Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1107108110112113222

Comments

  • The 3.6L has a higher max output in its top form with DI(the CTS, STS; 300 + hp I think?) than the current Northstar (291 hp?).

    Unfortunately, there is no extra capacity for the 3.6L, so they have to use other engines that are less competitive.

    Ford faced a similar problem with their new, competitive, 3.5L engine. All the vehicles that would benefit from it can't necessarily get it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    would guess that the 4.6L Northstar could be pushed well past 400 hp with nothing more than some reengineering of the valvetrains, some direct injection etc - in short some of these new technologies. Kind of the same thing that Toyota is doing with the 2GR. Turbo/supercharging always a possibility as well with some obvious internal fortification and probably at the expense of long term longevity. Don't know that we really want 400hp in any FWD sedan, however.
  • Well, a supercharged, slightly smaller version of the Northstar (4.4L) is capable of 469 horsies in some Caddy cars!

    With what GM is willing to do with it to satisfy Big Brother the Bean Counter, is another story.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yep, I guess the UAW is doing their best to squeeze blood out of a turnip - whilst we speak. Anybody remember PATCO?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,197
    I really doubt the transmission is near that cost, especially if not at a dealership. That transmission is everywhere and it's four-speed not the 5- or 6-speeds that do run up cost in some car lines.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,197
    >uses more expensive fuel,

    It uses regular... :blush:
  • batistabatista Posts: 159
    yep would imagine even the base 300C would have trouble keeping up with a G8 "GXP", it is projected to be closer to the SRT8 variant - Niagara Falls in the intake manifold as well. maybe 14 mpg overall downhill. Well maybe they can try the inevitable 'variable displacement' gimmick - not available on the 400hp SRT8.

    The SRT8 has 425HP not 400 and not sure why you say "Niagara Falls" for the GM 6.0L V8? If its a leaker like the GM pushrod (3.1,3.4,3.8) V6's I haven't heard anything.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    "Don't know that we really want 400hp in any FWD sedan, however."

    No, but I think that Toyota could pull off the 30 or so extra ponies from the IS's version of the 2GR. That would be sweet in the Avalon Touring for '09!

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    "yep would imagine even the base 300C would have trouble keeping up with a G8 "GXP", it is projected to be closer to the SRT8 variant - Niagara Falls in the intake manifold as well. maybe 14 mpg overall downhill. Well maybe they can try the inevitable 'variable displacement' gimmick - not available on the 400hp SRT8."

    In this age of gas prices rising and concern for the environment, here we are again.... and I love it! Our 300C has about all wifey and I need, but that SRT8 or that G8 sound nice! :blush:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    now that would be as simple as putting the FSE variant out of the IS350 in it, wouldn't it. One thing that won't change though, as 'un-Avalon-like' as the Touring model may be - there is really nothing that could be done to it that could turn it into a 'sports sedan' too much weight up front along with the drive wheels. As a Touring owner, it does seem to strike a better balance, but will still ultimately 'plow' and scrub off speed when pushed. Nissan has been attempting this for years, was never really successful in any Maxima or Altima before finally coming to the same conclusion in a pair of really fine RWD Infinitis.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    'Niagara Falls in the Carb' an expression left over from the
    days of high volume Holley carbs, Edelbrock manifolds, on big block V8s. 5 or 6 mpg might have been good in those days but,of course, gas was .20/gal and had lead in it - just showing my age. :blush:
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Exactly, if the Av can handle a bit more HP without torque steer I am all for it. I figure only offer that engine on the Touring because at least it is a little tighter. You mention the Infinitis... love the "M" just not the price.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    i think torque steer is as much a design issue as it is a HP issue - had a 92 Maxima, 190 hp if I remember right, and it could be a handful. my wife's Altima at 240hp, not nearly as much, despite being a bunch quicker. My Av, of course, despite being the fastest of the bunch, no torque steer even with the tighter suspension. maybe has to do with half shaft geometries and/or electronic throttle control (like in the TL-S) don't know - but really can't imagine needing a car with more power - despite my firm conviction that the 'excess' power is one thing that makes my Avalon a safer car than it might otherwise be.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Almost every FWD cars will have torque steer, just more or less. My old 140HP Honda Accord also has torque steer. The best way to see if a car has torque steer is to:

    1. Point the car straight
    2. Release your hands from the steering wheel
    3. Step hard (in hard I meant really step on it instantly, not gradually, like you are going to crush a can)

    If there are any movement in the steering wheel then the car has torque steer. Repeat those steps in a RWD car then you'll see the difference.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    yes, louis, the law of physics do dictate that all FWD cars must exhibit some torque steer (even 140hp ones), my point really was is that it can be 'masked' to some degree by changing the half shaft angles relative to the front wheel centerlines, momentary delay/limits in the transmission of full torque to those wheels etc. RWD cars do have their own set of disadvantages as well (primarily on slick roads) but will remain the definitive choice for any vehicle that has 'sporting' pretensions -if for no other reason than the more equal weight distributions that usually come with RWD setups.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Yes, Captain, I know that there are ways to minimize the torque steer but usually those don't work as well as advertised.

    When the Acura TL-S came out packing 280+ HP in a FWD setup, Acura promised through some technique that the torque steer has been limited almost to none. Due to the curiosity I went to test drive the TL-S. My first hand experience showed that the torque steer is far from almost to none but it is not as bad as one would think with a 280+ HP FWD car.

    However, I don't think to drop the 2GR-FSE in the Avalon will be too difficult though, since Toyota already offers the TRD Aurion (A 330HP Camry) in Australia. The only down side is the driver will have to live with some excessive torque steer.

    image

    image
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    not a bad looking vehicle - the TL-S, FWIU, electronically limits throttle application when the electronic steering 'tells' the computer that the wheels aren't straight. A somewhat contradictory condition in what is supposed to be a 'sports sedan' IMO. The new CVT Nissans effectively limit throttle application and correspondently 'select' an appropriate gear ratio ( kind of the difference you would feel in TS starting out in 2nd as opposed to 1st with a manual trans) both of which have apparently 'eliminated' the TS. Driving a new Altima recently it is much much better than that the 03 model my wife drives, with 30 more hp. They also apparently 'lowered' the engine relative to the front wheels making for a less severe angle for the CV joints - something that is also supposed to help.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I wouldn't mind giving that vehicle a spin! I don't think Toyota would ever introduce a Camry that wild in the states. The SE is about as "wild" as they get. Even that isn't much firmer than a LE or XLE.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • smithedsmithed Posts: 444
    Why is Toyota conservative in the US? :shades:
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I believe they try to appeal to the masses. Many people want a quiet, smooth riding car. None of their models push the enveolope in terms of handling. I am on my third Yota and can testify to that. Even though they are competitive in terms of power, the comfortable ride and conservative looks are their strong suit. It must be working. I wouldn't mind an all out sport version of the Camry or Avalon but how many would they sell? Heck, you don't even see that many Camry SEs or Avalon Touring. Neither of which are that much stiffer (and no more powerful) than the non sport models. Looks wise the Avalon touring offers nothing more than a spoiler to differentiate itself from other models. At least the Camry SE has a different grill and a body kit.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Best way to overcome all those problems is just make a AWD version, then you won't have those issues.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    not necessarily. AWD systems that are FWD biased - the Ford Taurus/500/Volvo an example - do nothing to correct the inherent problems created by weight imbalances. 60% (or more) of the car's weight is still over the front (drive)wheels. Under 'normal' circumstances the vast majority of power (90% or even more) is thru the front wheels anyway making it effectively a FWD car in any case. The only time some portion (maybe 50%) makes it to the rear wheels is in the event of loss of traction at the front - a very rare occurrance in day-to-day driving although a real possibility in really bad road conditions where AWD would obviously help. IMPO, AWD systems implemented in this manner offer very little more than another way to waste gas and doesn't necessarily do anything to improve a car's handling - you need a relatively balanced (50-50) vehicle along with a well designed suspension for that- FWD, RWD or AWD. There are exceptions, of course, but many currently available AWD systems are largely a gimmick and a waste of money - and that, of course, is this writer's opinion.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Actually almost half (or at least 1/3) of the Camrys I saw here in So Cal are SE models and at least 2/3 of the SEs I saw are V6.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    That is where they must all be then. Here in Jersey I see probably 10 mixed varieties before seeing an SE. Even my local dealer never has them.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I never really thought of it in those terms before. I guess with the AWD performance vehicles...the weight is probably more evenly distributed.

