Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

harlequin1971 · March 2004

too right...too funny...but too right.

I hated riding in the car with my last girlfriend, an inferiating mix of bad driving skills and wishy-washy lane changes drove me mad.

"right lane is open"

"lights going yellow, speed up."

"we need to get ahead this guy to get into that lane..."

I think she hated having my ride along as much as I did. I have settled in a bit, but I am still very impatient on the roads...wish I could make red lights turn green, and could bump slow junkers off the road when they block my lanes...

shipo · March 2004

All of the numbers that have been posted here regarding how well the 530i stops have been for the 2004 E60 version. My 530i is a 2002 vintage, and while both cars are of a similar weight, there is one potentially significant difference, tires. The E60, Sport Package or otherwise, comes equipped with "Run-Flat" tires, while mine is equipped with good old fashioned performance tires that will go flat if punctured. So, what's my point? So far anyway, everything that I have read regarding the handling and braking capabilities of the new Run-Flat tires has been less that complementary. Does that mean that my 2002 SP equipped 530i will brake shorter than a 2004 similarly equipped? I don't really know, but my guess is yes.

Best Regards,
Shipo

blueguydotcom · March 2004

LOL. I agree. Actually what drives me nuts are the cats who are in the middle lane and they'll move to the fast lane at 65-70 when nobody is in front of them!

Now I've gotta switch lanes and dodge around el moron who will all too frequently flash his lights at me. Yes, I'm the big jerk because I'm going faster than he is and he cut me off. Sigh...

And most of my family and friends drive as if they're afraid of their cars. Squirt out a kid and suddenly they turn into Stepford Drivers.

johnny420 · March 2004

I agree. Actually what drives me nuts are the cats who are in the middle lane and they'll move to the fast lane at 65-70 when nobody is in front of them!

Lane squatters. Indeed, the bane of modern American roads.

Squirt out a kid and suddenly they turn into Stepford Drivers.

ROFLMAO! Sad but true.

Cheers,
Johnny

danny1878 · March 2004

G35 auto from various sources
C&D sept 2002 7.1 secs
AW Oct 2002 7.0 secs
MT Jan 2003 6.51 secs
CR July 2003 6.8 secs

gtg now

jrock65 · March 2004

G35 Sedan Auto:

MT Oct-02 0-60, 5.80
CR Jul-03 0-60, 6.80
MT Jan-03 0-60, 6.51
C&D Oct-02 0-60, 7.10
AW Oct-02 0-60, 6.90
MT Aug-02 0-60, 6.21
R&T Jul-02 0-60, 6.20
PS Jul-02 0-60, 6.20
C&D May-02 0-60, 6.20

*Note: The AW Sep-02 figure is an estimate.

G35 Sedan Manual:

MT Aug-03 0-60, 5.78
CD Oct-03 0-60, 5.90
CD Mar-04 0-60, 6.30

chrisboth · March 2004

DAnny never gives out the good numbers the 3 6.2 say alot to me. The 6MT is about a 5.8-6.0

chrisboth · March 2004

Any sub 7 0-60 for a 330i? Whats the best auto TL times.

gpwatfrd · March 2004

I would like to join the crowd when it comes to turning into a child behind the wheel. I constantly hear words like... SLOW DOWN, or when I am behind someone doing speed limit in the fast lane DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT!

That 5 mile trip to the gym on Saturday morning for me is priceless... No Wife No back seat driver.ahhhhhh.......

gpwatfrd · March 2004

I have never seen 0-60 numbers for the G35coupe auto in the 7 sec range. Most magazines I have read have the car somewhere between 5.7-6.2 I will take another look when I am home.

jrock65 · March 2004

G35 Coupe Auto:

MT Jul-02 0-60, s. 5.90

G35 Coupe Manual:

AW Jul-03 0-60, s. 5.78
C&D Feb-03 0-60, s. 6.00
MT Jan-03 0-60, s. 5.83
AUTO Nov-02 0-60, s. 6.00
MT Nov-02 0-60, s. 5.80
C&D Nov-02 0-60, s. 5.60
R&T Nov-02 0-60, s. 6.10

riez · March 2004

Not sure what the obsession is with 0-60 mph times. An interesting number. Same for any single piece of data. But a car is more than data points. It is about the total package. That includes performance, maintenance, ownership costs, reliability, fun factor, etc. A car is about how the parts work together as a whole not how the parts are looked at individually.

For 0-60 mph fans, read the fine print in each source for how they do their test. The mags use different methods. And keep in mind that some magazines adjust the times for temperature and other conditions while other publications publish the actual realized figure. [I much prefer the uncorrected numbers.]

I much prefer C&D's 5-60 mph street start number. A much more realistic number for the vast majority of drivers. My tires are too precious to waste on 3K drop smoking rubber maximum acceleration launches. And my clutch and tranny are even more precious than the tires!

pg48477 · March 2004

That is why you have to look at all stats, not just 0-60 or 5-60. I think mags should adjust numbers, you can't compare stats taken on different tracks or in different weather conditions. If they don't play with numbers to much, I think it's the right way to go.

jrock65 · March 2004

OT, but I bet your "Near Luxury Performance Sedan" doesn't do this:

http://home.comcast.net/~themichaelsmith/VWHiRes.mpg

danny1878 · March 2004

Car and Driver comparison on March 2004 for G35 and TL.

G35 2004 Sedan 3.5 V-6/6M
0-60 6.30 secs.
1/4 Mile 14.60 secs

Noise level
Idle, dBA 39.00
Full Throttle, dBA 76.00
70 mph Cruising, dBA 69.00

Braking and Skidpad
70-0 Braking, ft. 164.00
Skidpad, g. 0.90

Acura TL 2004 3.2 V-6/6M
0-60 5.80 secs.
1/4 Mile 14.50 secs.

Noise level
Idle, dBA 41.00
Full Throttle, dBA 73.00
70 mph Cruising, dBA 67.00

Braking and Skidpad
70-0 Braking, ft. 160.00
Skidpad, g. 0.89

C&D Dec-2000
BMW 2001 330i 3.0 I-6/5M
0-60 6.10 secs.
1/4 Mile 14.80 secs.

Noise level
Idle, dBA 41.00
Full Throttle, dBA 77.00
70 mph Cruising, dBA 72.00

Braking and Skidpad
70-0 Braking, ft. 168.00
Skidpad, g. 0.83

I know this comparison is biased but at least I am trying to show that TL 70-0 and skidpad are not bad.

cornellpremed · March 2004

"Having said all of that, I have been reading here that there are certain cars of a similar price and size with bigger (if not substantially bigger) motors that are "superior" vehicles for the money. Uh-huh, right. I suppose anybody can throw a big engine in any given car and proclaim it superior to other similar cars with smaller engines, and I suppose to their way of thinking, it is. To my way of thinking, that's the easy part, and that it's the rest of the package that makes the "Upgraded" car truly superior. Would a CTS-V for instance, have acquitted itself as perfectly as my 530i did in the above situation? Unknown, but I suspect that the CTS-V is likely to have a much greater front end weight bias, and as such would not have been able to perform the lane change and the deceleration without hitting the individual on the bike after his ill advised maneuver."

Let me setup a scenario: You go to the track to race somebody in a CTS-V, or even - say - a Pontiac GTO. After they smoke you, you get out - fuming mad - and shout: "Well, my car has more horsepower per liter! That's all that counts. That's what makes my engine superior. They cheated! They have more displacement".

Sound absurd to you? Well, that's what your argument amounts to. This is a miserable debate - born out of lies and advertising propaganda - that repeats itself each hour of the day all over car forums on the internet, by people who overpaid for imports (with engines that the dealers said is superior to anything made in America) and then end up getting owned by folks driving cars with "old-tech" OHV engines.

A couple of clowns who write for auto publications have decreed that it's better to produce additional power by revving at higher RPM's than it is by increasing displacement. Why? Because they said so. Because they have English degrees (and no science training) from 3rd rate universities to back it up. That's why. And anyone who challenges this orthodoxy is labelled a luddite.

I suppose for you old dudes, it's kind of like Vietnam. "They lied to us man, they lied to us!!!" =]

Now the 2004 BMW 530 isn't a bad car, but it is overpriced. And it looks like a Honda from the rear. And if you think it's any performance match for the CTS-V, then I'm afraid you smoked too much of that green stuff back in the jungles of 'Nam.

First of all, I'd like to point out that the Euros would make more high displacement engines if they could. "There's no replacement for displacement". In their home markets, they have moronic laws that tax based on engine displacement. That's why they shift development dollars to those high revving buzzboxes. When displacment is limited, and you're making a 6 or 8 cyllinder engine, you'll get more power out of DOHC, even though OHV has a higher power density (which I will explain in a minute).

