Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1910121415222

Comments

  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    liked the DC300, hemi and all, and its design was quite nice, I do feel cramped in the car because it seems, real or not, that the door sills are higher, with less window glass exposed, so I feel like I am sitting in the bed of the newer Ford F150, with higher sidewalls...

    If the door sill was lower, I may never have bought my 04 Crown Vic, as the Hemi was tempting, but I just felt like the car was swallowing me...same with, of course, the Magnum, Charger, etc...
  • cdmuilecdmuile Posts: 152
    The 300C was one of the cars I drove before buying the Azera. Gillis(sp?) did a marvelous job with the styling. So distinctive and aggressive looking. It drove like a dream thanks to MB underpinnings. This was the first American made car I've looked at since 1984! ( bought a Dodge 600 convertible with the Mitsubishi 2.6 V6).

    I traded a Jag S Type on the Azera and really wanted a fwd car this time because of our nasty Iowa winters. There were just a number of little things with the 300 that tilted me to the Azzie: The tortoise shell interior pieces, the fit and finish in the trunk area and the Conti tires. My dealer said these tires were the only option.

    Glad you like the 300. It's a handsome car. Nice to see Chrysler back in the thick of things. I couldn't be happier with the Azera....such a quality car. We'll see what I think after 30,000 miles.
  • cdmulie, I also was impressed with the 300C, had one when they first came out as a rental, it was loaded and I put about 450 miles on in two days. VEry nice.

    We bought the Azera because the lower rooflines on many cars (Charger, 300, Camry, etc.) made ingress/egress painiful for my wife, as she has a neck injury. The Azera doors cut into the roof higher than others. There is also less of a "closed-in" feel than the 300/Charger.

    We are very pleased with handling, ride and performance of the Azera, we'll see about durability as the years go by
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    no, the 300 is a perfect fit in this discussion, sticker price and price paid are 2 different things and a number of these cars (you'd be hard pressed to keep any optioned Avalon for example below $30k drive out) will get well over the $30k.
    IMO, and I did drive your car before I actually bought my Avalon, the 3.5 is probably the engine to buy - much better FE and apparently better reliability. And despite its size and partly because of the RWD, it doesn't drive nearly as big as it is. Although none of the cars discussed here really qualify as any sort of 'sports sedan', the 300 comes the closest.
    The deal killers for me: what I thought to be lower general interior fit/finish and option levels, lower FE and not quite as good in drivetrain refinement, and the styling - obviously a completely subjective judgement but definitely different!
    In any case, happy to hear that there are some happy 300 owners out there!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The Cadillac CTS is under 30K - it should be on the list above(the set of blue links at the top of the discussion page).

    Also add the Crown Vic - it's definately large and under 30K.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I've mentioned the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis before also and would agree they are relevant here. However, the CTS is not a "large" car by any means. I would bet it's dimensions are the same or smaller than a Camry/Accord. The CTS belongs in a discussion with the Acura TL, BMW 3, Lesus IS, and Lincoln Zephyr.

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

  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Thank you very much...

    plekto, let's face it, your beloved CTS belongs in the same group as the 3er, TL, C-class, G and the "so-called" souped up Carolla - IS.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Then at least put the Crown Vic/Marquis in.

    Cars Direct(fairly average price)
    2006 Net Cost(Including delivery): $21,431. ($3000 in rebate)
    I've seen even higher rebates from time to time, plus on a 2006, there's always a way to get them to drop the selling price a few thousand compared to the 2007 next to it.

    $20K out the door? That's a lot of car for the money.

    BUT CHECK THIS OUT.
    This is the Grand Marquis Ultimate - fully loaded with every option I could put on it.
    Cars Direct:
    Net Cost: $24,832. Leather, moonroof, dual exhaust, full size spare tire, chrome wheels, all the bling and such. Even the trunk organizer and side airbags.

    Kind of a no-brainer compared to a stock Crown Vic. The $6000 in rebate kind of helps some. Heh. $22,268 otherwise.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...but the styling is so lacking, boring and oh so bland. Besides, where's the thrill in looking like you're driving a police cruiser???

    I would actually have leaned more towards comparing the Buick Lucerne with the Azera, however...to get the performance of the Azera, you would have to get the Lucerne with the Northstar V-8! Other than that, the Lucerne has been put together very nicely!

