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 Ultimate AWD Sports Sedans
828 messages, Last post on Oct 03, 2009 at 9:40 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: mnrep2 (Feb 20, 2006 4:52 pm) What? Can't get a G35 with AWD and manual transmission? Bummer. Guess that's to be expected from a car company that spell its own name. |
|
|
Replying to: mnrep2 (Feb 20, 2006 4:52 pm) The G35 really doesn't have much bang-for-the-buck over the 330. Its price only undercuts it by about $2,000, which makes it seem almost overpriced because of its poor build quality. I'm not saying the 330 has a nice interior, though  . (;
|
|
|
Replying to: esf (Feb 22, 2006 3:39 pm) BMW 330xi edmunds tmv price $37,274 G35X edmunds tmv price $33,250 If you look at edmumds true cost to own over 5 years they show the G35x to have another $8,000.00 in saving over the 330xi. Your math is bad but your comments are compelling 
|
|
|
Replying to: mnrep2 (Feb 22, 2006 5:16 pm) Edmunds "True Cost To Own," and their True Market Value pricing, are not always valid. I've seen cars $2500 over invoice on TMV there, and it was only about $600 over at the dealer.
|
|
|
Just in from a few exclusive gossip websites... Audi has released teaser photos of the new RS4 Avant and RS4 CABRIOLET, to be released at Geneva. The Cabriolet, which has the updated body, is strikingly beautiful in the one photo I saw. It has the 420hp engine, gets 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, and should be in the mid-70s, making it a steal next to the Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG convertible. I was drooling- and this is from an S4 Cabriolet owner. If I play my cards right and can afford one by 2008, it's on the top of my list!!!
|
|
|
Replying to: esf (Feb 22, 2006 8:46 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: esf (Feb 22, 2006 8:38 pm) I've also seen some True Cost To Own listings were it looks like the car must be really loaded up (i.e. $4-5k over MSRP), yet another car listed below MSRP.... not exact an apples-to-apples comparison. |
|
|
Replying to: tcinoc (Feb 23, 2006 12:48 am) The RS4 Sedan won't be in "that price range." It is rumored to start at around $70,000 flat. Also, the RS4 Cabriolet gets 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, somehow the same as the sedan (Actually, Audi is usually very modest about 0-60 times. The RS4 Sedan should be in the mid-4 second range). This is not all random information that I've thought up, it's actually from an Audi insider. |
|
|
|
The following "discussion point" has been moved from the 2/25/2006 LPS sedans discussion of AWD and its "certain" widespread adoption (IMHO.)  Regarding the quattro AWD drive line: The total weight penalty is ~ 165 lb more than a contemporary rear-wheel drive. And, in the spirit of full-disclosure, there is extra friction from the extra drive-line components and the required “supporting cast” of technology, e.g., the oil seals. The burning question becomes, how does this additional weight and friction manage to produce an apparent “synergy” that actually saves fuel? Well, for a long time it was a mystery to Audi’s engineers, too. Dr. Piech has been quoted saying, “Our tests repeatedly showed that the car with four-wheel drive had a higher top speed and used less fuel than the same car with two-wheel drive. [And] it took us a year to find out why.” Here is a brief history of what was done to unravel this mystery. First Audi spent the equivalent of about $750,000 (USD) on a test rig to measure the power consumed at each stage from the engine to the wheels. Initially there were no surprises. As expected, they were losing up to 3% of total power in driving all four wheels (about the same as they lost with an automatic transmission – 1.5% - 3%.) Dr. Piech came to the conclusion that “the secret must lie in the tires.” The reason? There was nowhere else to look. But the tire manufacturers couldn't explain or support “why” either. Their dynamometer tests couldn't provide the information Piech and his engineers needed. They ultimately unraveled the mystery via a test program run on a so-called “rolling road” – and, not in Germany but in a US lab which was able to plot the power consumed by a tire throughout its entire operating range. Piech knew that a tire driving a car consumes power. Likewise, a tire under braking, or [negative] torque consumes power. Furthermore, even a tire that is rolling freely also consumes [some] power. Here, however, is a not expected finding: The lowest power consumption recorded was with the torque input experienced in a four wheel drive car. Put another way, a tire taking the torque required for two-wheel drive absorbs significantly more power and the total of two driven tires which were being pulled (RWD) or pushed (FWD) along, was measurably greater than that of four driven tires. This means that given an “efficient” transmission, it is revealed that an AWD drive-line, in addition to all its other [performance] advantages, can save fuel. Moreover, this fuel saving advantage actually increases with the power transmitted. Some would argue that as power increases the need for AWD also increases (hmm perhaps Subaru has known this all along?) ___________________ The preceding is from several sources, however, the key "bibliography" is cited below. ____________________ Bibliography: R.M. Clark ISBN 1 85520 3030 Brookland Books Ltd
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 BMW 3 Series
2010 Audi A4
2010 Subaru Legacy
2010 Audi S4
2007 Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