Second, displacement tells you NOTHING about an engines actual size. Repeat after me kiddies: displacement tells you NOTHING about an engines actual size. GM's LS6, for example, is smaller than Nissan's 3.5L VQ (a V6 engine). OHV engines have more compact packaging than DOHC's. That's why the LS6 has such high power density, unmatched by anything that BMW has got.

Third, the LS6 also produces power in a more fuel efficient manner than BMW's M5 and M3 engines. It's smaller, more fuel efficient, and more powerful. I fail to see what - if any - the redeeming aspects of BMW's M engines are. And keep in mind, I'm talking about the M engines. Your 530 engine isn't even in this league.

Finally, I don't know where you got the impression that your 530 can outhandle a CTS-V. The CTS-V smoked the BMW M5 and M3 on the Nurburgring. It's fast in 0-60, and it's no slouch in 60-0 thanks to the 14 inch Brembos.

For that matter, I doubt your 530 could keep up with the plain old 3.6L 255HP CTS that sells well equipped for ~$35,000.

shipo · March 2004

I think that you need to take a "Chill-Pill" and look at the absurdity of some of your own arguements. If I wanted to drag race, I certainly wouldn't have bought a 530i family sedan. I wouldn't have bought a CTS-V either. In fact, I wouldn't have bought anything currently available on the new car market. What would I have done? I would have built my own.

Best Regards,
Shipo

pat · March 2004

Hey folks, maybe this would be a good time to get back to the "near" luxury performance sedans we've been talking about. I think we were in general agreement that the CTS-V and even the 5-Series are not in this category.

Thanks!

pg48477 · March 2004

CTS-V has some impressive number, but it's a cheap build car for 50K. I am not a big fan of BMW, but you can't even compare M3 and M5 to CTS-V., cadillac is even less reliable than BMW. Everything except the engine is junk in CTS-V. If you want to talk about race track, WRX sti with 2.5L will smoke both CTS-V and GTO.

cornellpremed · March 2004

"cadillac is even less reliable than BMW."

Not according to JD Power. In the 2003 Vehicle Dependability Study, Cadillac cleaned BMW's clock:

http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050bfull.gif

In the 2003 Initial Quality Study, the Cadillac CTS has 88 problems per 100 vehicles, which is better than any car made in Europe, and beaten by only a handful of Toyota products and 2 Chevrolets when compared to *all* cars sold in America.

http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003028dfull.gif

The Subaru WRX is a noisy little buzzbox with a cramped interior and an uncomfortable ride. It is most definitely not any kind of luxury car. It's an econobox that's been pushed to the max. I suppose some people (like those who actually liked that movie "Fast and Furious") might go for such a thing, but I wouldn't want to be caught dead in one.

shipo · March 2004

Sorry gang, it's time for me to come clean. I know absolutely nothing about cars, engines, driving or anything else for that matter. After all, I'm only a 12 year old plebe and my greatest aspiration is to drive my Dad's old 1970 Chevy Vega, complete with "2-Speed Slip and Slide Power Glide". When I grow up, maybe I'll check back in and see how things are going. :-/

Hasta Luego,
Shipo

pg48477 · March 2004

Well according to much more respected source, CR, Cadillac is much less reliable than BMW, and it's getting worse with age of the vehicles. See link below:

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?FO- - - - LDER%3C%3Efolder_id=402631&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=389451&- - - - bmUID=1078916491036

As for WRX, you right it is noisy little box, but so as CTS-V. Cheap leather and name cadillac dont make a car luxury and quite. Oh ye WRX cost 15K less.

Wait for new M5, and than we'll talk

I am not trying to diss American Automakers, but it is well knowen fact that Japanese and European performance vehicles way better than American and Korean. May be with time Kia and GM will build something to talk about, but not yet, not yet:)

kahunah · March 2004

Mr. Cornell is just a proud owner of a "plain old 3.6L 255HP CTS" which pretty much explains why he has his shorts in a knot. LOL

kdshapiro · March 2004

Isn't the LS6 a "dog" of an engine? The stats on the LS6 according to GMs website are not very impressive for a 5.7L engine, which BTW is the displacement. I guess the "6" in LS6 is due to the fact it is almost 6 liters.

So yes when you compare the LS6 with the new BMW V10, which is a 5L liter engine and BMW is claiming 0-60 in 3.9. You really get to see why the LS6 is superior to anything out there and makes more with it's displacment than anything else out there.

pg48477 · March 2004

Argument is not about history or about engine, it's about total package. I can give you that, LS6 is a good engine, I don't know if it's better than new M5 engine, but it's good.