    Just so you know...I'm an owner of a '06 Azera with just over 21K miles on it. Loving every minute (and mile) of it!!! ;)
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The Marquis isn't a "cop car". It's the non-fleet model with chrome, alloy wheels, two-tone paint(optional), and all sorts of features that make it a proper car.

    And they sell virtually none to fleets or for government use. So that helps resale quite a bit. BTW, the GM 3.6 engine can be had in the La Crosse CXS. The Lucerne CXS is a whole other animal thanks to the Cadillac suspension they put in it. But it's $35K new. Used it's a great car for about $25K.(one year old - imagine what two more years will do).(grin)
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Were probably off topic here, but, the Grand Marquis has probably the worst resale value of any car on the road. My grandfather bought a fully loaded Ultimate (34K+ new) for 20K. It was less than a year old with 10K miles without a scratch from a local Linc/Merc dealer.

    Also the cop car reference isn't far off, how many people would see a Grand Marq and call it a Crown Vic?

    All this being said, I do enjoy driving the Grand Marquis something about the "big boat" ride and handling. Of course when I get back in my '06 Avalon I do prefer it.

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

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Just a side note.. starting to see a lot of Dodge Chargers as police cruisers too.

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    The Marquis is the non-fleet model, luxury version of a "cop car"...still as blah and uninspiring as the Crown Vic.

    The 3.6 engine (240 hp) in the La Crosse CXS still doesn't compare to the Azera's 3.8 (263 hp). Not to mention...the bells and whistles that come with the Azera. The LaCrosse is ALMOST a viable option, but falls down with the 500. However, the 500 will be seeing an upgraded engine to give it more respectable power. While very roomy, the interior just doesn't make me want to be in it.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    The police are starting to wise up! LOL The Crown Vic has served them well over the decades it's been used. It's time to retire it and move on. The Charger is a very smart choice for police use!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The 3.6 is an amazing engine as it has VVT that actually works properly. Please stop worshiping HP. It's not important once you get over about 200 unless the car is a bloated pig and needs more.

    Why? Because HP is basically top-end speed. And with 80-85mph being the fastest anyone will ever drive in the U.S.(passing), it's worthless. Just like the top two gears in a Corvette are.

    Torque is what matters. How much grunt it has to make quick changes and respond to your inputs. A whiny little 4-cylinder like in the Civic that has to be flogged because it has no torque gets its butt kicked when you put it against a V6. Upping the HP by tweaking the compression and changing the gearing won't do anything in normal driving if it still has no mass behind it.

    The Civic Del Sol was a perfect example. Same engine - just tweaked differently. 120HP or 160HP - it still drove the same because the torque was virtually identical. They should have dropped a small supercharger or turbo on it instead. Like Mercedes did in the C230K(great car, btw)

    The GM 3.6 does exactly what Honda does, but it's tweaked to run opposite. That is, instead of giving power when it hits high speeds(VTec), it is made to compensate for the slushy low-end. And it works. - 1600-1800 RPM and you've got almost all of your available torque. Plus, it's diesel-flat. The Azera's 3.8 has this as well, but it's crude and unrefined.

    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/hyundai/azera/100673112/specs.html

    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/buick/lacrosse/100569954/specs.html

    A few things I see.
    - despite being a bit smaller, the Hyundai weighs *more* than the Buick(?)
    - The GM has *maximum* HP at 2000 rpm. Not 4500 like the Hyundai. Hyundai takes time to wind up. The GM is instant.
    - Hyundai has 5 speeds, though that's not really good when you think about it. More shifting instead of USING that power to do the work for you. Bet it's more money to replace as well. I'm not buying this more speeds=better argument. How fast do you need to go, really?
    - Hyundai has a full-size spare. Gotta give them credit for that. (it's a pet peeve of mine)
    - Buick has an air filter, which is a nice touch. Living here in L.A, it's nice to have.
    - Hyundai has a better stock stereo(no MP3 - shame GM!)
    They look prety simmilar on paper otherwise.

    http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB60HYC101B0&restor- - e=false
    $23,461 For the Hyundai

    http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91020&acode=USB60BUC081C0&restor- - e=false
    $29,014* for the Buick. Note - this includes three options to make it a fair comparison. It says $2000 less(27K on the site, but anyone would opt for the 0% for 60 month financing instead.

    After factoring in a good finance rate (7%) on the Hyundai, it's about the same price in the end. But the GM engine is the real gem. Pay Buick prices and get a Cadillac CTS engine thrown in for pretty much free.

    Gotta give Hyundai credit, though, for making an awesome Camry V6/Accord equalizer(and the Base La Crosse as well).

    ****
    Oh - yes, the Marquis is bland. Heh. But a fully loaded one costs $24K NEW.(2006 model). That's why tjc's grandfather got the deal he did - because the same model with 30 miles on it was $4K more. $17,044 for the base model via Cars Direct - which is a pretty good deal if you ask me.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Ahhhhh...yes, but you fail to leave out is the manual shift mode the Azera has that makes a world of difference when shifting.

    As you stated above, HP doesn't matter until you get over 200 HP, the Azera has 263 HP. Granted it's heavier, but it's also a "luxury" car. So therefore, torque isn't an issue here. In the end, it will depend on what type of driving you do. Personally, the Azera has plenty of ooommph and can jump off the line if you know what you're doing.

    Yeah...the Marquis is a pretty good deal if you're lookin for something your grandmother would be proud of! LOL

    Once again, bang for the buck...Azera wins hands down!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    What I said was that HP doesn't matter once you GET over 200. Not "UNTIL".

    Anything over 200HP is wasted due to our archaic and woefully slow speed limits. What is more important isn't HP, but torque.

    Granted it's heavier, but it's also a "luxury" car. So therefore, torque isn't an issue here.
    Probably about the stupidest statement I've heard all week here at Edmunds. If you have a heavy car, torque is what you need to move it quickly.

    Let's see - 2 seconds to get from 30 to 45mph without flogging it versus 1 second... nothing... oh you want me to downshift... 2-3 seconds to wind up and get you there. The Azera feels suspiciously like the GM 3.8(3800) that way.

    Now, that's not to say it's not a good step. Hyundai making an engine that competes with a GM workhorse is a major sign that they are evolving into a decent brand, finally. And giving most of the other imports bad dreams at night as well. :P But it's not the same as the Cadillac CTS engine they're stuffing into the CXS.(for way less money, too)

    Note - the CTS has it tweaked for higher-end torque. The CXS is set for low-end over top-end HP and actually drives better than the CTS in daily traffic. Sure, you lose 15-20HP, but you drop your maximum torque to 2/3 the rpms. Buick did a good job figuring it out. Now if they'd just replace the 3800 with this...
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    In my opinion, the 3.8 V6 in the Lucerne, for example, is out-dated and very inadequate for the class, V8, however, makes up for it, but suffers in other trade-offs.

    Here is what Edmunds had to say about the Azera and the Lucerne:


    This front-wheel-drive Hyundai is also plenty quick. Equipped with variable intake valve timing, the Azera's all-aluminum, DOHC, 3.8-liter V6 provides 263 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 255 pound-feet of torque at 4,500 rpm. This translates to more than enough thrust for passing and merging maneuvers, and the five-speed automatic transmission upshifts smoothly under full throttle. Downshifts are prompt, too, though there's slight hesitation if you jump on the accelerator abruptly in traffic.


    Our test car posted a swift 7.2-second 0-60-mph time and a 15.5-second quarter-mile, right in line with the numbers we've gotten out of the Avalon, which has a 268-hp, 3.5-liter V6. Interestingly, the Azera is also a half-second quicker to 60 than a V8-equipped Buick Lucerne, which we tested the same day.

    In addition, the Azera's brakes are excellent. Pedal feel is progressive during normal driving. Although effort levels increase markedly during full ABS stops and the car's front end droops, it's hard to argue with the results: 60 to zero in 118 feet.

    http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109613/pageNumber=1?s- - ynpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2007/hyundai/azera/100800758/roadt- - estarticle.html&articleId=109613
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    You missed the entire point, though.

    Any engine will post decent times if flogged to an inch of its redline, with high HP engines doing well.

    But in and around town, you never have the combination of gearing and torque in most engines to actually make it useable.

    263HP at 6000 rpm(redline) 255ft-lb at 4500rpm - that's useless in city driving as the gearing is going to be -= what? 50mph you shift into 3rd gear if you have the thing floored? And you must have it floored or the computer takes over at the *slightest* let-off on the pedal and upshifts.

    In simple terms, let's use the GM 3.8L as an example, since I know this engine well - for over 20 years in fact. The output is lower in HP, but the RPMs it maxxes out in both are simmilar to the Hyundai.

    Heavy throttle/floored:
    1st gear - maximum 30mph.
    2nd gear - maximum 50mph
    3rd gear - maximum 90mph
    4th gear - maximum 140+(in theory)

    Light/driving around town pedal:
    1st gear - shifts at 10mph
    2nd gear - shifts at 25mph
    3rd gear - shifts at 35mph
    4th gear(overdrive) - drops into it at 40mph the second you let off the gas to about 1/4 throttle or less.

    The maximum HP and torque at these speeds is only about 1/2 to 2/3 of maximum, ever. Now, you could punch it, but all that gets you is a downshift after a pause of about a second and then if you really want to use that power... oops, - you're going faster than city traffic will allow and still in 2nd gear. You let off even a milimeter and boom - it upshifts a gear or two instantly. Lug Lug Lug. Power all gone.

    Oh - and the testers manually shift the automatics in the tests. Almost every single time to override this behavior in fact.

    The problem is an engine design that has to rev like a 4 cylinder engine to get that power coupled with tall gearing to get good gas mileage. And so in city driving the thing is a total slug or a total rocket. It drives like an old Muscle-car with an on/off Jekyl and Hyde throttle personality. It makes reviewers happy and the MPG counters as well, but it drives like a toad. Only a manual transmission with you overriding the computer(s) will save you. Or shifting it manually if it lets you(some cars only have a "D")

    But the GM VVT develops maximum torque at 2000rpm. That's about 1/4 throttle from idle or even overdrive. It does the opposite. You get full power the second you want it and then it lets off nicely.(V8 diesel flat)

    Go drive one. I have. The Hyundai is "okay" in traffic but is slow to do roll-ons and transitions and getting going after you slow to take a corner and so on - like the GM 3.8, the Honda V6, and the Toyota V6. The CVVT and the V8 - roll in and roll right back out without a blip. Less gears, faster delivery of the power it has.
  • floridabob1floridabob1 Posts: 1,190
    RE;354
    If you guys bought the or are considering buying the Azera for racing or fuel consumption, you are buying the wrong car.
  • Plekto,

    Actually, the Lucerne with the 3.8 will stay in 2nd until almost 90 and in 3rd until it hits the electronically limited speed of 107. The digital readout will tell you when you are being limited. Pretty cool.

    People who say this car with the 3.8 is underpowered do not know what they are talking about. If you drive it like an old lady then sure, it will be slow. But it has plenty of power when you get on it. I have even pulled a few trailers with it and it did just fine.

    No one talks about the leveling rear air suspension. It is great to have a car that can be loaded and NOT ride on the rubber shock bumpers, bumping down the road like most loaded cars do.

    What about the GM Oil Life system, that when actually used in accordance with the instructions from GM, only requires oil changes about every 10K miles? That is a huge money saver. Besides, the oil still looks new at 3K miles so the 3.8 must run really clean, hence the longer oil change intervals.

    I have had 12 brand new cars including Honda, Mazda, Hyundai, and a lot of GM products and the Lucerne is my favorite by far. I have had mine for 10 months and I already have 35,000 miles on it. I drive a lot and I can appreciate a quality automobile. The Lucerne is it.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I know that the 3.8 has power - it's a very nice engine. But unless you mate it to a manual or shift the automatic manually - and then flog it - running in 2nd gear 80%+ of the time - it's a dated slug of an engine.

    And then it's mated to one of the world's most pathetic preforming (though very reliable) transmissions.

    The 3.6VVT is a much better engine for that 4-speed transmission that GM has been using for nearly 20 years.

