowly even though I agree with you Caddy Fan.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5139539.html





Yeah, I like to stir things up once in a while... ;) :p

Thats funny,

cost of my 94 eldo with 68k was $4750

cost of a 94 civic with 68k is about $3800

One time savings of a whopping $950

Ave MPG with 94 eldo is 26 mpg

Ave MPG with 94 civic is 36 mpg

Total yearly savings of $400 calc at 20k miles a year

Having comfort, power, and smile driving eldo = PRICELESS!!!

Real world experience? I just spent two years all over the world...do you speak French? Italian? German? Spanish? Portuguese? Irish?


Hey dummy, they speak English in Ireland!! Though Gaelic is still used also, but I doubt you speak Gaelic! Càit a bheil mi agus cò sgrìobh seo? Fàilte Romhaibh!:lildevil:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5139539.html



Yeah, I like to stir things up once in a while... ;) :p

Those were some nice bull$h!t numbers. what are they doing adding the cost of the car in there, of course the cadillac is going to cost more, but not 9,000.00 / year unles you're comparing the cost of an XLR to a 2 door civiv :tisk:

A more fitting comparison woulde be acura and cadillac. We actually went to test drive acuras, because of the better economy. Anyway we drove a new tl type r (before the new ones came out) 3.2 260hp. That thing didn't have an ounce of torque, it screamed like a raped goat at wot but accelerated slowly. I can imagine what a civic drives like after driving this "sports" sedan. Now the rl was a lot better, felt much stronger at low rpms, but got out of breath very quickly. Good for city driving, but would sux on the highway. After that we just decided to stick with the v8s. Just shows that theres no replacement for displacement.

Lol, I've got best of both worlds. I have my reliable, economical Acura for everyday street driving and my gas-guzzlin', tire-shreddin' big ass boat Caddy for weekends! Damn, I got it made :bouncy: :D

You and I are in the same area of cars. I have an Acura Legend {Honda if you will} That I daily move that holds the the Funk in the Trunk and when I wanna Low ride. and a Caddy when I wanna be Big daddy!! :want: They dont want none :sneaky:



A more fitting comparison woulde be acura and cadillac. We actually went to test drive acuras, because of the better economy. Anyway we drove a new tl type r (before the new ones came out) 3.2 260hp. That thing didn't have an ounce of torque, it screamed like a raped goat at wot but accelerated slowly. I can imagine what a civic drives like after driving this "sports" sedan. Now the rl was a lot better, felt much stronger at low rpms, but got out of breath very quickly. Good for city driving, but would sux on the highway. After that we just decided to stick with the v8s. Just shows that theres no replacement for displacement.

I agree, I really dont think theres a good comparison when It comes to comfort either. No Acura or any foreign car have I ever driven can compare to a Caddilac. When I say comfort Im talking ride comfort not the inspectors gadgets.

I have a 91 DeVille and when I drive a spankin new Ack, Id doesnt cushin my tush, like the old lack does.