Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1161162164166167333

Comments

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    "GM does have the right pieces"

    I agree, they just can't seem to get them all together in the right vehicle. Enclave triplets aside.

    I think the G8 is really suposed to be a "performance" vehicle I guess that is why Pontiac is getting it first.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    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.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    $30K and standard on the CXL... You'd see it dominate its segment.
    WHY- the Northstar has really nothing to recommend it(other than being a better choice than the 3.8 - uses more fuel, uses more expensive fuel, and still yields a slower ride than several of the V6 engined cars in this group - the Avalon, Maxima, the Azera, Kia , the Taurus (?) etc. and some of these vehicles well under that 30k
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Not buying that model model for economy thats for sure. Speaking of economy got to stretch the legs of my Avalon this weekend. 300 mile round trip 80 - 85 and averaged 28.8 with A/C running the whole time. This included a one hour traffic jam crossing the bridge back to Jersey and some city driving. Not too bad, probably would have hit 30 if I wasn't a lead foot.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    that's pretty darn good, I would anticipate 25 or 26 out of mine, throwing in that traffic jam ;)
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Surprised me too, the trip down was what did it 150 miles of flat highway only a slowup at the toll booths.

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

  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,733
    Why? Because there is a large segment of our population that's older and wants a big lazy high torque engine in a large car. Having to wring the crud out of a Toyota V6 to get it to make its maximum torque.

    4800+RPM is moot when we're talking 2000-2500rpm around tow. Not to mention 4800rpm in an Avalon is what - 50mph in 2nd gear? It may be rated for 250+HP, but you're lucky if you get 150hp around town with normal driving. That's why a big V8 is exactly what people want in a big car.

    And, there's a lot of people what equate luxury with a V8. Witness how almost every Cadillac is seen as a joke unless it offers a V8. Or a SUV. Yep - has to offer a V8. BMW and Mercedes also know this and offer a V8 option, as does Lexus now. It has to have loads of low end torque and say "I'm so wealthy who cares what my mileage is?"
  • The thing with the Northstar is that it isn't a high-torque, low-end grunt of an engine. To get to its potential, you need to wring some revs out of it. Max torque comes around 4,500 RPM IIRC, not far from the Avalon's peak torque RPM number. The old 3800 gets max torque before 4k RPM.

    The 4.6L gets 275 hp at 5,200 RPM. The bad part is that there are several sedans that will outrun this V8 due to lighter weight and much better gearing. Those same sedans can also get 5MPG better than this same V8, not to mention do better than the 3800!

    For example... the Lucerne weighs 3764 lbs and has a 4-speed transmission, getting 15 MPG city. The Avalon weighs 3495 lbs, has a 6-speed transmission, and gets 19 MPG city, all while being within 7 horsies of the 1.1 liter larger Buick V8.

    The 197 hp 4-sp Lucerne gets 16/25; the 260 hp 6-sp Taurus gets 18/28; the 268 hp 6-sp Avalon gets 19/28.

    Let's face it, the Buick is a decent automobile. GM made the best they could with the hand the bean-counters dealt them. But they are behind in the powertrain department.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I invite you then to compare the performance figures (peak torque and HP relative to rpm) for both the Northstar and the 2GR as well as some of these other better V6s. You will find negligible difference s because the Northstar while it is bigger is NOT a 'lazy' engine at all (that distinction goes to some older design pushrod V8s), it is more similar to all these 'efficient' V6s than even you would care to admit - only less so!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The thing with the Northstar is that it isn't a high-torque, low-end grunt of an engine.
    EXACTLY and the 'sad' part of this is that the Northstar is likely the best engine out of GM in a number of years - the new 3.6 is in the running as well, in some respects representing a 'downsized' Northstar.
  • 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: 18,050
    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: 18,050
    >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.
Sign In or Register to comment.