Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#6363 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [jontyrees]
Jun 02, 2008 (2:08 pm)
All of these cars weigh somewhere around 3800lbs, so there isn't going to be much difference in gas mileage.
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.
#6364 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [carolinabob]
Jun 02, 2008 (2:27 pm)
you know that's funny - had a Rambler American long ago when they sold new for under $2 grand - 3 on the column manual (and a flathead straight 6?) but remember nothing especially remarkable about the car other than what a piece of crappola it was. Was in college at the time and appreciated the fold down seats though 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.
#6365 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 02, 2008 (2:55 pm)
I think "several degrees more of engine sophistication" may be stretching it. The Ford engine has VVT, although I don't know if that is applied to both intake and exhaust. The listed weights for all of them are all over the map, but you're probably right that the Ford is a 100lbs or so heavier. I didn't test drive the Avalon, as it would have been several $k more expensive, but I'm sure it's an excellent car. It's clearly what Hyundai was trying to replicate - just look at the design of the console.
#6366 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [jontyrees]
Jun 03, 2008 (4:46 am)
I looked real hard at an Avalon, but got turned off by the interior and exterior design. IMO, the Azera console, dash and so forth are very superior to the Avalon in design, funtion and so forth. I had a Camry XLE that was a great car and have a RAV4 now. Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection, as well as no real dealing on prices for a Toyota owner!
#6367 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (5:07 am)
MPG claims are not a whole lot different than 'price paid' claims for many autos. An automotive equivalent of a fish story. You should see the one that got away!
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!
#6368 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [carolinabob]
Jun 03, 2008 (5:23 am)
Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection
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.
#6369 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [brucelinc]
Jun 03, 2008 (5:53 am)
I'm still with ya bruce.
#6370 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [thegraduate]
Jun 03, 2008 (6:08 am)
Thanks, Grad! This is not rocket science but old perceptions are sometimes hard for people to abandon.
#6371 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [brucelinc]
Jun 03, 2008 (6:19 am)
Anyone who can't beat their car's current highway EPA rating under perfect conditions needs to take a look at their driving style.
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
#6372 of 6854 Re: Taurus vs Azera observations [captain2]
Jun 03, 2008 (6:47 am)
No, I am not really irritated. I keep coming back for more!
Specifically, the Taurus with the standard 17 inch wheels goes 37.1 MPH per 1000 RPM. That would be 74.2 MPH at 2000 RPM and 2,156 RPM at 80 - a difference of a tach needle width. I agree that those speeds take a toll versus 60. Even 80 takes quite a toll over 75. I didn't pay attention to our average speed for the trip but I usually can avoid speeding tickets on this route if I run around 76 -78 - give or take a couple of MPH. The posted limit is 70.