Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The warning system in the Mercedes C-Class in that test was a different light from the ones we have in our cars here. Notice that the C-Class had scored a 4-star rating in the test just as all of the other cars in that class did, but because of the addition of another light that said "put on your seatbelt", the car's score was later changed to a 5 to promote more lights that say "put on your seatbelt" to be used in other cars. I'm not saying that the C does not deserve a high rating in crash tests, but its additional star over the other cars in its class is simply because it has an additional light that tells passengers to wear their seatbelts on top of the light on the dash that says to wear your seatbelt. It is not necessarily safer than the other cars because of that light, and so I do not believe that it should have gotten an entire extra star for a light.
You are also wrong about the 3.0 Jaguar engine "pushing" into the cabin in a crash before the 2.5 and 2.0 because they are the same engine blocks but the 3.0 has been drilled-out more to be larger. Also, the engines do not enter the cabins at any time in a crash because the X-TYPE is designed to "drop" its engine when it is in a severe frontal crash. Most modern cars do this. X-TYPE's engines are also mounted horizonatally, so they are not taking up a terrible amount of longitudal space in the engine bay, thus the chances of them penetrating the passenger cabin is slim in comparison to longitudally oriented engines. Again, however, the X-TYPE drops its engine when it has a severe frontal crash, so it never enters the passenger compartment no matter what engine size is used. The argument that a 2.0 FWD X-TYPE would be safer than an AWD larger displacement version is null and void, because the engine does not enter the cabin at any time during any impact.
You really should read the bottom chart of the EuroNCAP page for the X-TYPE:
http://euroncap.com/details.php3?id=car_117_2002
It specifically states that the car is: "Jaguar X-Type 2.0 LHD. Only the FWD X-TYPE is built with the 2.0-litre engine, which again is the same engine block as the 2.5 and 3.0, but not drilled-out as much. All other X-TYPEs are built in AWD configuration. The AWD driveshaft of the AWD X-TYPEs aid in collisions v. the FWD version that is sold alongside them in Europe against 318 and C180.
Mercedes-Benz decided to changed to a V6 from an I6 because they lowered the bonnet of the E-Class between those configurations and could not fit the I-6 under the lowered bonnet, as well as because it may have cost less to produce and it could be used in more vahicles as it had better packaging. That is also the reason for the discontinuation of the E300 diesel, as the diesel engine could not fit under the lowered bonnet that was used when the V6 was introduced (that and because the E300 did not sell well here). The E-Class should have been designed to drop its engine in a crash as well. I've not heard of a modern car being designed so that its engine penetrates the passenger compartment in a collision.
The fact that car engines are not designed to go into the passenger compartment is obvious, what isn't as obvious is while the X-Type is designed to, as you describe, drop it's engine and driveline components, they will always "push" into the compartment as evidenced by the Insurance Institute's listing of the crash details in which the X-Type exhibited moderate footwell intrusion, between 8 to 12 cm. The best rated C Class, on the other hand, had intrusion measures of 2 to 3 cm. Engineers are constantly trying to limit this phenomenon. While I don't doubt the driveshaft aids in crash test scores, I wasn't trying to prove one way or another, I was speculating on a possible alternative.
And while I may be wrong on the engine block of the 2.0 being different from the 2.5 and the 3.0, I am certain that the E class' hood and front fender structures were lowered as a result of the new engine's newfound underhood space, and not due to the new engines being introduced b/c of the lowered hoodline. This is evidenced by the 99 E320 having the V6 with the prefacelifted hoodline. The discontinuation of the E300 in the U.Ss WAS caused by the low demand for that particular car AND b/c of the structural change. However, that never meant that Mercedes dropped diesels from it's complete linup, in fact, Europe still has the option of a few remarkable diesel E class engines which Mercedes could have introduced here along with the redesigned 2000 E Class.
http://germancarfans.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=1698
M
M
One of the rollover accidents was an S430, and it had a mild cabin protrusion, but nothing serious. The cabin was in perfect shape basically. The other was I believe a 600SEL. This one was extremely important because even though this car had pillarless windows, the roof of the car did not cave in at all, even though the car came to a rest upside down. The guy was still in the car at the time, and he was hanging upside down, with no visual bruises, and a few minor cuts from broken glass.
The third accident was an E320 which was involved in a head on collision with a Camaro, who was racing another Camaro on a 2 lane road. I didnt see the drivers, but I saw the car as it was being towed away, and again, no cabin protrusion at all. The car was completely destroyed up to the point where the footwell started.
Im generally dont praise late model Mercedes', but I will always say glamorous things about them when it comes to safety. In my opinion, they are a few steps above volvo. They also have some of the strongest roof structures short of a 3" thick roll bar.
Unfortunately, Edmunds does a fabulous job of putting numbers to their words that later can be dug up and compared. I'm specifically looking at the entry level luxury sedan comparos - 2001 where a TL-S edged out a 330i, then 2002 where a 330i wiped the floor with the competition. The idea (and some will agree while others disagree) is that the scores tended to deliberately put BMW above the Acura.
