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

#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)
#6250 of 6844 Re: interesting photo [captain2] by alexstore Apr 21, 2008 (3:30 am)
Replying to: captain2 (Apr 20, 2008 2:49 pm) hybrids were also overrated as they lost most under new epa test Replies to this message: captain2 (Apr 21, 2008 5:38 am)
#6251 of 6844 is Buick going down? by alexstore Apr 21, 2008 (3:42 am)
Looks like sales of Buick are significantly down they are even lower than Oldsmobile before it was sold. Like many people on this forum will agree unfortunately Lucerne doesn't offer any advantages over Japanese and even Korean brands. Opel was used to improve sales of Saturn, Holden of Pontiac. If we follow this thinking Daewoo or some other brand should be used to improve Buick. I personally hope that it will be a western European brand. Opel was used and GM cannot use Saab since it competes for the same market as GM. My opinion get rid of Saab and use it to make Buicks even in Sweden. Place 3.6 with DI into Lucerne and detune it to produce around 290 hp and better FE. Also Make longer wheelbase version of Lucerne as well as use 3.6 without DI on entry level Lucernes Replies to this message: thegraduate (Apr 21, 2008 11:04 am)
#6252 of 6844 Re: interesting photo [alexstore] by captain2 Apr 21, 2008 (5:38 am)
Replying to: alexstore (Apr 21, 2008 3:30 am) yep there seems to be a correlation between the amount of technology in a vehicle (fancy dan 'thinking' trannies/hybrids/variable displacement systems etc) and the differences between actual and EPA FE test performance. Toyota, which has long been a FE 'leader' for example, seems to want to 'program' their trannies to hold onto the highest gear possible even on coastdown from a higher speed, thereby reducing engine speed and increasing FE, these manufacturers that use the variable displacement can shutoff some cylinders (also increasing FE) in lower load situations (let's say a 55mph level 'cruise') but then the systems become ineffective when speeds get up to more realisitic numbers. The EPA may 'think' that 55-60 mph is how fast we all drive on the highway (and it may, indeed, be the speed limit) but who out there is not driving along at 70 or 75 just to (safely) keep up with everybody else? These type of things are why I don't really like the EPA numbers and prefer real driving numbers from real people even though it is true that such things do introduce a number of variables in the results as one poster pointed out. EPA numbers are good only as they are relative to each other and not any indication necessarily of what any given driver can expect because some cars will do better in the 'real world' than others- and it's been this way for almost 40 years.

You are here: Forums Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison