Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1194195197199200222

Comments

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    That's the sadist side of me! :D

    It is how I ended up in my Azera though. Took the Sonata in to get the spark plugs done, alignment and transmission flush and fill. Saw the Azera on the showroom floor and that's all she wrote! :shades:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Surprised your wife lets you take the car in for service anymore!
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Well...she is dreading the release of the Genesis. However, I have told her the hardest thing right now is that I don't want to give up a car that's paid for and still under warranty for a new car that would come along with a car note. Besides, I think I'll wait and see if they bring the Genesis out with AWD. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    My dad this from a 90 Accord LX... went for an oil change, came home in a 92 "Rosewood Brown" EX Accord. He hadn't signed anything, but told mom "if you want it, let's get it."

    They bought it that day. My aunt did the same with her '97 CR-V EX to her '00 Odyssey EX. I was with her at the time, and showed her the cool "new" power doors on the Odyssey. She bought her gold EX Odyssey that day.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    a coupla good examples why that despite plans many folks have 'to keep a car until the wheels fall off' that they don't, and why statistics show instead things like 4 year trade outs - even excluding the influence of the shorter time frames involved in leasing.
    Would guess that a dealer salesperson assigned just to follow folks around that happen to be at the service dept. would do quite well for him/herself. Aaah, the allure of things that are shiny!
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Would guess that a dealer salesperson assigned just to follow folks around that happen to be at the service dept

    I have read in "stories from the sales frontlines" that some the sales people do in fact walk the service lane to see if any of their customers are there. It makes perfect sense, you don't always think of a new car when yours is running perfect and not costing you money.

    even excluding the influence of the shorter time frames involved in leasing

    I absolutely love leasing. I know many people disagree with it, but the fact that I can get into a new vehicle every three years is great. I never put brakes, tires, tranny flushes etc, or have to worry about selling or trading in a car. Considering I only put 10K a year on it just works for me.

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Your situation is the perfect reason someone would want to lease as opposed to buying a car.

    With the mileage I put on a car :blush: , leasing would never be an option for me.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    Yeah, if I was ever to change jobs and have a long commute I guess I would have to change my thinking.

    Its hard to believe I am in the last year with my Avalon. If I had to pick my next one now I would say its a toss up between the new Max and Genesis. Both will be readily available by the time I am ready to lease my next one. However, if neither impresses me I don't know what to do. Decisions, decisions... I guess I could always get another Avalon, but then thats six years with basically the same car, unacceptable!

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Well...6 years in the same car would just mean you really like that car! ;)

    As it stands, the longest I've been in one car is 4 years. My desire is to stay in my Azera for longer than that. We'll see.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I absolutely love leasing. I know many people disagree with it
    sure does keep your monthly out-of-pocket to a minimum. As you drive 10k/year it obviously can work for you - I drive closer to 25k - and although I can get a lease written for that - it quickly becomes too expensive. Have always thought that these 'program cars' coming off leases should be a good deal as well, low mileage and usually very well maintained simply because of the constraints within the lease itself.
    Interestingly TCO numbers on a purchase and lease costs tend to run together - cars that happen to have high resale values (and lower TCOs) also tend to be less expensive to lease.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    always thought that these 'program cars' coming off leases should be a good deal as well

    We actually have a place up here in Jersey called "Auto Lenders" that only sells off lease vehicles it buys from the banks. I don't know if they are in other parts of the country or not.

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

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    would just mean you really like that car

    Believe me I do! Whatever I look at must have similar power and FE. There is no going back!

    P.S. better stay away from the dealer when the Genesis arrives... you know you want one :)

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Well...if you look at it from that perspective, then being in the same car for 6 years actually IS acceptable! ;)

    Oh...I DEFINITELY plan on taking one for a test spin. I do want one, but right now the voice of reason and logic is heavy in my ear. Now...should I get an early promotion at the job...that could very well change! :D
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I think leasing has proven to be of great benefit to those manufacturers of premium cars - effectively allowing many to lease cars they otherwise couldn't afford to purchase. It is kinda amusing though, all those BMWs that 'belong' to some twenty something year old owner, that couldn't afford the grand a month or so it would take to buy one - but don't have nearly the problem with a $500 lease payment.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Not sure if it's available elsewhere, but here in the DC area...there are some places with 12 year financing options when it comes to some vehicles that are rather pricey. The scary thing is...there's a lot of folks taking that option. Personally, I couldn't want a vehicle that bad that I would sign something saying I'll pay on it for 12 years!!!
  • mjolnirmjolnir Posts: 2
    The Cadillac DTS with the Northstar has 16% more torque than an ES350, 7% more than a GS350, 19% more than an Avalon Limited, 15% more than an Azera Limited, 19% more than an Accord EX, 14% more than an Altima 3.5 SL, 15% more than an Acura RL, 10% more than a G35, and 17% more than a Maxima.

    I think it's fair to say that except for a few high-end Euros like the 335, XF, and E Class the Northstar in the DTS has "gobs" more torque than most import V6 sedans.

    It may not compete with the V8s, but it handles the sixes just fine.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    12 years? Now that makes no sense. If the average car loses 20-25% (or more) of its value in its first year then you (and the lender) are 'upside down' on that loan pretty much as soon as you drive it off the lot - unless of course there is a horrendously large down payment . It's not so much that the cars can't last the 12 years, its more to the point of what the car is conceivably worth vs. what is owed on it during the course of the loan - or FTM what the insurance co will pay you for the car after it is totalled. Can't believe anybody would do this - on automobiles.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Torque certainly has to do with engine size and type - my point was that the engine types are ostensibly no different between say the Northstar and that 2GR in the ES350 you mention. Not only that - the Northstar is about 30% larger so it also produces a lot LESS torque per unit of engine volume not to mention that it also needs the same higher engine speeds to do it as those V6s.
    As far as V8s go it does not produce 'gobs of torque' simply because it is of the same DOHC design as those V6s. Not to diss the Northstar because it is likely one of the best V8s that 'Detroit' has ever produced - but if it is stump pulling torque you want then let's make the engine even bigger, add some pushrods, increase that 'stroke'. etc. and that will then get you that max torque down where you want it - all at the expense of FE which is where the even the Northstar doesn't handle the sixes 'just fine'.
    If GM can ever get around to replacing that tired old 3.8 in the Lucerne with their more contemporary and efficient HF3.6 there will be no reason for the Northstar anymore - especially in these days of $4 gas.
  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    If you factor in all the extra weight that additional torque in the DTS/Northstar must pull around, I think you'll find that the maximum torque per pound is no better than the V6 powered autos cited. The DTS weighs over 4000 pounds, while the V6 powered cars are 400-500 pounds lighter.
    Since the Northstar in the DTS does not have CVVT, like the V6s do, the torque spread is not as wide either.
    A railroad locomotive has " gobs " of torque, too, but lacks the ability to change speeds quickly.
  • rpfingstenrpfingsten Posts: 154
    Gentlemen: I don't profess to understand all that googlygook about engines and torque when comparing the northstar to the 6 banger in the avalon. But I can tell you this. A few years back I had a Deville with the Northstar. Never used anything in it except Mobil 1 Synthetic, never ran anything in the fuel tank except premium and never had it up over 80 mph. In other words, it was pampered. One day I jump in it to go to work and when I fire her up she starts vibrating and shaking like crazy. After the engine would run for about 4 or 5 minutes, it would smooth out. Took it to the Caddy dealer who told me it would take 3500 bucks to fix it. Thats when I traded her in on my 07 Avy. And I've got to tell you, the power plant in the Avy feels just as responsive if not more ( due to less weight ) than the Northstar. Also someone mentioned the 3.8 in the Lucerne. Had that same engine in an Oldsmobile Regency Elite. That's a tried and true engine that Gm employs, but at 197 hp, it needs to go. Around here on flat hiways it was fine, but whenever we would go up thru the hills of the ozarks, that poor engine was straining on just about every uphill climb.

    Roland
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    but don't have nearly the problem with a $500 lease payment

    What is really funny is when they lease them, blow the miles allowed then end up buying out the lease and financing the residual for 5 more years. Imagine 8 years paying for a car? Oh, and BTW that 12 year thing Allmet mentioned, you would have to be on something :confuse:

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

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    the power plant in the Avy feels just as responsive if not more ( due to less weight ) than the Northstar

    All one has to do is go and drive a Lucerne V8 and an Avalon back to back. The difference becomes apparent right away. While the Lucerne is a very nice driving car the Northstar does not spool up like the Toyota 2GR and the Avalon feels noticably quicker. As has been noted the Northstar is a great engine, but isn't it already outclassed by GMs own 3.6 direct injection V6?

