You are here: Forums Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

6844 messages,  Last post on Mar 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM

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

What is this discussion about? Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan

#6240 of 6844 Re: Horrors, I agree with captain. [captain2] by allmet33 Apr 18, 2008 (5:47 am)
Replying to: captain2 (Apr 17, 2008 1:36 pm) Oh...trust me...even though we've only been married for 7, we've been together for 12 years. I've learned how to pick my battles and when to throw the white flag up. However, I've gotten pretty good at knowing how she thinks (a lil bit).
#6241 of 6844 Re: Good reliability isn't Jaguar's problem. [captain2] by ronsmith38 Apr 18, 2008 (6:51 am)
Replying to: captain2 (Apr 18, 2008 5:19 am) "the new 3.5L Duratec hooked up to the same 6-speed automatic gets 2 MPG better on the Highway, and 1 MPG better combined compared to the 2007 Five Hundred with the old 3.0L Duratec" "maybe according to the EPA but exactly the opposite of what CR found in their recent test."   I saw the CR report, but the car they tested must have been a lemon, or the tester was smoking something. I have a 2008 Sable that gets close to or better than the EPA of 18 around town, and I just completed a trip of over 1000 miles in the rolling hills and mountains of NC, VA and PA ( routes 77, 81, 70) where I got between 28 and 29 mpg. Other 2008 Taurus and Sable owners have reported similar results. Replies to this message: captain2 (Apr 18, 2008 7:24 am) cobrazera (Apr 19, 2008 1:25 am)
#6242 of 6844 Re: Good reliability isn't Jaguar's problem. [ronsmith38] by captain2 Apr 18, 2008 (7:24 am)
Replying to: ronsmith38 (Apr 18, 2008 6:51 am) but the car they tested must have been a lemon, or the tester was smoking something all FE results are relative to the driver and his/her habits - CR I believe has a set 195 mile test loop that includes some highway driving as well as 'city'. They reported 18 mpg overall where things like the Avalon got 21 and the 'relative' gas hog Azera even got 19. Don't know if the car was a 'lemon' (that might be reaching a bit) or the tester was 'smoking something' (that is reaching a bunch), but they noted specifically that while the engine now had better power that it was at the penalty of FE - relative to results those same folks got with the 3.0. High 20s on the highway, while good by most definitions, is not especially remarkable for these cars anymore Replies to this message: cobrazera (Apr 19, 2008 1:25 am)
#6244 of 6844 Re: How stupid must you be to buy a Ford !!?? [kscng] by captain2 Apr 18, 2008 (9:33 am)
Replying to: kscng (Apr 17, 2008 9:19 pm) ended up being a piece of junk Ford   being a little hard on it? Just maybe? While I'll be the first to criticize both Ford and their engines, I also believe that there is substantial evidence that the era of 'junk Fords' has passed. The 500/Taurus has been at least 'average' in most quality/reliability ratings and the Fusion has been doing better than that. Ford's real problems are obviously financial IMO and as that effects new product development and improvement.
#6246 of 6844 interesting photo by autokritiker Apr 18, 2008 (3:01 pm)
I was looking at the Edmunds "Photos and Videos" section for the 2007 ES350, and I came across this photo:   http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/EI/2007/Lexus/2- - - - 007.lexus.es%20350.20089384-E.jpg   The Avalon has the same engine/transmission combo as the ES350, and both cars have curb weights within 50 or 60 pounds of each other. How, then, is that particular ES350 getting 15.7 Avg MPG, according to the readout in the photo above. Even if they had timed five 1/4 mile runs, five 0-60 runs, and a few slalom runs the same day they took that photo, that's still under 3 miles of track testing.   It takes dozens of miles, at least, before the ECU can update the Avg fuel economy and display it on the LED. If the car is averaging MPG in the 15's, you'd think they were running it around a track at high RPM all day, given the fact that owners of these cars claim average MPG in the low/mid-20's. But they're not running this car around a track to see if they can get lap times close to a sports car. It's a floaty soft luxury car, not a TL-S or Evo.   My whole point is: Given the facts I've stated above, why should I trust this photo any less than CR, Motortrend, C&D, etc? It's easy to point out a source that happens to show numbers that we want people to see and believe. The only fuel economy numbers I take seriously anymore are the New EPA ratings. Many people have seen their real world numbers come very close to the EPA's New City/Hwy numbers. Replies to this message: tonycd (Apr 18, 2008 8:26 pm) captain2 (Apr 20, 2008 2:49 pm) alexstore (Apr 21, 2008 3:30 am) captain2 (Apr 21, 2008 5:38 am) captain2 (Apr 23, 2008 9:46 am)
#6247 of 6844 Re: interesting photo [autokritiker] by tonycd Apr 18, 2008 (8:26 pm)
Replying to: autokritiker (Apr 18, 2008 3:01 pm) Zero MPH?   Yep, must be a Lexus ES...
#6248 of 6844 Re: Good reliability isn't Jaguar's problem. [captain2] by cobrazera Apr 19, 2008 (1:25 am)
Replying to: captain2 (Apr 18, 2008 7:24 am) IMO, test loop mileage figures can not be exactly duplicated. Maybe the traffic was a little heavier on a particular day, a tester may have accelerated more briskly, or caught more lights, etc. Temperature pays a large part, too - on colder days, bearing grease is thicker, the tire pressure may be a bit less; I could go on and on. Fact is, the only test that really compares apples to apples is the the EPA test, although I would assume that manufacturers tune/gear their vehicles to optimize mileage in that particular format.
#6249 of 6844 Re: interesting photo [autokritiker] by captain2 Apr 20, 2008 (2:49 pm)
Replying to: autokritiker (Apr 18, 2008 3:01 pm) The only fuel economy numbers I take seriously anymore are the New EPA ratings. Many people have seen their real world numbers come very close to the EPA's New City/Hwy numbers I perceive the problem with even the 'new and improved' EPA test that the manufacturers knowing what the test is, can rather easily optimize a car to perform well. It was certainly worse with the 70s vintage test that was done in a laboratory and really had zero real world applicability. GM has been doing this for years with the 3.8, a 'tall' highway gear that the poor ancient engine doesn't have a prayer of holding. On the other end of the spectrum , are some of the V8s, with these 'trick' DOD systems designed to shutoff some cylinders at lower 'highway' speeds that it too has no prayer of holding. Hence the reason why things like the 300C were the most overated FE wise (under the old system). It is so variable among different drivers and conditions - to me the only thing you can really trust is what you do yourself. Replies to this message: alexstore (Apr 21, 2008 3:30 am) captain2 (Apr 21, 2008 5:38 am)

You are here: Forums Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison