Stroock639

i've been in S-Classes (non-AMG) and i agree the ride really isn't that buttery soft. keep in mind, the S-Class is designed to make 50 and 150 essentially feel the same (which it does quite well) so it definitely doesn't ride as softly as like a town car or older LS

SW17LS

The modern S Class rides much more softly than older S Classes.

mmarshall

Consumer Reports likes the S-class comfort level more than any other sedan they have tested, although the Lexus LS and a few big GM sedans come close.

SW17LS

Its funny, I wouldn't say the S Class rides better than the LS really, what it does do is have a better combination of ride and handling. The S Class rides as well, perhaps slightly better, while feeling much lighter and more nimble.

Like I said before, everything in that segment now rides great and rides very similarly. When you drive one you're like "man this rides incredible", then you get in another and you're like "no, this rides incredible". Then I would get back into my LS and I was like "wow, this rides incredible" lol

mmarshall

Also, a lot can depend on wheels and tires. I don't know if you have driven the new Lacrosse (we've certainly talked enough about that car LOL)....but there is a noticeable difference between the 18" and 20" wheel versions. The former is more or less traditional Buick (but not quite as floaty)....the latter almost sport-sedan in comparison.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

The problem with modern cars, especially expensive car is that they now all use ginormous rotors and calipers so you are limited to the size of the wheel and tire you can run. All of these BMW M cars, Audi RS models, and MB AMG....these days running a 19" wheel is pretty much the lowest you can go, and on some of these, even a 19" wheel the caliper is basically sitting on the barrel of the wheel. That's how tight of a fit it is.

Everyone is trying to push the envelope with performance, so here came the huge engines and huge brakes, with which came the big wheels and small tires. That's why an S Class AMG rides harsher than a base model Camry (in the sense that you feel every minor sharp imperfection in the road).

Stroock639

is a 2015 considered modern lol

idk man sitting in the back of a W222 S550 my overall impression was that it really wasn't all that floaty, maybe my expectations were too high... i just remember thinking that a town car or something like that has a much more magic carpet like ride. but like i said, the S is meant to be able to cruise all day at 150+ mph so naturally it won't have the american barge wallowyness

Stroock639

damn i'd probably have to say the opposite, i always thought the LS felt very light (especially for it's weight) to steer and maneuver around and mercedes usually have a heavier more lumbering feel to them. the 2008 S550 i've driven and certainly my E55 very much support that, very heavy feeling cars. even a 2006 E320 has the same heavy, aristocratic feel to it, very nice car to use

years ago a more naive me would've probably said just get a V6 camry since it's like half the price and just as fast and more spacious than the E, but i must concede that there is just a certain feel to a proper benz that just makes you very aware you're in something a bit more special than your "ordinary" car

Aron9000

There are a lot of differences between the 2005 Navigator and the 2005 F150, suspension setup is COMPLETELY different. The Navigator is the spiritual successor to the 1960's Continental, its no wonder both place a huge emphasis on ride quality. Compare the 2005 Navigator to the 2005 GM SUV's, the Navigator rides nicer, but it doesn't handle nearly as well as the GM trucks, the turn in/sharpness on the steering, less body roll, just something about the GM trucks made them drive 2 sizes smaller than what they really are. IMO that's the reason GM has dominated Ford in the full size SUV game, the GM trucks just drive/handle a lot nicer. Plus at least up until Ford stuck the 3.5 Ecoboost V6 under the hood, the GM trucks were faster and had much better throttle response.

Aron9000

1968 is one of my favorite years for Cadillac. First year for the much improved/more powerful/all new 472 V8. Last year for the stacked headlights, but like the 1967, they're canted forward and the car has much more of that Bill Mitchell "coke bottle" styling to it. Main thing is 1968 was the last year for real wood trim until the 90's. The interior on the 68's was much nicer than the redesigned 1969 cars, which had a lot more cheap black plastic and chrome trimmed plastic.

Do you have a picture of your car? What sort of color combo?? Was it a Sedan Deville or a Coupe Deville?? Major style points if it was a convertible in good condition, those were esepecially susceptible to the tin worm. And you are a god if it was an Eldorado, 1968 Eldorado is like car #3 on my win the lottery list after a Sebring silver 1963 Corvette split window coupe and Marty McFly's black 1985 4wd Toyota.

SW17LS

Johnhav430

Drove a 1998 12 cyl S class, at the time I was totally blown away. Belonged to a dad of a girl I was friendly with in Boisbriand, Québec. From memory, this was not the S class in Meet the Parents, it was older than that one..also, as I recall, her car was this Chevy Chevette with RWD and 4 snows and it handled awfully. and she told me her stepdad ripped her off and sold her this POS, what great times those were....

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

mmarshall

I agree you don't want something that is excessively floaty (60s/70s-vintage large Fords with standard suspension, 90s-vintage Buick LeSabre, and 1Gen Kia Amanti (which probably had the worst body roll of all, without really that smooth of a ride to compensate). But, to a reasonable extent, the more floatness you have, usually the smoother the ride over bumps you will have, especially without electronically-adjustable or damped suspension. And, the way most drivers drive, under most circumstances, ride comfort (including a certain amount of flatness) would take priority over sharp handling.

Interestingly, while I'm on the subject of large 50-year old Fords, the late-60s Continental I earlier mentioned, though smooth and steady as a battleship (and with handling to match LOL), did not seem to have much, if any, of that up/down floatness that gets some people seasick. I think it's because that car was so heavy, with so long a wheelbase, and overhangs so long (long overhangs and heavy weight end to stabilize the car from up/down wheel motion) that it kept a more or less even keel over even the large road heaves that would get many other cars bouncing like a ball.

It should also be noted that the Chrysler products of the period, wth their unibodies, longitudinal front torsion-bars in front and longitudinal leaf-springs in back (the front-drive GM Toronado/Eldorado also used torsion bars up front) handled better and resisted floating more than the softer, body-on-frame, coil-sprung Ford and GM products....but at a cost of somewhat more stiffness over bumps and transmission of road/drivetrain-noise into the cabin. The top-line Chrysler Imperial, for a time, to compensate somewhat, used a body-onframe design, unlike any other American-designed Chrysler product, but, in the late 60s, probably for cost reasons, adopted the unibody like the rest of the lineup.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

rather moot now in that floaty suspensions went away a long time ago.