    That's a tried and true engine that Gm employs, but at 197 hp, it needs to go

    That's an understatement. However, if it does anything for GM it keeps the reliability ratings up.

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

  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Trust me...I'm with you on this one. I mean...the fact that you're paying for a car for 12 years seems ridiculous by itself. However, stretching it over 12 years would make the terms and payments more like a typical 5 year loan on an average $30-40K vehicle. I think it's only available for vehicles above the $55K range. The only thing that could save you in the event of an accident...gap insurance.

    I couldn't believe it either, but it does exist and there are plenty of folks that will go to that length just to have a premium vehicle. Just to be able to say they drive one. I'm sorry, I can't do that to myself. :sick:
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    Hey Captain...remember how you said Hyundai was wrong for employing the use of comparisons to premium sedans in their commercials and we went back and forth about it?

    Have you seen the latest Lucerne commercial? They mention that it has more room than the ES350 and then it goes on to say, if you want to beat a Lexus, there's room for that too! LMAO (I'm sorry...I had to interject that one). The sad thing here is that in order for the Lucerne to "beat" the ES350, it would have to do so in V-8 trim. Now THAT...is sick!!!
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    give me a break - of course the ES is smaller than a Lucerne, it is an optioned out Camry - Buick is comparing apples and oranges and conveniently forgets about their own Lacrosse that can be had with the better V6 incidentally. And no the ES is not in the same class as the other Lexus products. In fact, I would imagine that the ES's very existence is viewed with some disdain by those folks that spent the extra money on a 'proper' Lexus - things like the ISs/GSs/LSs. Had Buick been trying to compare that Lucerne more properly with the LS, or FTM if Toyota was trying to compare an Avalon to the LS then I have the same problem with that that I have with Hyundai comparing the Sonata to a 5 series, or a non-existent Genesis to something more than that.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    if it does anything for GM it keeps the reliability ratings up
    actually I believe it is the Northstar equipped Lucernes doing better reliability wise than those wheezy 50 year old V6 models.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    RIGHT! Thus I had to interject the LMAO in that posting. Not only comparing the whole interior space thing, but the nerve to say the Lucerne can beat the ES. What they aren't saying is that it would take the V-8 variant to "beat" the ES with a V-6. Go with the V-6 variant of the Lucerne and the ES would stomp all over it! ;)
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    the Northstar equipped Lucernes doing better reliability wise

    That is weird. If anything the 3.8 4 speed combo was always great in the relability department.

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

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    don't profess to understand all that googlygook about engines and torque
    this is kind of simple -if I may. Torque is an actual measurement of 'twisting force' or power - and it is indeed what you feel in the seat of your pants when you hit the accelerator. HP is torque applied over a period of time and is a direct indicator of a car's ability to do useful things -like accelerate.

    The mathematical relationship between the two is: HP=(torque*rpm)/5252.

    Therefore as engine speed increases so does the HP, and likewise if a particular engine is slower to increase its rpms it is also slower to increase HP, or if an engine is rpm limited the HP it produces will be less. This is why a diesel car will usually feel quicker then it actually is - you start with very high torque at a comparatively low rpm but the engine is not only rpm limited but it is also slow to increase them.
    Things that will generally make for an engine with lots of torque include engine size and type - the more cylinders and/or cubic inches the better, compression ratios -turbo and/or supercharging, and engine geometry (longer piston stroke = more torque), all among other things. Truckers all worship torque for obvious reasons - it is what gets that 30 ton+ trailer moving, and they are too terribly concerned with the fact that it might take a few minutes to get up to highway speeds. As big torquey engines apply to cars we drive every day, it is exactly as pletko says, a lot of torque accessible in lower rpm ranges will generally make for a more driveable car - the difference now is that we are starting to see engines like the CVVTi 2GR Toyota engine is that now we can 'program' the engine (by continuously varying, intake/exhaust valve and spark timings) to maximum efficiency and get that same accessible torque in an engine that revs more freely (think HP). Not to mention the added benefit of having less displacement and fewer cylinders to feed (think FE) Kinda the best of both worlds - smaller and more efficient engine, max engine torque still available at usable levels, all leading to cars this days that are cat quick, producing unheard of FE levels relative to performance.
  • alexstorealexstore Posts: 264
    nice review.

    one thing that is missing is DI.
Sign In or Register to comment.