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 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
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 02, 2008 6:20 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: jontyrees (Jun 02, 2008 1:11 pm) actually you are a couple hundred pounds lighter (3594) in the Avalon not to mention several degrees more of engine sophistication (the i part of CVVTi as well as the variable timing on the exhaust valves as well as the intakes). The Azera has been listed at 3600 lbs. as well as at numbers approaching 3800 - but given the acceleration abilities of that particular car it would seem more likely to also weigh a good bit less than the Taurus. The Avalon turns 2100 rpm at 70, 2000 at 80 is down in V8 territory and is a lot of difference making me wonder if Ford isn't stretching the engine too far off its torque curve in the interest of FE - much like GM has historically abused the 3.8. |
|
|
Replying to: carolinabob (Jun 02, 2008 1:57 pm)  the only memorable 'feature'. The American manufacturers IMO have NEVER made a 'good' economy car and have always attacked their inability to manufacture competitive smaller engines with displacement - not engineering sophistication. This has been this way for 40-50 years although thinking about it I'm inclined to give some of those Corvair engines at least a nod for effort. Case in point - of the cars in this group - having to pay (at the gas pumps) for a Northstar V8 in the Lucerne, and V8 in the Impala, the Hemi all to get something that will keep up with cars like the Avalon/Maxima/Azera. |
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 02, 2008 2:08 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jontyrees (Jun 02, 2008 2:55 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: captain2 (Jun 02, 2008 6:20 am) Seriously, folks, it is amazing to me and just a bit irritating that many of you think I am stretching the truth about the fuel economy on our recent weekend trip. Here are a few other points that you can accuse me of lying about: The Taurus has a 3.16 axle ratio and a .74 OD for a final drive of 2.34. At 75 MPH, it is turning around 2000 RPM. The Ford 3.5 has VVT on the intake only but overall cam timing and head design is calibrated for a sweet spot in the 1500 - 2500 RPM range. They could have gone to more expensive VVT on both intake and exhaust or recalibrated the cam and head design for more HP and more refinement at high RPM but chose not to. The point is that the Taurus gets very good fuel economy in its sweet spot - better than Ford's own 3.0 and likely better than many competitors. The Ford 3.0 will get these enhancements soon and will have HP bump to 240 and better MPG. The good highway mileage is nothing more exotic than a very high final drive and an engine tuned for good mileage in its sweet spot, and near perfect conditions. Keep in mind that the EPA highway mileage estimate now includes segments with speeds up to 80 MPH, AC usage, and maximum acceleration. The Taurus and Avalon are both rated at 28 highway on this cycle. On my weekend drive, it was 55-60 degrees so AC was not used. Traffic was light and there are no hills to speak of. Under similar conditions, for business trips to Des Moines, I have gotten 31 MPG with a rental Impala and 34.5 with a 4 Cylinder Camry. My wife's old 3.0 Duratec Taurus would get about 28.5. My Lincoln LS V8 will get 26. I repeat: Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style. One last thing: I make no claim that the Taurus fuel economy is stellar under all conditions. It is geared pretty deep in the first 3 gears and can suck up fuel if you put your foot in it. Stop and go traffic could easily be in the teens although I have never checked it. OK, sock it to me again!
|
|
|
Replying to: carolinabob (Jun 03, 2008 4:46 am) I am so glad I am not in a SET area. My Yota dealer adds nothing to the price that you don't want and I leased mine ('06 Av XLS) about $500 over invoice. Not stellar but they did have to get the car from 300 miles away. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (Jun 03, 2008 5:07 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jun 03, 2008 5:53 am) |
|
|
Replying to: brucelinc (Jun 03, 2008 5:07 am) no reason to get irritated at all - it is not this statement I question - heck it was even possible to better the old EPA ratings never mind those lower 'new' ones. The disbelief comes from your mileage claims at 75-80mph specifically- given that there is a significant hit (FE wise) any car will take at those speeds. Would be interested to know for sure what that engine speed actually is at 75 or 80 - one poster reports 2000 at 75, the other 2000 at 80 - even that is a significant difference, never mind that is also less than even the Toyota engine/6 speed which does have that greater flexibility allowed by that extra sophistication in the valvetrain, as you note. And yes, if I drive my Avalon at a constant 60 or even 65 I will see FE in the low or even mid 30s - just not at 75 or 80 - and down here in Texas - I'd be getting run over if I tried to poke along at a mere 60 mph on most of our highways
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Buick Lucerne
2010 Chevrolet Impala
2011 Dodge Charger
2010 Ford Taurus
2010 Hyundai Azera
2010 Toyota Avalon
2010 Nissan Maxima
2009 Pontiac G8
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