    IIRC, one of the Pontiac models has a manual gearbox and the 3.8/3.9 engine. And it's a blast to drive.
  • My 05 maxima behaves better than 2007 V6 Camry I test drove. You get lots of torque just above 3k rpm. I wish it was lower, but still better than Honda's V6 in accord where it simply doesn't move until 5K in RPM.
    my second car 94 Buick Park Avenue Ultra is a perfect example of torque from an American car. Press Gas and a car moves you even @ a low 2k rpm. If not for its weight 3900 lb, it can beat even 05 maxima 3500 lb.
    In my opinion 04+ maxima behaves like an American car, though on a diet.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    I've owned my Impala SS for 11 mos now and am obviously completely familiar with it's behavior. A lot of the off-track discussion got into low-end torque vs. high-end horsepower.

    My sister owns an '06 Impala LT with the 3.9L V-6. While it's still a VERY powerful engine, it's still very noticeable as to how much difference there is in starting power between her car and mine. While I understand comparing her engine to mine is apples to oranges, the torque numbers don't know how many cylinders are used to create them nor does the rest of the car (mine is much heavier BTW) know. What I (and anyone else riding along) know is that the extra low-end torque makes driving around town much less "busy". It also makes a huge difference when you have well over 800 lbs of flesh in the seats and accelerate (uphill) onto a 70 mph interstate highway. My brother-in-law (who drives her car as much as she does) was amazed by the difference.

    Again, I realize this is not a fair comparison but it does speak to the value of having lots of torque at your disposal. Those high rpm hp numbers look impressive on paper but they don't always translate to usable power on the road.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Because HP is basically top-end speed
    MULARKEY - and I think you know it, HP is acceleration - The mathematical relationship is: HP=(torque x rpm)/5252. The important component of this formula to understand is 'RPM'.
    Torque is a quantifable measurement of instanteous twisting force available at any given engine at any given engine speed and obviously is an important part of how a car drives. An electric motor, for example, has its maximum torque available at 0 RPM.
    Referencing the formula above HP is torque applied over time. You can have all the torque in the world (let's say a diesel, or a pushrod engine, or a big V8) but if the engine doesn't rev quickly, HP must be limited and so is acceleration. It is HP/lb of vehicle wght. that will give you an accurate idea of how well a vehicle can accelerate - NOT ft/lbs per lb. I recently drove a ML320CDI diesel (200hp/400 ft lbs.) and even at 4500 lbs. I'll guarantee you that it is quicker off the line than my 3600lb 270hp/250 ft lb. Avalon - BUT, 0-60 or quarter mile not close - why because that OHC engine revs so much more freely and quickly and my HP/lb. is much better. And then you can go drive a example at the other extreme, the extremely quick S2000 with 240 HP and ONLY 160 ft lbs.torque all available well above 6000 rpm. By your contentions, that 2800lbs ought not be able to even move with that kind of limited torque, but wrong, once you hit about 6k rpm the thing becomes a rocket - peak HP doesn't hit until nearly 8000 rpm. At something about 12 lbs. per HP it should run in the 5s 0-60, which it can. A very demanding car to drive smoothly and quickly BTW, as it should be and an absolutely astonishing normally aspirated engine.
    But you are right about ONE thing, that being that these new engines with VVT (or even better CVVT) do serve to widen out those torque curves in these OHC engines that, by definition will rev more quickly and produce more HP. It is about time that GM has figured out how to use some of this technology instead of foisting all these pushrod marvels on the unsuspecting American autobuyer. I can't believe that GM can 'sell' the 3.6 to Suzuki (in the Vitara), and then only put it in the the 'black circled' LaCrosse/CTS, leaving the 3.4, 3.5s, and 3.8s etc. throughout the rest of their products. Makes no sense!
  • [b]The mathematical relationship is: HP=(torque x rpm)/5252. The important component of this formula to understand is 'RPM'.[/b]

    You're missing what he's saying. And that is, many/most torque curves (torque vs rpm) aren't very flat. Ideally, you want a graph of HP vs rpm to be a straight (increasing) line, and not one that is concave up. The car just drives better that way.
  • I was quoted $8,600 off of list price on the last 2006 Grand Marquis my local Lincoln/Mercury dealer had in stock. It's tempting, but my 2002 has literally never been to the mechanic for more than routine service. I've tried to get my wife to go for it, but she wants to spend more money to get some modern, stylish crackerbox car to carry our kids around.

