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 Article Comments - Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans
475 messages, Last post on Jul 25, 2008 at 4:41 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans - This is exactly why we gathered this group of sport sedans. That is, to find out if the 2008 Cadillac CTS, 2007 Infiniti G35 Sport, 2008 Lexus IS 350 or 2008 Mercedes-Benz C350 Sport can topple the Bavarian champ — the 2007 BMW 335i. In the spirit of the segment, each car in the test is outfitted with sport package hardware — usually a stiffer suspension and bigger wheels and tires — and an automatic transmission. (more)
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 05, 2007 5:55 am) The decline of manual transmission cars Do you know what to do with a stick and a clutch? Only 15% of new car buyers in the US say they'll consider buying a car with manual transmission, and by 2012, only 6% of cars will be offered with a stick. Is it because it's a difficult skill to learn? Or is it really because it's too hard to shift when you have a cell phone in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the other? Or is a manual transmission simply an outdated system with new fangled technology like CVT, DSG, SMG, and super-fast, 100 msec shifting automatic transmissions available? Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 05, 2007 5:55 am) It illustrates that an AT changes the character of these cars, and the rankings reflect this change. When a MT equipped Infiniti is compared next to a comparable BMW, the performance, refinement, and driving dynamics of the Infiniti pale in comparison. BMW simply has chassis/driveline refinement nailed, and nobody else comes close. Switch to AT versions of the same cars though, and suddenly the gap narrows considerably because you are taking what I'll call "driver/car synergy" out of the equation - thereby removing the BMW's greatest asset. Like I said before, if I were shopping this segment for an MT equipped sedan, I'd pick the BMW without hesitation. However, if I had to choose an AT sedan in this segment, I'd probably save the $8,000 and choose the G35. If anything, this latest comparison reinforces the fact that the BMW 3-series remains the "driving enthusiasts choice." If you must dumb down your "sport sedan" with an AT, then save $8000 and get the just as satisfying G35 (though personally, if I was forced to go with an AT, I'd save another $10,000 and get an Accord V6).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 05, 2007 5:55 am) |
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Nov 05, 2007 7:19 am) If the G comes closer this time around and has actually surpassed the 3'er with an AT, so be it. I'll be my own judge of that. To me, what you are saying is if the G ever surpasses the BMW MT performance = game, set match. Why ever order a BMW again? However, the Accord just doesn't do it for me since they do not offer AWD.  I'll waste my money in '08 again, I'm afraid!  Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Nov 05, 2007 7:19 am) Agree totally. My recent rounds of test drives confirms this. I ended up with an IS350 since comfort/luxury is my bias for cars in this segment, and MT is not even an option as ruled by the boss at home. I wonder if the test drivers tried the Power Mode in the IS in their tests for all their complains about the slow shifts. The G35 is a nice car but not as refined as the IS. The BMW is probably great with MT, but can not match the other in the auto version when all aspects are considered. What I don't get is the 3rd place CTS. In my visit to the Caddy showroom, I found the extra width added by the side skirt/panel below the doors was so offensive, making it uncomfortable to enter/exit the car. It feels like reaching over running boards on SUVs. I disliked this so much that I did not even asked for a test drive. |
|
|
I think testing these kind of products with a MT is irrelevant for a vast majority of the people and the results will only be meaningful to a very thin slice of the car buying public. 90% of the car buying public, will not even consider a MT equipped vehicle and the number becomes even more rare, when it comes to the luxury segment. Why then keep on testing and posting results from vehicles equipped with an MT ? This is one of the few valid tests that has appeared in a while. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
I don't know why Edmunds and other road test publications continue to use the term "slushbox" for automatic transmissions. That was certainly an appropriate moniker for Buick's Dynaflow when introduced for 1948, but it doesn't apply now and hasn't for years, if not decades. Virtually every car available today is only a small tick slower, if that, with a conventional (non-CVT) automatic than with a manual transmission and then only, I would argue, when a manual transmission is "speed shifted" and not shifted the way most people do in day-to-day driving; when operated normally, an automatic car definitely will get to 60 faster than than the same car with a manual transmission. BTW, I'm not saying this as someone who only drives automatic cars. I've driven my current car 67,000 miles and have shifted it no telling how many thousand times and I frequently have the car behind me nearly run into my back bumper each time I pause to shift. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've been stuck for hours in a hurricane evacuation traffic jam in a stick shift car. You become thankful the very few times the traffic moves fast enough for you to creep along in 1st without having to keep the clutch engaged.
|
|
|
Replying to: aaykay (Nov 05, 2007 11:38 am) The title of the comparison is "2007/2008 SPORT Sedans". Not "sporty" sedans; not "luxury" sedans. I agree that less than 10% of the general public may be a candidate for buying a serious sport sedan equiped with a manual transmission. But, for goodness sakes, if you are going to compare SPORTS sedans, compare the REAL sport versions of each model, not the castrated ones. Let that 90% pick their favorite based upon color, techno toys or whatever else turns them on. But let me and other enthusiasts see which sport sedan does best, without one hand tied and one leg tied behind its back. By the way, 97% of the public can't drive well enough to exploit the difference between a standard 3 series and a sport package equiped one, either, but Edmunds thought it appropraite to put that in. Like I said, appears to be a case of unmedicated bipolar disorder.
|
|
|
Replying to: rustyshepherd (Nov 05, 2007 12:33 pm) Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 05, 2007 12:44 pm) 97% of the public can't drive well enough to exploit the difference between a standard 3 series and a sport package equiped one, either Heck, I don't need a SP to pass 99% of the drivers, even in Porches and 'Vettes...some of those owners just parade around. I am sure they are conservative investors as well. Since were venting, why the heck didn't they compare AWD-Handicapped Castro-Sedan's? That's what I want to compare...all of the candidates in the article have an AWD variant. It's just not fair, I tell you...just not fair! What's up with that? I'm going on strike with the Writer's Guild!!  Regards, OW |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Article Comments - Comparison Test: 2007-2008 Sport Sedans
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Cadillac CTS
2010 BMW 3 Series
2008 Infiniti G35
1991 Mercedes-Benz 350-Class
2010 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
