You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans

Luxury Performance Sedans

10006 messages,  Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 6:59 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

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

#7866 of 10006 Noise canceling audio systems by lansdownemike Jul 21, 2006 (5:52 am)
One of the recent LPS's is selling a premium audio system that provides exterior-noise canceling in the same way that contemporary headphones do (some fancy digital signal processing). Does anyone know whether this is a trend or whether it is a curiosity? The technology makes such sense I'd like to see it in most LPS's within a few years. Replies to this message: james27 (Jul 21, 2006 7:54 am)
#7867 of 10006 Re: Noise canceling audio systems [lansdownemike] by james27 Jul 21, 2006 (7:54 am)
Replying to: lansdownemike (Jul 21, 2006 5:52 am) There has been research that demonstrated replacing the muffler with a pipe and a speaker wired in to cancel the noise. No backpressure, or some minimum as required for the engine. It hasn't made it to production that I'm aware of. Basically, you could cancel all exhaust noise entirely if your processor was designed properly. Several cars (and not in theLPS class) have used this to save some weight (my guess). In the early 90's, Blaupunkt (sp?) announced an add-on amp that was said to perform this function on any car. I saw it at an auto show in England. I looked for it later, and I don't think they ended up producing it.   As processors become cheaper and faster, it becomes more feasible, but for something like replacing the muffler - you'd go from inaudible to open straight pipe if you blew the fuse or the amplifier. I think that may be the main reason they haven't used it. At least with a regular muffler, you usually get a heads up that the thing is about to fail.
#7868 of 10006 wow by dhanley Jul 21, 2006 (9:12 am)
Replacing the muffler with a noise canceler. That's really quite clever.   Of course, i see the failure issue too.
#7869 of 10006 Re: Sudden Acceleration [pearl] by david83 Jul 23, 2006 (8:41 am)
Replying to: pearl (Jul 17, 2006 2:57 pm) you sound like Audi...same thing they said. Not worth continuing the discussion. I can tell you Iam 44 years old and have owned Mercedes, jags, BMWs and Porsche. I know how to drive. After the first incident, I U-Turned and touched the accelerator to speed up...again off it went. Do you really think I u-turned after such a devastating event and mashed either the gas or the brake to the floor for no apparent reason. I wasn't attempting to brake nor accelerate rapidly after the u-turn. The car shot off like a rabbit a second time and red lined before cutting off. Yes, Audi said the car can't accelerate thru full braking...it can and it did. It's an event that really sucks to be honest. I've played it thru my head over and over....it's not possible I was mashing the gas. I certainly didn't do it twice because it wasn't fun enough the first time. Oh well...I've only got about 15 months left on the lease. Replies to this message: shipo (Jul 23, 2006 11:31 am) james27 (Jul 24, 2006 10:38 am) markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 12:42 pm) and 5 more...
#7870 of 10006 Re: Sudden Acceleration [david83] by shipo Jul 23, 2006 (11:31 am)
Replying to: david83 (Jul 23, 2006 8:41 am) Dude, if you don't believe the independent experts that have tested this situation, and if you don't believe Audi and if you don't believe anybody else, then try it for yourself. Mash the brake pedal with your left foot and then try the gas pedal. A little power or a lot, it won't matter, your car won't go an inch. Still don't believe it? Try mashing both the brake pedal and the gas pedal at the same time from say 70 mph, your car will stop in a normal distance.   Like it or don't, the brakes on your A8L are WAY stronger than the engine.   Best Reagards, Shipo Replies to this message: james27 (Jul 24, 2006 10:38 am) markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 12:42 pm) sfcharlie (Jul 24, 2006 1:22 pm) shipo (Jul 24, 2006 2:24 pm) and 1 more... warthog (Jul 24, 2006 2:39 pm) and 1 more...
#7871 of 10006 A Premium experience. . . by markcincinnati Jul 24, 2006 (6:45 am)
