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

What is this discussion about? Cadillac CTS, BMW 3 Series, Infiniti G35, Mercedes-Benz 350-Class, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Car Comparisons, Sedan

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)

Outline

Messages Page 40 of 49: 1; ...; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; ...; 49; Prev; Next; Last

#383 of 475 Re: A Few Observations... [drtravel] by habitat1 Dec 08, 2007 (10:53 am)
Replying to: drtravel (Dec 07, 2007 4:43 pm) The M has won many more comparos than the 5-series since it's introduction. No offense, but that statement is just plain bunk. Not only has the 5 series been dubbed the top premium sport sedan by just about every enthusaist magazine, the previous (pre-i-drive) model received the highest score ever given from, of all places, Consumer Reports. The Infiniti M engineers would collectively give their left wingnuts to have a fraction of the trophies in BMW's case. And when you look at the dramatic difference in residual values, it's pretty obvious that the M is not held in nearly as high regard as a used car: 2-3-4-5 year lease residuals from cars.com: BMW 535i: 65% - 53% - 43% - 35% Infiniti M45: 54% - 44% - 35% - 28% Nav is useless, the jury is out on the voice-control, but we both agree that the back-up camera has proven to be far more beneficial than we had thought. The relative value of gadgets is highly subjective and I respect your preference. Mine is the reverse. But we happen to have nav systems in all three of our vehicles (MDX, TL, 911), back up camara in the MDX and voice control in the MDX and TL. Certainly the back-up camara is handy when squeezing the MDX into a tight parking place. But I would never back up without checking over my shoulder as well and a camara in a car (not SUV) is, IMO, unnecessary. With navigation, I have saved countless hours rerouting around traffic jams in unfamiliar areas, been able to venture off the highways for a scenic route, and found quick routes to destinations that would have been a bear to figure out on the fly. Back when we first bought our MDX, we were returning to DC on the PA turnpike when the traffic started slowing for an accident ahead. We could see the Medivac Helicopter landing and knew we were in for a long one. To make matters worse, one of our daughters was sick. We shot off the exit and went through God's country on dirt roads that eventually took us back to the Turnpike 15 miles down from the accident in less than 45 minutes. That night, on the news, we learned that the Turnpike was closed for over 6 hours. The backroad route we took to get back to the Turnpike wasn't on the road atlas we used to carry. This summer, on a vacation to the Finger Lakes, we did 300 miles of sightseeing and wine country touring that we improvised as we went, without any fear of getting seriously lost. Five years ago, I would have been driving, my wife would have been holding a map upside down blocking part of the windshield and when we finally reached a vineyard, I would have been asking for a shot of vodka. I'm still capable of looking over my shoulder, but I'm not capable of jumping 5 miles up into the air, getting a birds eye view of a 20 mile radius and picking a new route before I land. So I'll take Nav over a back up camara. Replies to this message: drtravel (Dec 08, 2007 8:02 pm) kdshapiro (Dec 08, 2007 9:41 pm) cdnpinhead (Dec 09, 2007 4:28 pm)
#384 of 475 Hello? by pat HOST Dec 08, 2007 (5:00 pm)
There are a whole lotta off-topic vehicles floatin' around here!!
#385 of 475 Re: A Few Observations... [habitat1] by drtravel Dec 08, 2007 (8:02 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Dec 08, 2007 10:53 am) the previous (pre-i-drive) model received the highest score ever given from, of all places, Consumer Reports I have to agree with Pat that we are getting a little off-topic here. My bad, but just one last correction before I retire from this forum - the highest score ever given by Consumer Reports is for the current Lexus LS. The previous record holder was the Infiniti M35x. These scores are freely available at your current new stand. top premium sport sedan by just about every enthusaist magazine Magazine comparo results available on-line paint a different story: Motor Trend March 2005, C & D May 2005, and R & T June 2005. Happy holidays to all Replies to this message: kdshapiro (Dec 08, 2007 9:41 pm)
#386 of 475 Re: A Few Observations... [drtravel] by kdshapiro Dec 08, 2007 (9:41 pm)
Replying to: drtravel (Dec 08, 2007 8:02 pm) "My bad, but just one last correction before I retire from this forum -" And I'll give one last correction to your correction. Before CR started this score stuff, the best car they every owned, according to them, was the 530. These impressions are clearly available to the general public. Why are you citing stuff almost 3 years old? They have no relevance at this point.
#387 of 475 And this is the problem by pat HOST Dec 09, 2007 (2:37 am)
with the "one last" correction/comment, whatever. Everyone always has one more last one of 'em. Let's stop now and get back on topic - please.
#388 of 475 C350 by cbauer71 Dec 09, 2007 (8:50 am)
I find it funny when automotive writers describe a 0 - 60 time of 5.9 sec as "lazy" even when it is qualified by using "for this crowd." Give me a break. The IS350 does 0 - 60 in 5.3 sec. In the REAL WORLD, a tick over 1/2 a second difference is barely noticable, if at all. It doesn't seem like that long ago that when a car broke the 8 second to 60 mph barrier it was considered "blazing quick" or "lighting fast." I understand the standards have changed, but a .6 second differnce shouldn't be considered "lazy." Just a thought. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Dec 09, 2007 12:58 pm)
#389 of 475 Re: Real-world winners & allegiances [drtravel] by cbauer71 Dec 09, 2007 (9:23 am)
Replying to: drtravel (Nov 13, 2007 10:10 am) Take a look at this link! http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12514/2007-infiniti-g35-sport-vs-2007-bm- w-328i.html link title Replies to this message: kdshapiro (Dec 09, 2007 10:18 am)
#390 of 475 Re: Real-world winners & allegiances [cbauer71] by kdshapiro Dec 09, 2007 (10:18 am)
Replying to: cbauer71 (Dec 09, 2007 9:23 am) That was one of the more interesting comparos, bottom line is more horsepower is not necessarily better. However, these comparos are just all opinions and in the end the opinion of the buying public is what matters most.
#391 of 475 CTS weight problems by albook Dec 09, 2007 (11:59 am)
I hate in comparison tests when these vehicles are compared and the CTS is said to be overwieght compared to the others. This is a vehicle that should be compared to BMW 5's and MB E classes, and M's and GS's- not their smaller siblings. The only reason CTS is in this test is because of its low price. Replies to this message: habitat1 (Dec 09, 2007 1:10 pm) lonestar2 (Dec 09, 2007 3:34 pm) habitat1 (Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am) and 6 more...
#392 of 475 Re: C350 [cbauer71] by habitat1 Dec 09, 2007 (12:58 pm)
Replying to: cbauer71 (Dec 09, 2007 8:50 am) In the REAL WORLD, a tick over 1/2 a second difference is barely noticable, if at all. It doesn't seem like that long ago that when a car broke the 8 second to 60 mph barrier it was considered "blazing quick" or "lighting fast." I agree that performance - at least in terms of acceleration - has increased significantly over the past 25 years. My 1984 Toyota Supra, a highly regarded "sports car" was only capable of 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. That wouldn't get you noticed in a comparison of 7 passenger SUV's today. But I don't think that 0.6 seconds is "barely noticable". That's the difference between a 911S and a Boxster S, which I can tell you from 1st hand experience, is huge. If anything, the fact that all acceleration times have improved, makes 0.6 seconds, relatively speaking, a greater difference than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The fact that my old Datsun 1978 B210GX might have been 0.6 seconds quicker to 60 than a comparable Toyota Corolla was nearly imperceptible. Both would have had a tough time breaking 15 seconds. So in absolute terms, while 5.9 seconds certainly isn't slow, it will feel a lot slower than a car capable of 5.3 seconds.