Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:08 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
#6805 of 6854 Re: Why purchase a Kia Amanti [lmandrews]
Nov 18, 2008 (1:44 pm)
What type of problem did you have with seats. I have a new Azera, and the seat will not keep its program. While driving, or when the car is left overnight, the seat changes position. Did you have any resolution? Thanks
#6806 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [captain2]
Nov 18, 2008 (2:18 pm)
Don't forget Holly dual pumpers, high rise intakes, Hooker headers, dual point distributors, 4:11 rear ends, solid lifters,4 bolt mains,etc....I bought a new Z 28 in 1969...$3995 with a 5 yr/50k warranty....Gas was 0.28/gallon then...ran Sunoco 260 in that beast....as you mentioned earlier...many V-6's today can out perform and out run those old muscle machines...
#6807 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. NO! [captain2]
Nov 18, 2008 (9:42 pm)
"In itself and as a measure of any car's ability to accelerate, the higher the HP
the better the acceleration times, not necessarily the torque."
Obviously you've not driven any late model diesel powered vehicles recently.
Take the E-320 CDI as an example. Maximum torque for this 3.0L motor is 400 ft-lbs from 1600-2400 rpms. Horsepower is only 210 at 3800 rpm. What this means is that almost all the time, it is within that maximum torque band. In other words, at most speeds it is almost always in the maximum torque range no matter
what the speed. There is no need to down shift to accelerate faster as you must do with the 3.5L gasoline motor to gain maximum power and acceleration.
The gasser has 268 horsepower, but not until 6000 rpm. Torque is much less at only 258 ft-lbs
but not until 2400-5000 rpm. 0 to 60 mph for the 3.5L gasser is 6.5 seconds.
The diesel 3.0L is only one tenth of a second slower at 6.6 seconds.
With the diesel, there is maximum torque before you begin to move off the starting line, and if
you are not careful, there is much wheel spin. I don't think the gasser will spin the tires at all.
Now what happens when you are cruising at highway speeds and you want more acceleration as in wanting to pass? With the diesel, you simply tickle it slightly, and because you are already in the maximum torque range, you accelerate faster than the 3.5L gasser will do unless you floor the gasser and drop at least two or three gears. With the diesel, there is no need to floor it or downshift it at all.
In fact, doing so might mean you would accelerate slower.
Not only is the 3.0L diesel motor slightly smaller than the gasser (3.0L vs 3.5L) but it has an extra 142 ft-lbs torque (a 55 percent increase) and that is what makes it more powerful and at the same time, it gets a minimum of at least 25 percent better fuel economy while doing so.
So much for the discussion of torque and acceleration.
If the diesel were the of the same displacement as the gasser, the
gasser would then be slower 0-60 compared to the diesel.
Similar figures can be found while comparing the VW gas/diesel line.
Also in the Dodge, Ford, Chevy/GMC pickup trucks line.
Just wait until other maufactures bring their diesel powered vehicles to market.
#6808 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. NO! [donna388]
Nov 19, 2008 (9:25 am)
the CDI is a remakable achievement, it comes in a $50k car and also a notable exception - my god, a diesel that's 'driveable' (and reasonably quick). The only other diesel that even approachs the CDI is one BMW (540td) is putting in cars in Europe. But, not a valid point, if you want to talk about the relative power of diesels vs. gas engines then look at something a lot more common and accessible, not $50 or $60k cars.
Maybe you'd like to explain why the VW TDIs have always (and continue) to be slugs relative to their gas engined bethren? Despite more of that precious torque, could it be that the diesel does not have the ability to turn into useable HP fast enough???
But, we do agree on one thing, the diesel should make a comeback, as soon as those technologies that make things like the CDI so good (and unobtrusive) can become available in less costly vehicles - until then we'll just have to 'put up' with the VWs, I guess.