There is lots more to the performance than engine and American manufacturers can't figure it out.

One more thing LS6 is heavier than BMW V10.

speedracer3 · March 2004

For all I know the LS6 could be the best engine in the world if it were not surrounded by poor quality construction and cheapeast GM plastic. No thanks!. I'll pass.

cornellpremed · March 2004

"There is lots more to the performance than engine and American manufacturers can't figure it out."

It seems to me like they have figured it out. The CTS-V (8:19) beat the BMW M5 (8:20 fastest recorded) on the Nurburgring.

pg48477 · March 2004

You right about quality and cheap plastic.

Premed, Question rises, have you ever driven CTS-V, or you just looking at one C&R review? Because if you are, C&D is not very reliable source. According to C&D M3 roadholding g is .83 and 325 (with all season tires) roadholding g is .89. If you ask me dose not make any sense.

dhanley · March 2004

A lot of american car buffs get extremely upset about foreign car buffs claining this stat is incredibly impressive, or whatever.

Frankly, i don't hear the argument being made that hp/l is very important. Now, hp/engine size, and hp/weight, yes. Those have impacts on handling, maintainability, car design, and safety.

Now, personally, i think smaller higher-revving engines are more "fun" to drive, assuming that the power's still there. I truly, honestly, feel that big, OHV engines don't give as much feedback, and don't sound as good. But i don't understand this whole idea of racing people and getting upset if you "lose." On my bicycle, i might care, but that car isn't "me."

pg48477 · March 2004

Once again, size of the engine does not make car perform better, or be better quality. Why is that BMW's with big engines have perfect balance and CTS-V(with small perfect engine) does not?

European and espacialy Japanese car makers spend tones of money on research and development of new engines wheelbase and so on. LS6 is been around for years, with minor modifications, that's why it's cheap.

kdshapiro · March 2004

What does the size of the engine in the engine compartment have to do with 0-60? A 2.5L EVO/Sti can dust an CTSV or anything else (although admittedly the luxo factor is not there). It's about engineering not engine size in the engine compartment.

kahunah · March 2004

...the Europeans put a big engine into a small car.

"The Audi S4 is in every way leaps and bounds ahead of the CTS-V. Sure, the CTS-V has more horsepower, but its not just horsepower that counts. The CTS-V is, to put it bluntly, crude. Its NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) is sub-par, thanks to the almost bobble head-ish action of the gear shifter.

Not to mention, the CTS has a difficult time handling the 400 hp produced by its 5.7L V-8. The S4, on the other hand, seems to handle the added power of its 4.2L V-8 with grace and precision. Theres no vibration from the steering wheel or shifter, and the sound from the exhaust is not overwhelming.

All in all, Audi has managed to provide the power and refinement of an engine normally found in big-ticket cars in a refined and much more affordable package, proving it does take more than slapping a big engine in a small car to make our list." -- WardsAuto.com [Top 10 Best Engines]

pg48477 · March 2004

Talking about big displacement, many people I know including my self, would rather drive small 2.7 turbo than big 4.2 V8.

mariner7 · March 2004

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0403/15/a01-91961.htm

Article displays market shares in 01 and 03 for premium brands in California.

One: Infiniti gains the most ground, followed by BMW. It passes Caddy, Lincoln, Volvo & Audi, and closing in on Acura.

Two: Acura is the only one to lose ground.

Third: It doesn't have MB, but I'm sure it's among the top 3.

kahunah · March 2004

You must keep in mind that these results do not take into account the now record breaking sales of the 2004 Acura TL or any other 2004 Acura vehicle.

danny1878 · March 2004

Well, we might have to wait until 2005 to see that.

chavis10 · March 2004

They (Wards) seemed very biased toward the S4. I wouldn't really classify a 4.2L V-8 as a "big" engine. When Benz puts the 5.4L V-8 into the C class(C55 AMG), you can call that a big engine. Plus, they seemed to omit the fact that the S4 is AWD and produces only 302 lbs-ft as opposed to 390 in the CTS-V. I don't get why people still bring up the hp/l arguement. Who cares how much the enigne displaces as long as it's producing acceptable power and torque while delivering resonable fuel economy. MB's naturally aspirated AMG V-8 is only putting out about 350 hp out of 5.4L and I never heard a complaint. Torque is what some people crave. Some people like high revs. That doesn't make either approach better or worse.

