Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
#1349 of 10348 Electronic nanny/tcs/esp/etc
Mar 24, 2005 (10:09 am)
Edmunds.com has a comparo of Luxury Sports Sedans from Japan, in which the Infiniti M45 sport, the Acura RL and the new Lexus GS430 were compared. The results were
1st Lexus GS430,
2nd Acura RL,
3rd Infiniti M45 Sport.
The one thing that all the reviewers readily agreed on was the overly intrusiveness of the electronic nanny for the GS. Infact they claimed it was so intrusive that in a couple bends during spirited driving the vehicle almost came to a stop. This is a system that also cannot be shut-off completely.
The reason why the bit caught my eye is becos I have a 2001 Millenia S and I never ever floor the pedal when trying to merge with traffic, the vehicle will stop!! This negates any thoughts on my part of spirited driving.(fortunately my mildly modified 1990 Toyota Celica GT-S satisfies those urges.) It appears the GS has picked up this nasty trait. Why would Lexus set out to build a luxury Sports Sedan and then while at it, neuter the very essence of what makes the vehicle a Sports Sedan?
#1350 of 10348 Re: Electronic nanny/tcs/esp/etc [cruller001]
by kyfdx@Edmunds HOST
Mar 24, 2005 (10:11 am)
Because... Lexus doesn't even know what the term "sports sedan" means...
Ergo, the lack of a clutch in the new Lexus IS..
Mar 24, 2005 (10:28 am)
"Does everything have to cater to the whims and fancies of car enthusiats? There's more average Joes out there who want safe, comfortable and affordable vehicles. Large sedans are comfortable, safe, and are as a whole affordable. Not everyone needs a gas guzzling SUV. There are quite a few people out there who appreciate cars. Family Sedans aren't for enthusiasts, yet Edmunds did a great test on them last year, and many people are still interested in sedans."
Right, thats what Consumer Reports is for. C&D, Motortrend... and to a much lesser extent Edmunds are about the drive first. For the record, if the GP is supposed to be a sports sedan, it does a poor job.
Mark, the S60R is pretty quick... with the manual, but its WAY too small for that comparison test.
#1352 of 10348 Re: lexusrocks [lexusguy]
Mar 24, 2005 (1:17 pm)
I don't disagree -- I tried to couch my remarks in an historical context (more than a year ago I took the Volvo for a test drive and it didn't seem THAT much smaller than a then current Audi A6.) I jus' thought the "concept" that Volvo had come up with was "interesting." Holy cow Batman a 300HP 5 cylinder engine with "instant on" torque (I think full torque came on at about 58 or 59 RPM -- Ok, not really, but it did come on full bore at less than 1900 RPM, thanks to the turbo.)
#1353 of 10348 RL SECOND PLACE?
Mar 24, 2005 (8:00 pm)
Sneaking suspicion that one reason the RL ranked so high in the C&D comparo is because not long ago they included it in their 10 Best Cars in the world. If they had rated it lower now, they would have egg on their collective faces and many nasty letters from readers. I'm not saying they intentionally fudged the data, but so much of what they do is really subjective.
#1354 of 10348 saugatak - why not v12 then ?
Mar 25, 2005 (12:43 am)
Since the I6 is a long engine, why dont they just make it smaller say 1.5L and make it into a V12 3L ?
#1355 of 10348 Re: saugatak - why not v12 then ? [398lbft]
Mar 25, 2005 (1:54 am)
Since the I6 is a long engine, why dont they just make it smaller say 1.5L and make it into a V12 3L?
Displacement is calculated from by bore * stroke * # of cylinders.
If the v12 had the exact same length as the I6 (i.e. 2 I6s on top of one another), then it would have the same stroke as the I6 and would, therefore, be just as long as the I6 and have a bore that is half the size of the bore of the I6.
For a v12 to have the same displacement as an I6 and be shorter than the I6, the v12 must have a shorter stroke.
Shorter stroke engines tend to rev faster, higher and harder.
A 3.0L v12 would have awfully thin cylinders. IMO, real thin pistons slamming hard and fast into thin cylinders (which is what happens in a short-stroked engine) is not a good combo for engine longevity.
I think what you're suggesting is possible, but has some serious drawbacks from a durability perspective, and would also be expensive as hell. While making cylinders and sleeving pistons is not as expensive, say, as manufacturing specialized cam lobes, it's not cheap either.
That's the reason why you see v12s only in uber luxury cars like BMW's 760 or some of the top MB models (Merc can tell you which ones).
I like your idea a lot though. I'd love to see a v12 for the masses. That's probably the ideal engine because, as it consists of 2 I6s, there's no primary or secondary vibrations and double the cylinders (compared to the I6) means a smoother power delivery.
#1356 of 10348 mark, saugatak
Mar 25, 2005 (7:08 am)
Mark, are you serious? The S60 is like A4 sized.
"I like your idea a lot though. I'd love to see a v12 for the masses. That's probably the ideal engine because, as it consists of 2 I6s, there's no primary or secondary vibrations and double the cylinders (compared to the I6) means a smoother power delivery."
Much like communism, it all sounds great in theory. There's just no practical way to make a cheap V-12 though, not one thats in any way reliable. Look at the XJS V-12 for example. They are basically worthless, because the engine is a mess.