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
|
Replying to: dewey (Apr 05, 2007 6:07 pm) To be fair, Audi has been in the AWD game just a tad longer than Acura has, and it took them 25 years to figure out that if they push the torque to the rear wheels, their cars will handle better. The RDX shows though that Acura can do a decent handling AWD product that is not based around a front-mid engined RWD platform. It would be very smart for Honda to do a multi-purpose RWD platform like Nissan's FM, but in their typical way they'd rather devote enormous resources to the NSX, and continue to just slap Acura badges on the Accord.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Apr 05, 2007 11:34 pm) Audis biases that are not well hidden have been more a by product of the engine's placement and the front weight bias. I know it is all the rage these days to claim RWD biased AWD, but I would have rather Audi (years ago) had just decided to keep the Torsen system at 50 50 and figured out a way to even out the weight distribution. Of course if they do both -- which they claim they are keen to do (and the A5/S5 does offer some hope in that regard) all the better. My 50% 50% split A6 doesn't feel like an FWD vehicle because the torque split is 50-50, rather its "FWD-ness," if that is what it is, is due to its weight distribution problem, which is the root cause of the understeer -- understeer that Audi engineers do an almost unbelievable job of taming. Moving the engine back a few inches will help Even better and smarter suspension designs, etc keep on coming from Audi perhaps because of necessity. If an Audi were as well balanced as a BMW. . .well it makes me shiver to think how they would drive and handle. So, Audi sold 100,000 cars last month -- first time in history. The cheapskate in me knows this ultimately means the bargain train I have been driving all these many years has left the station. Gone, or soon gone, are the days when my neighbor's inline 6 cylinder 5 series with several, but not all, choice options was the same price as my V8 A6 with all possible options AND AWD. The price (for me) of Audi's success is -- er, expensive. What are the odds I'll be able to lease a $53K Audi next time for no money down, 15K/36/mo for $640/mo? Slim just left town. But, congrats to Audi -- man, if they make the A6 closer to 50 50 weight distribution, just imagine. 
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Apr 06, 2007 11:32 am) Right, but at the other end of the spectrum you have ATTESA E-TS, where the front wheels don't get any torque unless deemed necessary, which give the G and M a RWD feel. The RS4's torque distribution does seem to improve its handling even with the engine still hanging over the front axle, so I don't think Audi's decision to go 40\60 with the torque was just a marketing gimmick to keep up with the Joneses in Munich.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Apr 06, 2007 12:31 pm) If all the brouhaha about the push back of the engine in the A5 is more shack than yack, AND if they are able to shift the weight rearward, well, we may have something. The G and M (and I am a fan) seem to have some drive-line lash or "lip synch" problems since they don't seem to act until there is that ever so slight loss of friction. Under the circumstances most of us have to live with, I would (were I somehow granted a magic wand) want a well balanced and real time RWD biased AWD vehicle. The 5x series is darn close. After all these years though, "nothing satisfies, quite like BEEF -- it's what's for dinner." Yet, if Infiniti wants to gift me a M35x, I'm there! 
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Apr 06, 2007 4:45 pm) The one thing that bugs me about the Infiniti AWD cars is that you can't get the sport package with them. I know in the past BMW xi cars with "sport" were mostly just big wheels and sport seats, has that changed? Even if a G35"xs" could come with the G35s wheels and seats, that would be better than nothing. The standard 17s don't flatter the new G at all, there's way too much sidewall for a modern sports sedan. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Apr 07, 2007 2:03 am) Sport used to mean: handling improvements due to anti-roll bar thickness increases (typically 20%), lowering of ride height (typically 20mm minimum) & with stiffer springs, plus 1 sizing of wheels/tires and a switch from H rated all-seasons to Z rated summer only, more damping in the shocks/struts (or active or passive damping), a reduction in the turns lock-to-lock, road speed sensitive power steering, sport seats, and trim bits. There are also several other performance and/or appearance bits that are included here and there, sometimes brake improvements or auto transmissions tuned for more sportiness and even a decal here or there, an emblem on the steering wheel or butt of the car may be added too. Presently, with the layering of option packages that makes the price go from the sublime to the ridiculous, the STS can sort of be had with a luxury-sport package and AWD (and MagnaRide.) The Audi A6 for years could be ordered with a sport suspension (which almost always included plus 1 sized wheels and tires and summer only UHP tires at that), sport seats, etc. The sport suspension and upsized wheels and tires were $1,250 in 2005 (the wheels and tires alone were $1,000.) Then, the magic of bundling hit Audi too -- and they concocted something I like to call "S-light." It is technically called S-Line and it is a true sport package plus an appearance package -- no grunt improvements, however. And, just like Cadillac's approach, it is overpriced (but it is less than the STS considering that S-Line is currently offered as a stand-alone option for a number beginning with a "3." If you want AWD and the sport suspension that most of us would associate with the term Sport Package, your choices are Audi and a $60,000+ STS (sort of sport package.) The AWD BMW, so they say, cannot have the sporting bits because of the AWD mechanism and the requirements BMW has for a true sport set up -- i.e., lowering the ride height. If you can wait, Audi promises a better balanced A6 AND a sport package in upcoming models. Mean time, an A6 S-Line can be had with all the things noted above and +2 wheels and tires (19") -- despite its heavy nose, such an Audi, so equipped (especially with the 4.2 FSI engine) really performs far better than its big schnoze suggests. Take one for a long test drive. Of course, with the V8, the A6 will be priced -- as an S-Line -- at that $60+K price point too. I hear the V6 is getting a horsepower transplant (boost) in the upcoming model -- which may mitigate this.
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Apr 07, 2007 5:22 am) Any comments from this crowd ? Rocky
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Apr 07, 2007 6:20 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Apr 07, 2007 6:20 am) This is the mid-lux class. The Genesis is neither mid, nor lux. Its a 200" car. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: markcincinnati (Apr 07, 2007 5:22 am) I own a 2003 A6 3.0 . I love the car - It's been reliable (in more than 70000 mi) and very comfortable. I'm thinking of getting a new car and recently tested the new A6. I did not like the way it drove. It felt underpowered. Off-topic: The Audi dealer here sells Jags too....I tried the XJ8L, and we may have a winner. The drive is amazing. Someone, PLEASE, convince me that I shouldn't be getting the leaper.
|
|
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