    I've owned two of them in a row - a 94, and then a 2002, and both of them at once because I liked the old one so much. I got rid of the 94 in 2005, not because there was anything wrong with it (well, valve stem seals let the engine burn some oil), but because the wife got tired of me owning two of them at once. Literally everything still worked properly on the vehicle, though I did do new front ball joints 118,000 miles, and I had put new coils, wires, and a starter in it before that point.

    My mechanic loves it because he said it is one of the few "real" cars still being sold today. My 2002 at 60,000 miles is due for it's first front brake job, and first tranny fluid and filter replacement - still has the original tires. Also a great car for shadetree mechanics - easy to work on for those with lower mechanical skills.

    The Grand Marquis has no street cred because they aren't flashy, and they don't change enough for journalists to write about. Ford hates them because they last too long, which is why they are trying to push you into a Montego - how much did Ford spend to design an inferior product? Sure, it looks better on paper, but come see me with it when it is ten years old and throwing CV joints, engine mounts, etc. - no thanks.

    They are also great for rush hour traffic because people always let you over - probably because they think you are 80 years old and blind :P
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Well, the Marquis IS a very overbuilt car. It's like buying a Topkick to run around town in.(heh - a few people do so I hear) - it's so overbuilt for commercial/fleet use that the average driver with more low-key driving habits won't wear anything out for a decade or more.

    Now, about the torque/HP discussion.
    I know all of that - it's just that in plain terms, the way most engines are made today, HP translates into top-end speed and highway acceleration. The engines are peaky, like the S2000. You said that once it hits 6000rpm... Well, it's a toad at 2000-3000 around town.

    Power at RPMs that are silly high, mated to a silly tall gear set - makes for fantastic numbers and highway mileage, but translates into nothing useable.

    A Buick LaCrosse with the 3.8L engine develops *advertized* power and torque at speeds in excess of 90mph - in third gear. That's verging on bald-faced lying to us, as no consumer will ever see more than 2/3 of that "power" in actual use. Some won't do much better than 1/2.

    But the 3.6 GM has - does the opposite. It runs like a turbo-diesel. Very flat and low torque curve, which means you get maximum power behind your acceleration and it holds it there nicely. You'd think that after more than 100 years of designing engines for cars that they'd have figured out how to make an engine like this. Wel,l they have, actually, just that everyone worships HP in the U.S. - like computer power. Gotta have that extra 20HP - despite the fact that outside of a track, you'll never see it.

    P.S. It's lb-ft.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    nope, fully understand what he is saying - and almost all these new OHC designs will be relatively torque deficient - and those precious torque curves, all the cars in this group will deliver at least 75% of the rated torque between 2000 to somewhere about the 4500 rpm maximum rating. If you really want a 'wild' torque curve then drive that S2000 I was talking about, or about anything with a turbo 4 banger. GMs little 3.6 is no different in that respect, given that it does have some capacity to flatten that curve with valve timing changes - just like all the rest of the cars in this group. And it may be 'Detroit's' best engine right now (my apologies to the V8 fanatics) - which only underlines how generally 'behind' those other engines are.
    But, if you really want a flat and accessible torque curve, drive a diesel and then, wonder why the thing simply doesn't accelerate. It doesn't because the engine is slow to gain speed (rpms), and therefore HP - the best indicator of any vehicles ability to get out of its own way. A lot of accessible torque really does help a car's drivability, but is worthless without an engine that can spin fast enough to take advantage of it!
    This is the catch - as a general rule, engines with a lot of torque (created by things like compression ratios, rotating mass, displacement, long strokes etc) are the same ones that are more reticient to gain engine speed...
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The GM 3.6 develops *maxiumm* torque at 2000rpm. Find me another V6 anywhere that comes even close to this low.

    *quote*
    all the cars in this group will deliver at least 75% of the rated torque between 2000 to somewhere about the 4500 rpm maximum rating
    ***
    How about 75% at 1500 and 100% at 2000. That's an entire WORLD of difference. Where most other engines start, this one ends up. That mean that even in gentle city driving, it's already putting out over 200lb-ft of torque. That's a silly amount, really - like a diesel. just it's not slow like a diesel, given the nearly 6000rpm redline.

    Go test-drive one. Pound on it and notice how quickly it responds. How litte effort it takes to make quick transitions, even with arguably one of the most "old person's" automatics on the planet hooked up to it.
Sign In or Register to comment.