#6809 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. NO! [donna388]
Nov 20, 2008 (8:37 am)
Obviously you've not driven any late model diesel powered vehicles recently.
actually have, a MB ML320CDI SUV, and as I said it was quite remarkable and unobtrusive - in short, quite undiesel- like. The only thing that made it quite obviously a diesel - compression braking - when you let off the accelerator it's like you turned the car into a 100 mph headwind. Drivability has not generally been the diesels problem however because of all that low end torque as you say, acceleration, stink, and clatter - now those are things that should improve with these new generation 'clean' diesels as they become available. May continue to be a hard sell over here in the states though, too many folks remember those Oldsmobile 98s with that infamous 350 diesel.
#6811 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. NO! [captain2]
Nov 20, 2008 (4:45 pm)
"The only thing that made it quite obviously a diesel - compression braking - when you let off the accelerator it's like you turned the car into a 100 mph headwind"
Are you saying a diesel has a lot of compression braking? Not without an exhaust brake. The air inlet on a diesel is wide open. No way to close it like a gas engine. So, very little compression braking.
#6812 of 6854 The Other Way Around. NO! [captain2]
Nov 20, 2008 (6:57 pm)
"Explain why the VW TDIs have always (and continue) to be slugs relative to their gas engined bethren?"
That depends on which gasoline motor you are comparing the diesel to.
If you compare the TDI with the standard gasoline 2.5L five cylinder
engine, that's not necessarily so.
The just available and at your VW dealers now here in Estados Unidos is
the Jetta Sedan and Sport Wagen with a 2.0L TDI (Turbo diesel injected.)
With 236lb/ft torque at 1750 -2500 rpm, and 140 hp at 4000 rpm, it may be a
trifle slower 0 - 60 compared to the standard 5 cylinder 2.5L gasoline
engine with 177lb/ft torque at 4250 rpm and 170hp at 5700 rpm.
Look what you need to do with that five banger gasser to get to the maximum
hp/torque rpms. This is with their standard available gas engine.
FE is but 20 city and 29 highway with an automatic.
The TDI is always right there on that fat torque plateau where you spend most of
your time, and again, there is no need to downshift to get good acceleration.
FE is 29 city/40 highway, but members over on Fred's will give you a big discussion as to those
FE figures being far to low when compared to what actual owners are receiving mileage wise.
I read there about mileages in the low 30s in the city and mid to
high 40s on the highway. Some even speak of 800 mile tanks.
Yes, VW does have their turbocharged 2.0L gasoline 4 cylinder with 200 hp,
but it will not achieve the FE of the TDI. It must have premimum fuel.
Over yonder, VW has that same short block TDI producing much greater
power, but alas, they won't bring that one over here to the N A continent.
Drop by your eager VW dealer and test-drive one. I think you are in for a surprise.
Regarding the infamous GM 350 diesels of 1978, I bought a new '79 Cutlass
Cruiser Wagon (ordered it loaded) and it was something else indeed.
Had it for two years and only 17K miles, and I did not experience the
problems that many people had with theirs. It was a real slug.
No turbo and no lock up T/C and only a three speed TH350 trans.
That motor was nothing more than a halfbred. A converted gasoline engine.
One can only imagine what a 5.7 liter modern diesel engine would be like today
given the advances in diesel engine design. Simply look at the Duramax,
especially the newly designed 4.4L yet to come out version.
A not to swift diesel either was the 4.3L six cylinder GM diesel
I had in my front wheel drive '82 Buick Century.
Many problems with that one. Piston slap (GM replaced two pistons under warranty)
a governor retainer ring failure in West Yellowstone. It had to be towed to
Billings and was repaired at no charge under the emissions warranty.
Tranny lost second speed when I kicked it down to pass in the four corners area of Navajo
country and I drove it clear back to California with only first and third gears and lockup.
Too much torque, as that motor had the most torque of any of the engines being put in
front of that tranny at that time (recall the four clyinder iron duke and the 3.0L sixes?)
Funny how GM always puts their vehicles in the hands of the public to 'prove up'
their product. They wonder why they are in BIG TROUBLE now!
