Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans
10007 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:40 AM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Yes. Just not to replace my LS430. I've made comments about this before, I'm just not willing to sacrifice the big Lexus' awesome comfort, ease of use, and reliability for a few smiles in the curves. As a get-to-work car and highway cruiser, the LS is unbeatable. I would definitely (and have in the past) considered a German weekend car though, but until recently, there wasnt much to look at from them. I wasnt interested in the Z3, SLK320, or TT. I thought the CLK430 was too plain, and while the CLK500 is definitely better, its styling still pales in comparison to the XKR, and I'm not a fan of COMAND. I'd definitely trade for an SL500 in a minute, but obviously there's a tremendous difference in depreciation between the Jag and Mercedes, which makes late model used XKs actually affordable. |
|
|
I drive 40,000 miles a year. 20,000 of this is long distance interstate driving. We have always had an upscale car for this driving. (BMW 3.0S, 5 series, Lexus LS, Audi A8, Audi Allroad). Last fall we sold the Allroad. I knew that a new crop of 5 series competitors would be coming out in the spring, and we had just bought two 2005 turbocharged Subarus: A manual Legacy GT Limited, and an auto Outback XT Limited. We figured that we would use the Subarus as travel cars until the new cars came out. (We had swapped out the terrible standard tires on both Subies for quieter and better gripping tires.) It turned out that we liked the Outback better than the Audi! The Audi had a little less wind noise and some fancier trim. In every other respect: ride, handling, comfort, steering, build quality, fuel economy, etc. the Outback is as good or better than the Audi -- even though the Audi had cost 50% more! Now, I am shopping the new crop of $40K-plus cars. I am only looking at 6 cyl AWD. I started out wanting an Acura RL. It looks like a larger Honda, but it has the only Sat Nav I would actually pay money for, cushy seats, cushy ride, great stereo etc. It still drives more like a front wheel drive car, but I could live with this. However: the transmission lags on downshifts, followed by a surge forward when it finally shifts. Not cool. And, although the car is generally quiet, it turned out to be incredibly noisy when it encountered sharp road noises: coarse surfaces and when going over expansion joints etc. The GS 300 is quieter and smoother -- but not as quiet as I expected. (Probably the run-flat tires on the AWD model). It also removes most of the feeling from driving. I will have to drive it again to see if it grows on me. The M35x was the surprise. It is nearly as quiet as the Lexus, but it has an athletic balance and eagerness which neither of the others (or the Audi A6) have. I hate the Nav system and would certainly buy the car without it. But, here is the rub: a base M35X is 60% more expensive than the comparably-equipped Outback Limited. It has less wind noise, somewhat more room in the rear seat, has rosewood trim and is available with options like a high end stereo, sat nav. and sat radio not available on Subarus. But, it is not built a bit better, it does not ride as well, the simpler Subaru has better ergonomics and will probably be more reliable. Of course, the lower M35 handles better -- but the difference is less than I expected. My Subaru GT Limited is far more of a sports car than the M35. The closest M would be the M45 Sport. But this is not available in AWD, does not ride as well as the Subaru, is no quieter than the Subaru, and is simply not as much fun to drive. Oh, it also costs more than $20,000 more. It used to be that you would move from a mid-range car to an upscale car and think: "Wow! This really is a different class of car!" But the mid-range cars have gotten so good that the differences in how the car rides and drives are now are much more subtle. I may still buy the M -- or the GS -- or the RL. But I am really having to think about it. |
|
| If you really like the Subies, stick with them. Subaru JD power IQ really surged this year, they actually beat out Lexus! I assume AWD is a must. What do you think of the G35x or A4 3.0? | |
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (May 04, 2005 7:34 pm)
|
|
| I will say... What is really nice about the latest crop of AWD, is the cars default operation is basically RWD, with the fronts only kicking in when needed.. I think this gives better handling and better road feel... I know this is the way the Infiniti and the new 5-series work... I think the Lexus is the same way... Not the case with the Acura, though.... | |
|
Replying to: jrock65 (May 03, 2005 11:47 am) I might be a little honda partial, even though I don't own one, but when I saw the RL & M on the floor of the NY auto show last year, I knew already that RL was going to have a miss even though to my eyes the RL & the M look remarkably similar except for the ugly details, which I think are ugly on both cars.... As a current BMW owner, I'm amazed how well BMW is doing on the 5, for better or worse... the name sells, even though I can personally vouch that "ownership experience is closer and closer to hell". And yet, everytime I sit behind the wheel of the bmw, I have this instant smile on my face, that as yet, no other car/make puts on my face... my confused 2 cents... ksso
|
|
|
Replying to: ksoman (May 05, 2005 7:17 am) My BMW experience (3-series) has been good, so far .... 29K miles... It puts a smile on my face, when my wife lets me drive it... |
|
|
Replying to: nebraskaguy (May 04, 2005 1:59 pm) As somebody who moved from Phoenix to the northeast in the last year odd, i'll say, all it takes to drive a rear wheel drive in the snow is a good set of snow tires. if you can spend 50K on a car, i think you can afford to spend a thousand bux on a good set of winter tires... no? ksso |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (May 04, 2005 9:03 pm) The biggest reason for AWD from a FWD perspective is, as you have identified, our current capability to add HP and Torque to engines that can be put in relatively inexpensive cars. The shift from FWD to RWD is often accompanied with an "option" to be AWD, too (Chrysler 300C, Cadillac STS, for example). Pure two wheel drive (front or rear) is probably not destined to be replaced entirely by AWD, but the direction does appear to be AWD being the growth part of the market (and if you add SUV's to the "car" mix, the AWD or 4WD equipped vehicles are growing faster than some of the car manufacturers had predicted). Now with asymmetrical AWD being adopted by Audi -- we have pretty much "validated" the thought that rear-biased AWD will pretty much keep grabbing market share. I keep hearing the Subaru ads on the radio -- they now are touting Subaru symmetrical AWD -- I know the public, or a lot of the public, is completely clueless. "Gee Fred, this company says they've got symmetrical AWD and that one says asymmetrical AWD -- which one of these is better than the other? Beats me Mary, I always thought that asymmetrical means not equal, so I guess that would mean symmetrical is better. Fred, you're so smart. . . ." |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ksoman (May 05, 2005 7:26 am) |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2007 Lexus GS 430
2011 Acura RL
2011 BMW 5 Series
2010 Volvo S80
2010 Audi A6
2010 Infiniti M35
2010 Infiniti M45
2011 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2010 Cadillac STS
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
