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 Luxury Lounge
21410 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 8:50 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Dec 02, 2008 7:00 am)  Me neither. (Neptuno? Cibeles? Atocha?) Regards, Jose
|
|
|
Replying to: jimbres (Dec 02, 2008 12:10 pm) LOL. Now THAT makes sense. You never mentioned a price barrier, so the RR fits the description of a good-looking classy SUV, IMHO. If money were no object and if the repair record didn't matter, I'd have one... therefore, I'm not going to get one. Hahaha. But, again, I do like its looks, at least for an SUV. In reality, your idea about the Honda Pilot is a good one, and I'd actually consider the CR-V, unless the Pilot's third row is a requirement. The CR-V is a great value and a terrific SUV... and I find its appearance to be pleasing to my eyes. I am bewildered as to why it isn't available with a hybrid or diesel alternative powerplant. It is the perfect SUV for those powerplants, and I think those alternatives would increase sales even further. TM
|
|
|
Replying to: tagman (Dec 02, 2008 12:52 pm) We're empty-nesters with a small dog, & the CR-V is sized perfectly for our needs. It's an ideal suburban errand-runner - easy to park & relatively economical to run (about 20 mpg around town). I also like the plain-Jane, utilitarian styling of the prior-gen CR-V. Like you, I'm surprised that Honda doesn't offer a hybrid or diesel variant. At the same time, I'm not sure that I'd pay a premium for an alternative powerplant, given that we put only 3K miles per year on our CR-V. |
|
Note to the industry (especially Lexus), this is how to design a convertible. The soft top is a bit old hat these days, but 11.3 cu.ft of space with the top down is a bit more practical than most, and the rear seats also split fold for something like 26 cu.ft. Interestingly the 2010 S5 Cab continues with the V8, but gets the QuattroSport diff option. 2011 brings the supercharged V6.    
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Dec 02, 2008 3:57 pm) Classy. Near-perfect from every angle. One thing, however... I do like the rear venting treatment between the exhausts better in the BMW E90 M3, which is also optionally available in the standard 3-Series convertible. The lower rear bumper of the S5 is a bit bland by comparison, and is more like, say, the BMW 1er. The soft top is a bit old hat these days... I agree. Yes, the added storage with a softtop is a big benefit... one that I also enjoy in my 1-Series convertible, but the retractable hardtop really is the way to go. I'm expecting that the new replacement to the Mercedes Benz CLK convertible, which won't be called a CLK, might very well sport a retractable hardtop. Truth be told, I really like this S5, I really do... but I would be hard pressed to choose it over the M3, and I suspect many others might see it that way as well. I have no doubt, though, that the QuattroSport option will be quite compelling to some. Thanks for the pics, LG.  edit: The move from the V8 to the SC V6 is clearly an industry-wide type of shift in years to come, as manufacturers are already planning on boosting smaller engines as a "replacement for displacement"... gone will be the days of large cubic inches and many cylinders. TM |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tagman (Dec 02, 2008 5:09 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: tagman (Dec 02, 2008 5:09 pm) Makes sense to me. Audi rates the '09 A6 3.0T, a 194", 4100lb car, at 18/33. The engine's power matches that of the old A6 4.2 (with torque available at much lower engine speed), and yet its nearly a second quicker than that car, and hugely more fuel efficient. The 3.0TFSI is easily the best V6 in the world right now, and arguably the best six cylinder engine period. I like BMW's 3.0TT as much as the next guy, but you will not see the 535xi getting 33mpg on the highway.
|
|
|
Replying to: rockshocka1 (Dec 02, 2008 6:18 pm) I have no doubt that the next RL, which is supposed to be a $70K, V8 powered RWD car, has bomb written all over it. Acura has been screwing around with the RL formula since '96, and it has never worked. Should it be a FWD, cut price W210 E-class? Should it be an AWD, techno laden uber-Accord? Should it be a full-size, V8 powered LS460 fighter? They have no idea what to do with it. No one is going to pay $70K for Acura styling and Acura materials quality. Nobody would pay $50K for that, they already tried.
|
|
|
Replying to: lexusguy (Dec 02, 2008 6:54 pm) I wholeheartedly agree when placing fuel economy into the equation... which, to be honest, is a prerequisite nowadays when evaluating any engine. As much as I personally love the performance characteristics of BMW's TT powerplant, it is undeniably too thirsty... especially in light of an alternative such as Audi's 3.0 liter supercharged direct-injection V6... which delivers 290 hp, and a full 310 lbs. of torque as low as 2500 RPM. An impressive achievement, but to be fair, not quite the super-low 1400 RPM full-torque delivery accomplished by BMW's TT engine.  Nonetheless, it is indeed a spectacular engine and I'd love to have it in my 1-Series... LOL... 'cause I'm averaging a not-so-impressive 17.2 mpg. TM
|
|
|
Replying to: tagman (Dec 02, 2008 9:58 pm) |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