I digress, Sorry.
#6813 of 6854 Re: If they are serious with the Genesis [allavalons]
Nov 20, 2008 (8:57 pm)
AllAvalons, I see your point and yet I don't.
"Unfortunately telling people they should think differently just doesn't work, and yes, perception is reality in the market. Nameplates like BMW, and Mercedes earned those reputations...."
Yeah, and now they've spent the last decade frantically un-earning them, and people have begun to notice -- which is why the dull, reliable and service-oriented Lexus brand has moved into the void so successfully. "Perception is reality"? Yes, If you're buying their stocks or handicapping their sales, yes. If you're buying their cars, no -- reality is reality. The reality of the Hyundai Genesis is big room, rear drive, full options, extreme quiet, and modern engines. There are only two parts of the physical car that fall notably short of its lux-brand competitors: the fake wood and the slanty-H logos. Which means, unless you're fanatical about timber, you're not objecting to the owner's experience driving the car -- you're objecting to the reaction of spectators. As for me, I hope they all hate it so I can drive in comfort and luxury for thousands off. Screw 'em.
"As I said, a large V-8 is where everyone has been, but is not where everyone is going, and those folks looking for that big V-8 are the very folks that are comfortable with the Lexus, BMW, Infinity, etc."
Even accepting your premise of handicapping the popularity of the cars, this comment misses the point. When Lexus and Infiniti models like the GS and the M offer a choice between V6 and V8 power, very few buyers actually buy the 8. It's there as a halo choice, for image. You'll notice that the excellent Acura RL died like a dog, in large part because it didn't have that halo to mesmerize people who'd end up getting the V6 anyway. Hyundai fully expects, and so do I, that most Genesis buyers will choose their excellent V6. In short, in all regards EXCEPT image, the V8 simply isn't very important, and even Hyundai has always known it.
#6814 of 6854 Re: If they are serious with the Genesis [tonycd]
Nov 21, 2008 (1:09 pm)
There are only two parts of the physical car that fall notably short of its lux-brand competitors: the fake wood and the slanty-H logos. Which means, unless you're fanatical about timber, you're not objecting to the owner's experience driving the car -- you're objecting to the reaction of spectators.
Or perhaps you don't like the driving experience, which you completely left out of your "two-parts." Perhaps it should be "at least three-parts?"
C&D had this to say about driving the vehicle:
We mentioned the suggestion of athleticism, and thatís what it is: a visual suggestion quickly tempered by dynamic realities when the road acquires curves and kinks. As we noted in our August preview test, Hyundai didnít skimp on the suspension, which employs multilink hardware fore and aft, with aluminum componentry. But it didnít take long on some of our favorite back roads to convince us that the decisions made by the chassis engineers in the area of spring rates and damping could benefit from a little revision. Maybe more than a little.
On smooth freeway stretches, the ride is creamy and quiet. But on those back roads, contoured and crinkled by Michigan winters, it was not difficult to use up all of the suspension travel, yielding hard bumps and episodes of head toss.
They go on to say its a luxury cruiser, but not on the same page as vehicles such as the BMW 528.
Automobile Magazine, in comparing the Genesis against German and Japanese Lux competition had this to say about the driving experience:
On glass-smooth on-ramps, the big Hyundai takes a deliberate, slightly tail-out set, thanks in part to an enormous rear antiroll bar.
But add a few bumps, and the Genesis takes a turn for the worse. Unlike any of the other sedans, the Hyundai falls completely to pieces on twisty, bumpy back roads. Push it hard, and pavement irregularities send the Genesis heaving and wallowing down the road with the traction control light flashing and the steering wheel shuddering. When you're hustling with a car full of passengers, its soft rear suspension crashes onto its bump stops over moderately rough roads.
Sure, hard-core cornering probably isn't on a lot of shoppers' lists when looking at the $40k Hyundai, but I post this to say that there are definitely some places where the Genesis needs to improve besides wood trim and brand prestige.