I find the network early morning (7AM) "news programs" almost always entertaining and sometimes informative. I confess, I'm the ONE.   So, when this morning on the Today Show, when I saw the teaser about a segment something like "does your car really benefit from Premium Gasoline?" I thought "finally, we can stop addressing the seemingly endless queries pertaining to 'Do I Really Need Premium Gasoline' here on Edmund's and other Internet discussion groups."   The segment goes about its words and pictures and it did seem to accurately lay out the case for when and when not to use Premium Gasoline. The story correctly stated that if your car is designed to run on Regular (87 octane) there is no need and no benefit to use Plus or Premium -- only added expense. But then the story discussed two types of circumstances where two words were used -- and initially used correctly -- but, due to a slip of the tongue, were used interchangeably later in the story.   Correctly, the narrator indicated if you car REQUIRES Premium (according to the sticker on the filler door and/or in the owner's manual), that you will do at least two things if you use less than Premium: degrade your performance and mileage and ultimately damage your engine. A cut away to an "expert" said you will "ruin your engine" if you use less than Premium if the car's manufacturer says your car REQUIRES Premium. Cut to the BMW propeller badger on the trunk lid of a Bimmer.   Fine, fine, and finally, I said to myself -- but then outta the blue the discussion with the "expert" from Consumer's Reports said there are cars that REQUIRE Premium, DON'T require Premium and those that RECOMMEND Premium. Here is where it seemed to me to get "fuzzy." Now what they did say was that a car that recommends Premium doesn't HAVE to use Premium and if you use Mid-grade or Regular-grade there will be "no harm" to the engine and then somewhere in there slipped in, "but it will perform better with Premium."   Well, not so fine, since no time whatsoever was spent to truly explain this and then, the announcer "inadvertently," I assume interchanged the words REQUIRE and RECOMMEND as he attempted to sum up this segments salient points.   The viewer, I assume, could be left with the sense that there is no merit to using Premium except paying a higher price per gallon -- almost period.   Rather than simply report this to this group here on Edmund's and go no further, I have some questions:   1. What are the models of vehicles that RECOMMEND but DO NOT require Premium? Are there really specific cars that say "Regular is OK, but we'd rather you used Premium?"   2. With respect to the cars above do they perform better (better power better efficiency) with higher octane, and if the answer is yes, does it equal or better the performance to justify the extra cost per gallon AND does using a higher grade in any way add "life" to the engine (thwart ruination, that is?)   One -- that I know of -- Audi automobile I had in the 90's claimed it REQUIRED 91 Octane but it also claimed slightly better acceleration AND mileage if 93 Octane fuel were used instead. This Audi, however, did NOT even hint at allowing Regular usage.   3. Are there cars that REQUIRE mid grade? I have never seen a car that required mid-grade -- "but that don't make it so!"   At least they tried. Replies to this message: shipo (Jul 24, 2006 7:38 am) warthog (Jul 24, 2006 9:57 am) james27 (Jul 24, 2006 3:36 pm)
#7872 of 10006 Re: A Premium experience. . . [markcincinnati] by shipo Jul 24, 2006 (7:38 am)
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 6:45 am) I'd love to spend some time on a longer answer; however, we're about 5 minutes from leaving on vacation.   Are there cars that REQUIRE mid grade?   I'm not sure whether the language says "Recommended" or "Required", however, I believe the 5.7 liter Hemi in the DC cars specifies 89 octane mid-grade fuel.   Best Regards, Shipo
#7873 of 10006 Re: A Premium experience. . . [markcincinnati] by warthog Jul 24, 2006 (9:57 am)
Replying to: markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 6:45 am) I previously owned a 2000 Chrysler 300M (3.5L V-6). The owner's manual recommended premium for best performance but said that mid-grade was OK (the engine management computer retards the timing). I don't have quick access to the owner's manual for my kid's 2002 Passat, but I believe it says something similar.
#7874 of 10006 M35 by sfcharlie Jul 24, 2006 (10:04 am)
Gas filler door on my M35 reads "Premium fuel is recommended for maximum performance". Replies to this message: markcincinnati (Jul 24, 2006 10:24 am)
#7875 of 10006 Re: M35 [sfcharlie] by markcincinnati Jul 24, 2006 (10:24 am)
Replying to: sfcharlie (Jul 24, 2006 10:04 am) I believe in this case the word is intended to mean REQUIRED.

You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans