Karl's Daily Log Book - READ ONLY

2391 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2005 at 6:50 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Sedan, SUV

Karl Brauer is the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com, which means he finds himself in a different vehicle almost every day of the week. If you want a daily road test review regarding the latest cars and trucks to hit the market, along with commentary on everything from auto industry happenings to L.A. drivers to his latest close encounter with Johnny Law, this is the place to be.

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 240: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 240; Prev; Next; Last

#5 of 2391 March 2 by editor_karl Mar 02, 2005 (11:03 am)
The Chrysler 300 is BIG! It handles well, rides extremely well and has plenty of power with the basic 5.7-liter Hemi, but it's still BIG. The SRT-8 version has a hopped-up 6.0-liter, 425 horsepower Hemi that moves the car from quick to damn fast. With the larger, 20-inch wheels and sporty front seats it can almost pass for a sport sedan...but it's just too BIG to get away with it. That said, the 300 SRT-8 could be the best combination of luxury and performance available for the money. I initially had this vehicle pegged in the high $40s when Chrysler showed it off last August at Pebble Beach. But it actually starts at just under $40K, and if you load it up it's still less than $45,000 (including navigation, Sirius, bluetooth and side curtain airbags). Don't expect it to handle like an M5 or E55, because it can't. But for buyers wanting maximum luxury and maximum forward thrust for a price well below the premium German and Japanese alternatives, this car is a steal. Replies to this message: andys120 (Mar 04, 2005 8:06 am)
#6 of 2391 Thank the "recalculating ball to rack and pinion" upgrade by vcheng Mar 03, 2005 (9:46 am)
Is it really "recalculating" or more likely "recirculating" ball steering that was upgraded? Anybody else I wouldn't have corrected, but the head honcho at Edmunds? I couldn't resist. I look forward to enjoying this thread! Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 03, 2005 10:01 am)
#7 of 2391 March 3 by editor_karl Mar 03, 2005 (9:59 am)
Volvo was kind enough to provide us with a long-term S40 recently, and I've had the pleasure of driving it on multiple occasions over the past few weeks, including last night. The all-wheel drive on our model would normally be a waste of money and gas in Southern California, but the record rainfall we've seen over the past eight weeks has kept the roads plenty wet -- and muddy along my PCH commute. The all-wheel drive has proven its merit, helping me dodge various rocks,boulders and patches of displaced earth, especially at night. The one issue I have with the S40 is the abrupt power delivery from the turbocharged five cylinder. It's less of an issue on the manual shift cars, but with the automatic the engine can feel sluggish when its caught in the wrong gear and turbo lag comes into play. Not a huge issue, but one to be aware of. On February 16 the S40 took runner up (to the Audi A6) as the inaugural World Car of the Year, as voted on by 48 journalists from 16 countries. Considering its platform is shared by the Mazda 3 and European Ford Focus, the title seems appropriate. For me, its the combination of safety, luxury and value that makes the S40 a solid choice in the entry-luxury segment. Gotta love that surround sound audio system!
#8 of 2391 You're Right by editor_karl Mar 03, 2005 (10:01 am)
Replying to: vcheng (Mar 03, 2005 9:46 am) The "recalculating steering" is only on new BMWs. Someday they'll inject automotive terms into spell check and it won't make these "helpful" corrections...
#9 of 2391 March 4 by editor_karl Mar 03, 2005 (10:20 pm)
Every time I see or drive a Volvo XC90 I'm reminded of how much more the average American buyer is focusing on safety. This car is not particularly attractive, and between its Volvo badge and chunky station wagon looks it's hardly "cooler" than any minivan. Yet this is one of Volvo's most successful models, and much of it has to do with the car's (well-deserved) reputation as a street legal bank vault for families. My ongoing problem with the XC90 was always the weak drivetrain options. Either you bought the more powerful T6 model and you had to put up with an outdated four-speed automatic. Or you went with the smaller 2.5T engine to get a modern five-speed automatic, but the car was left wheezing with only 208 horsepower (remember, that double-strength chassis is HEAVY; this car weighs over 4,400 lbs!). But the 2005 version I drove today offers a 315 horsepower V8 and a SIX-SPEED automatic. Now that's more like it! At $46,000 it ain't cheap, but the XC90 finally brings performance, luxury and benchmark-setting safety together in one package (the styling still won't set your heart aflutter). I can say this without hesitation: If divine enlightenment suddenly told me that my wife and kids were going to be in an accident tomorrow, and the only element I could control was the light duty vehicle they would be in when it happened, I would choose this vehicle. Replies to this message: andys120 (Mar 04, 2005 8:11 am) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) and 4 more... lev_berkovich (Mar 04, 2005 10:45 pm) highender (Mar 05, 2005 8:07 pm)