    I believe that AWD systems can be useful...if used correctly. I think that all vehicles should have a button that allows the driver to turn it off or on as the need presents itself. In all my years of driving here in the DC metro area, there hasn't been any snowfall that I haven't been able to get through with a FWD vehicle...safely.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    didn't really say that they couldn't be useful did I? More like it was of negligible value in the context of this latest turn of this thread - torque steer. But to take this a step further:
    FWD drive vehicles (I think )are agreed to offer superior traction (Over RWD)on bad roads if only because that 60%+ of your Azera's wght, for example, is over the drive wheels. Given that your Azera (or my Avalon) drives just fine on most snow covered/icy roads, exactly how many times per year do you have to drive in those conditions that are too bad to handle? Well, unless you live in Northern NE, upstate NY, and/or the mountain states (in terms of population densities very liKely you don't) the number of times annually that the vast majority of us could ever need these AWD/4wd systems is certainly a number that can be counted on one hand annually ( or maybe even never).
    Remember a discussion with a gentleman from NYC, he contended he had to have his AWD for that one good 10 inch snowstorm every year because he couldn't get out of his apparently partially underground parking garage. This kind of thing strikes me rather ridiculous to spend the extra money on the AWD - not to mention donating a bunch more money at thw gas pumps - why, to get out of a garage once a year!.
    Auto marketing mavens seem to understand that the American car buyer doesn't seem to know that these systems have very limited real life usefulness and will buy anything that can even be construed to improve 'safety'. To those folks that do live in northern NH (Subaru is the car of choice up there for a reason) and several other locations I can think of where AWD (or even better 4wd) is really needed, I apologize - but 95% of us don't need it, rarely if ever use it and, unfortunately for us, we buy it anyway.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    Agree with you Captain2. I drive in a lot of snow here in the Midwest. All I've every owned have been front wheel drive cars and I get around just fine. You can probably make a better case for AWD in the mountains or rural areas, but for the most part they're just a waste of money for most drivers.
  • And here I am driving a RWD Chrysler 300 during icy Alberta winters without any problems (on the original crappy tires none the less!). Come first snow 80% of cars in the ditches will be SUVs and AWD vehicles again - same story every year. People forget that just because one can accelerate faster in those vehicles doesn't mean one can stop any sooner than the next guy.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    "but 95% of us don't need it"

    That is why when I was shopping for my mother's Highlander it was FWD only. FWD combined with the extra ground clearance will make it go through anything we get here in Jersey.

    IMO AWD is just another gimmick among car makers. Especially the FWD biased versions like on the TaurHundred.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • Sorry, FWD guys. Last winter on several occasions I borrowed my MIL Rav4 4wd. I was never stuck and easily found parking in areas, where others left them, unable to get in. In addition , unlike in many other cars RAV's 4wd is on demand and doesn't work over 25 mph so there no assumption of invincibility of driving this vehicle in bad weather.
    I do agree that ground clearance is very important. I remember hitting a rock, that other cars went over without any issues. Low clearance is the price that you pay for getting a performance sedan.
    My opinion of AWD is same as for VDC. If you need it once in your life time it will not hurt you much. Even though I used it(VDC) only once in my Maxima, it saved me. Cost of the option(few hundred) vs thousands in repairs and higher insurance fees. AWD should be optional for all vehicles and let the buyer decide if he needs it.
Sign In or Register to comment.