kahunah · March 2004

However, few will argue that the CTS-V needs to be much more refined and precise overall, before it can seriously complete with the foreigns. Cramming 400 horses down its throat, just isn't going to cut it.

bxd20 · March 2004

S4, M5, CTS-V... not in this thread?? Although I will say in my final post about the $50k+ class, that the S4 is not as accomodating to its passengers nor comfortable in its ride as the CTS-V. Yes I speak from experience, my friend has an S4. Wonderful car, rides on rails, but you really feel the road. They're different flavors of the same car. If you want the most extreme grip and acceleration you go Audi. If you're willing to sacrifice a tenth or two to gain some comfort and economy you go Caddy. I seriously doubt that anyone will cross shop the next M5 with these two beauties, there's just too much of a price gap. Law of diminishing returns anyone? ;-)

Brian

riez · March 2004

That is the problem with this board, the basic definitions are unspecified. What is "near"? And how do you weight luxury vs performance? Does the $25,000 TSX qualify? The $40,000 330i with Perf Pkg (ZHP)? A fully loaded $41,000 TL A-spec? A $42,500 stripped 525i with just Sport Pkg? [At least we are dealing with sedans and not coupes, tourings, or convertibles.]

msdannyj · March 2004

I really have no vested interest in this argument but to call the WRX or STI a buzzbox is an utter lack of understanding of performance sedans. The Ford Focus SVT and Dodge SRT-4 and the like are cheap buzzboxes. WRX and STi are in a class by themselves. They are reliable, can handle off-road, highway and all-weather with ease. True, cadillac has come a long way in quality but comparing it to the M series is utter nonsense.

kahunah · March 2004

You got that right! The class is called UGLY. 1000 hp, 0-60 in 5 microseconds? Who cares! I wouldn't be caught dead driving these monstrosities.

95gt · March 2004

Obviously you are not the person they are going after. They are incredible cars in their own rights but really have no place in this discussion as there is nothing close to luxury about them. They are toys and great toys at that but not luxury/sport cars.

designman · March 2004

If TL and G35 belong here, so does STi. Doesn't price determine luxury/near-luxury status?

At their nearly identical prices, TL and G35 have more luxury, STi has more performance.

A base 911 is a toy and has zero luxury unless you consider 70 grand in the luxury category. I do. Moral of the story: performance is a luxury.

By the way, STi isn't ugly, it's chimpanzee-cute. Bangle designs are officially ugly.

chrisboth · March 2004

"If TL and G35 belong here, so does STi. Doesn't price determine luxury/near-luxury status?"

How about luxury and rigidity. The STi is nice to drive and have fun but not a Grown Up car for those more mature folks (not me of course) who take folks to dinner and want a quiet ride when not putting thier foot in it. The small economy size of the STI alone means it will be crossed with the civics and neons. PRice comparisons may be there but that is all.

kahunah · March 2004

"By the way, STi isn't ugly, it's chimpanzee-cute. Bangle designs are officially ugly."

Ok. I'll give you that.

95gt - "Obviously you are not the person they are going after."

Yes. I admit that and I'm grateful.

qbrozen · March 2004

performance can be construed as a luxury, but just because a car performs does not make it a luxury car.

You can get navigation in the Mazda3. That's a luxury feature. But does it make it a luxury car? of course not.

The STi offers nothing luxurious other than its performance. Therefore it doesn't belong here. If they want to put in power leather seats, navigation, much more sound deadening material, etc, etc, then we'll talk.

95gt · March 2004

Exactly. A price point can't be the only factor, though it has to be taken into consideration. I mean there are 4 door pickup trucks that probably fall into this category on the price.

STI is a sports car. The fact that it has 4 doors is just a bonus.

designman · March 2004

If you throw STi out of here then boot G35 also as everyone seems to agree with regard its cheap interior. There's nothing "luxurious" about lack of quality.

And if you call STi a sports car you have to call BMW 3-series, IS300. etc sports cars. I don't think so.

I wonder if paying 20 mil for a ride in the space shuttle would be considered a luxury. You bet it is. No plush leather and wood trim in those babies, plus... a major inconvenience during potty time. But what you get for the dough is great 0-60 times, great lap times, weightlessness and an incredible view.

I'll say it again. Performance is luxury.

jrock65 · March 2004

The WRX certainly has enough "performance", but I'm not sure it's luxurious enough to be considered "near-luxury".

However, a loaded 2005 Legacy looks like it'll fit the bill under this category.

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles