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
#5739 of 10348 Audi cares little about its LPS US performance, maybe?
Jan 04, 2006 (12:34 pm)
. . .that is why despite their fight to be in permanent last place in the LPS segment (based on monthly sales units), they can honestly say "what me worry?"
Audi of America Reports 2005 Sales of 83,066 - Up by 6.6% - Source AoA.
Audi of America has closed 2005 on a high with the best sales month of last year. December sales of 8,842 units were up 15.6 %, almost all model lines reported a significant increase compared with December of 2004. 5,505 sales in December meant the new A4 range (A4/S4 sedan, Avant and Cabriolet) was up 11.6 % month over month, the new A6 sold 17.4 % more (1,767) than last December.
On an annual view, Audi of America reported 83,066 units sold, one of the best results in Audiís US sales history. Again, winners were the A4 and A6 model lines, with an impressive 48,922 units of the A4/S4 range (up 3.7 %) and 18,074 of the new A6 sedan and Avant sold year over year.
Someone here, soon, will report the rest of the guys performance I suspect. I'm rooting for Audi to be again in last place!
#5740 of 10348 Re: AWD - Not all created equal - (BMW 0, Zamboni 1) [aflc]
Jan 04, 2006 (12:38 pm)
Were all of these cars wearing identical tires? If not, then the test results are completely worthless. The tires would have at least as much of an effect, if not more so, than the AWD system in place.
Edit: no, they were not.
"We used the standard all-season tires that came with each car"
#5741 of 10348 Re: AWD - Not all created equal - (BMW 0, Zamboni 1) [merc1]
Jan 04, 2006 (12:54 pm)
I agree. One reason to still buy a Volvo is that Volvos ace rear crash tests. Unfortunately these scores are often marginalized compared to front and side tests. Neither the "Silver" tested Audi A4 or A6 was able to get a score of "Good" in the rear tests. In the IIHS's full size luxury list, the only car to ace the rear test is the Volvo S80. They dont have a side impact score, if they did, it would most likely be a "Gold" car. Volvo and Saab still have the safest seats in the business.
#5742 of 10348 Re: AWD - Not all created equal - (BMW 0, Zamboni 1) [lexusguy]
Jan 04, 2006 (1:51 pm)
Personally I am at least a mild Volvo fan -- but Volvo and Saab, at this juncture, aren't really part of the LPS landscape (not that I have any objection to mentioning them here from time to time.)
Of the Premium cars, it is my understanding that Audi is a triple winner in the safety ratings sweepstakes. Volvo may indeed ace the rear crash tests -- politics, marketing hype, etc, who knows -- Audi and the "news" are blowing the Audi safety horn at this time.
Some come to think safety sells -- I think this is true, but at the auto dealers this attribute seems to wax and wane as a sales weapon in the aresenal.
Let's see, today it seems to be on the rise -- take heed the new BMW copy promoting the safety and sure footedness afforded those who buy a BMW w/X-drive, bla bla bla.
It is good stuff, it is true and it is, at this moment, selling cars.
All things being equal, people will buy the safer car -- usually (I said all things being equal, which they hardly ever are.)
The LPS cars (and higher) seem to be the showcase for the tech, safety and performance content though of that there is little doubt.
#5743 of 10348 Re: What they don't know. . . [markcincinnati]
Jan 04, 2006 (2:20 pm)
Mark: Hybrids are only an "inefficient use of money" in your mind. People like you fail to understand that not all hybrid owners are making their decision on purely a mpg basis. Hybrid owners, like the rest of the world, make their buying decision on a number of factors. There is no car on the road that is as appealing to the technogeek as the Prius. None. PLUS you get decent MPG, especially if you have a lot of city driving in your day.
why is it that you anti-hybrid folks want to hold hybrid owners to a different standard than you hold ALL OTHER CAR BUYERS? Stop making them out to be single-issue voters. Almost no one is really a single-issue buyers.
Diesels are NO Tbetter in Californa. You can't even buy a new one. And the emissions are not as good as with a hybrid, INCLUDING the emissions associated with making AND recylcing the battery.
It's been analyzed. It's on the web. You can find it if you care to.
How the heck are they doing more harm than good? Why are you people so afraid of battery recycling? I've been having industrial batteries recycled for years. It is not rocket science. It can be done very safely if they recycler cares to comply with the regulations. If they don't, yes, you can have problems. What a surprise.
It's fairly insulting to categorize hybrid owners as non-inquiring minds. I am sure the IQ of the average hubrid owner is significantly higher than yours. Want to bet on it? And all the ones I know personally, except one, would run rings around your logic. Believe me, I've pushed them pretty good. Two of these guys have been EEs for many many years, designing stuff that has saved lives every day. But they are just "stupid," I guess.
#5744 of 10348 Re: AWD - Not all created equal - (BMW 0, Zamboni 1) [dewey]
Jan 04, 2006 (2:31 pm)
you are just silly - I cross-shopped everything that was competitive with the XC90 and the Volvo won hands down. Everyone has different parameters, to be sure, but for my needs the Volvo was the best.
I am sure the Cayenne drives nicer on curves, but I don't plan to race my SUV.
The BMW X5 is nice, but has no cargo capacity and is worthless in the snow and ice compared to the Volvo.
The Lexus RX330/400 will not seat 7, and it has less capability than the Volvo.
The bigger Lexuses drive like trucks.
The Mercedes? Um, not until they have decent reliability.
The Land Rover? no response needed (reliability)
The American products? Again, all too trucky for my tastes. The Cadillac SRX is a sweet vehicle, but I wanted some (limited) off-road capability.
I'm not sure why you have an anti-Volvo axe to grind. The Volvo XC90 does everything well. It may even do some things "great." I haven't seen anything that it scores poorly in. YMMV, I guess.
Anyone who buys a car for any environmental reason is a dork. The very act of driving a car is about as anti-environment as you can get. Granted there is less enviro harm from driving a Corolla than driving a Hummer. But those are pretty much the extremes. The difference from an enviro perspective between driving a Volvo XC90 V8 and the Volvo XC 90 2.5T are nominal and not significant in any way. And if the V* drivers has chosen to have a short commute and the 2.5T owner has a long commute, then who is causing more enviro harm?
#5745 of 10348 Re: What they don't know. . . [calidave]
Jan 04, 2006 (3:01 pm)
I did open my remarks by indicating that I was putting forth a point of view -- not even necessarily my point of view.
What I thought the following implied:
"Everyone has a point of view, therefore I can only report that I read that the hybrids have -- at best -- a possible enviornmentally friendly posture (I assume the author was at least attempting to be objective,) more likely they have an enviornmentally UNFRIENDLY posture due to the issues associated with the batteries some 6 - 8 years from date of service.
Moreover, hybrids, even at today's gas prices are an inefficient use of money and this goes even with the tax incentives that were offered.
Hybrids are not quite as "dumb" as burning $10 dollar bills to keep warm, but they are in the "inquiring minds wouldn't do this" category AT THIS POINT IN TECHNOLOGY." was that I had read something that put these points (facts and vues?) forward.
However, with the exception of the Prius (and perhaps a couple others) the trend in hybrids does NOT seem to be for the economy the electric motor can add, but for performance improvements that it can offer.
And, just to note -- there are plenty of "articles" on the web and in the print magazines that suggest there is currently NOT a realistic economic reason to consider hybrids even with the tax incentives that have been offered to attempt to stimulate their adoption.
I am not opposed to hybrids per se.
I wonder, if as the article I read suggests, that if hybrids are NOT an evolutionary approach and NOT economically defensible (until or unless we reach considerably higher costs per gallon of petrol) why we haven't undertaken the coupling of clean diesel engines + CVT transmissions at least as ardently as we have hybrids.
Clean fuel seems to be the issue here in this hemisphere, but this very article suggested that 2006 was the beginning of clean diesel in the US.
It seems to me that we are not given the full story -- and I am not suggesting I know the full story. I am suggesting I have seen additional parts of the story that makes me ask questions about hybrids.
If I called or implied someone was stupid, I can only retract that, for I do not have anyway of knowing if someone is or is not stupid.
I hereby profess and confess that I, however, do have much to learn and hence by some measure could be considered ignorant. That is one reason (to reduce my ignorance) that I participate on these and other blogs.
But for heaven's sake, I am not Crazy Miranda (who lives on propaganda), I am just trying to figure out why we sometimes don't get the whole story and sometimes why we (collectively) don't ask "why?" more often.
The LPS cars would be a great laboratory for all kinds of tech -- hybrid, diesels, hybrid diesels, CVT transmission deployment, etc.
I love the speed channel's host who proclaimed "Audi's 4.2 turbo diesel seems to be a new kind of engine, one that appears as if it can run, literally, on air." This while driving a stock A8L from London to Wales and back in UK traffic congestion on a single tank of diesel, a trip of some 800 miles (mileage then was in the 40mpg range) -- makes me wonder what my 3.2 Audi if it were instead a 3.0 TD with a 7-effective-speed CVT transmission could do 50, 55 mpg?
I love the "argument" I love to stir things up, I do not relish the thought that I might have offended someone's intelligence quotient.
#5746 of 10348 December sales
Jan 04, 2006 (4:11 pm)
Don't have Cadillac's yet but here are the others:
Partial score just in:
USC - 31
Texas - ....oops my computer just broke
#5747 of 10348 Re: What they don't know. . . [calidave]
Jan 04, 2006 (4:35 pm)
I engaged in my own little over/under to see how the response to your post was going to go.
What do you think of your "I am sure the IQ of the average hubrid (sic - sure looks a lot like hubris) owner is significantly higher than yours" comment now?
The efficiency mostly isn't there for hybrids, once the (total life-cycle) cost of the battery system is included, to say nothing of the significantly higher up-front cost or the real-world duty cycle of most vehicles. When all the numbers are run, the message to many of us is that hybrids represent a lifestyle statement, not something that saves resources.
I'm an engineer also, with a few decades of hands-on experience, so am possibly qualified to touch the hem of the garments of your "EEs for many years," or perhaps not.
I could go on, but won't. Something about protesting too much comes to mind.
#5748 of 10348 Re: AWD - Not all created equal - (BMW 0, Zamboni 1) [markcincinnati]
Jan 04, 2006 (5:05 pm)
I certainly wouldnt be suggesting that you should trade your Audi for a Volvo because of an IIHS score. The S80 is now on its 7th year on the market, and has not been a competitive vehicle for quite some time. Basically what I was saying as that Volvo vehicles are safer than ever, its just that many of the Europeans are starting to catch them. Its pretty difficult in 2006 to buy a luxury car and not have it come with dynamic stability and traction control, brake-assist, EBD, multi-stage front, side, and curtain airbags, etc.
As Merc said, I'd much rather be driving a car from a company with a proven history of safe vehicles (be it Audi, Lexus, Volvo, M-B, etc) than a Kia designed to get 5 stars on the NHTSA test.