#10 of 2391 Re: March 2 [editor_karl] by andys120 Mar 04, 2005 (8:06 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 02, 2005 11:03 am) With the larger, 20-inch wheels and sporty front seats it can almost pass for a sport sedan...but it's just too BIG to get away with it. Is it really that big or do the big wheels and small windows make it look bigger than it is? I parked next to one in my E39 Bimmer (528iA) and noted that the 300 appeared only fractionally longer taller and wider. The E39 is classified as a "compact sedan".
#11 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by andys120 Mar 04, 2005 (8:11 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 03, 2005 10:20 pm) If divine enlightenment suddenly told me that my wife and kids were going to be in an accident tomorrow, and the only element I could control was the light duty vehicle they would be in when it happened, I would choose this vehicle Not me, I'd opt for the lower V70 or XC70 which have lower CGs ergo less chance of flipping. I'd have to disagreeagree w your assesment of it's looks though. It's really quite attractive for a Volvo and it's selling like hotcakes for that reason IMO. Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) and 3 more...
#12 of 2391 Re: March 4 [andys120] by editor_karl Mar 04, 2005 (2:28 pm)
Replying to: andys120 (Mar 04, 2005 8:11 am) Don't forget that a lower CG also means a lower hip point for the passengers, meaning if the other vehicle in the accident has a high CG (increasingly common in today's world) an impact between them will likely involve vital organs for the lower vehicle (like an XC70). Besides, rollover accidents are still relativley rare, and the most dangerous elements, if they do happen, are when: A. The occupants aren't wearing seat belts or B. The vehicle collapses in on itself and/or an occupant's head strikes an interior surface like the roof or roof pillar The XC90 has some of the most advanced anti-rollover technology available, and it has a structure that's very unlikely to collapse in on itself (the roof is made of Boron steel). And it has three rows of side curtain airbags. And my family is always properly belted in. I'll stick with the XC90, higher CG and all. Replies to this message: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) and 1 more...
#13 of 2391 Re: March 4 [editor_karl] by calhon Mar 04, 2005 (3:41 pm)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 2:28 pm) Karl, single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for 47 percent of occupant deaths in SUVs in 2003 compared with 36 percent of deaths in pickups and 19 percent of deaths in cars. Rollovers are rare but their impact is tremendous: Crashes in which a vehicle rolled over accounted for 33 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2003 (55 percent of single-vehicle occupant crash deaths and 12 percent of multiple-vehicle occupant crash deaths). Stats from http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/occupants.htm#sec4 Replies to this message: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) lev_berkovich (Mar 18, 2005 2:51 pm)
#14 of 2391 Re: March 4 [calhon] by editor_karl Mar 04, 2005 (4:27 pm)
Replying to: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 3:41 pm) How many of those rollover fatalities involved the Volvo XC90? If your answer is "I don't know" then I'd follow up by saying, again, that the XC90 has extremely advanced anti-rollover technology, and even more advanced safety technology to protect occupants in the (unlikely) event that it does rollover. Are rollovers bad? Yes. They are also rare (as you admit) and unless someone can point to the XC90 having a preponderance for rolling over (I would bet that any research on the subject would prove the opposite) then I'm going to stick with my position that the XC90 is EXTREMELY safe -- desptie being an SUV (to me it's really a tall wagon). Replies to this message: calhon (Mar 04, 2005 5:36 pm) etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) lev_berkovich (Mar 18, 2005 2:51 pm)