Is this happening? Well, I decided to look at the numbers behind the comparisons to find out. Given identical cars, whereas the two were eventually matched on performance in 2001, now there is a 20 point spread between them in 2002. What, Acura got slower or BMW got faster? Given identical front seat comfort in 2001, now for 2002 BMW front seat comfort is tops while Acura's is bottom. Did the seats actually change, or did the editors of the 2002 review have smaller rumps?
Not that only Acura gets the shaft either. In 2001 BMW got a higher "feature content" rating than the TL-S. In 2002, a 330i with MORE features than the 2001 model only tied the feature content rating than a TL-S with the same features. This in spite of the fact that features the 330i lacked in 2001 (dual zone climate control, indash CD changer) were simply left off the Top 10 features list in 2002, leaving BMW as a vehicle that offers every Top 10 feature as either standard or optional.
Basically, I like the prose of the articles and take away many good things from reading them. When I look at the rankings, though, they seem to be statistically invalid; if, twelve months later, your opinions on identical seats can change that much, then how can you rank these cars based on 1% differences in the final rankings?
In one of the comparos, it was stated that the margin for error was about 0.5%, and any two cars tallying numbers within .5% of each other would be considered tied. I suggest increasing that buffer to 10% in order to account for the startling differences you find between two cars after just one year.
Until then, I'm going to stop reading into the numbers and ranking, and concentrate on the prose and photographs. We spend a great deal of effort arguing here about which sedan came in #1 and which one came in #2. If you look at the numbers used to actually rank these vehicles against each other, they fluctuate so wildly from one set of editors to another (you'd think that using a set of editors would even out the fluctuation) so as to make the ranking of these vehicles practically worthless.
Front seat comfort
2001: Acura 83, BMW 83
2002: BMW 9.2, Acura 7.6
Rear seat comfort
2001: BMW 74 Acura 70
2002: Acura 9.2 BMW 5.8
Conclusion: either BMW and Acura received total redesigns in 2002 unbeknownst to all of us, or the editor butt-o-meter does not produce repeatable results.
About seat comfort, my theory is seats are mass produce by suppliers and sometimes maybe precision of making the seats can run off track. Who knows. Probably the reason they were not as comfortable in Acura in 2002 as was in 2001. Don't know how to go about that one.
J "CaddyLac"
M
Of course, it goes both ways. Many years ago in my first ever car, a 1988 Ford Taurus that I loved to death, I was rear-ended while sitting at a red light by an almost brand new Mercedes E-class. He had some bumper damage and the front hood was a bit bent. In contrast, my Taurus was destroyed--I was slammed into a Buick in front of me, and half the engine bay and almost all of the trunk were completely collapsed. To the dearly departed Taurus's credit, there wasn't any cabin intrusion, and I only bruised my shins, but the car was totaled while the Benz probably picked up a thousand dollars worth of body work. I'll never forget the Mercedes dude getting out of his car and bending over to keenly examine his slightly crunched bumper while I stared at my utterly destroyed car.
On a more positive note, that was the last Ford I ever owned. Whew!
In conclusion: Mercedes sedans are notable not only for their defense, but for their offense as well. If I were looking to take out Dodge Neon drivers, literally, I'd pick a S500 as my instrument of mayhem. If you're looking to drive while combing your hair, talking on the cell phone and changing radio stations at the same time, but do not want to sit in a Ford Expedition, then an E-class may be for you!
Trying to ferret out the truth as whatever the truth is very difficult. Although some people say yes, Consumer Reports highly recommends this auto.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/regularnews/articles/75418/article.html.
The recall doesn't affect most recent 2003 TLs so supposedly it has been fixed in production.
-Chris
-Chris
Yeah, the 2% was the estimated number of these autos with actual transmission failures. The 1.2 million is the number of autos that have the potential to be affected in the future and thus get an extended warranty. Also, the cars affected span up to 3 years of production.
You guys want to try another word problem?
As a Nissan Maxima owner, have you considered the Infiniti G35 Sedan from Nissan's luxury division? If so, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the relative merits of it and the Acura TL-S.
However the problem is real. I myself had a tranny failure at 6,100 miles. Right when I entered a busy highway from a full stop, pushed the gas pedal, the engine revved into the redline and the car barely moved forward. Add the view of a couple of semis in the rearview mirror to all the excitement.
The dealer replaced the tranny. It only took a couple of weeks to order the new one. During that time I had pleasure of driving a rental Dodge Stratus.
Some people have had multiple tranny failures.
Check the Acura TL and Acura CL forums for more info:
http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34
http://www.acura-cl.com/forums
what happened to your gtp?
-Chris
Wife got an RX300 instead.
The bug makes this big selling point useless since you need to push the button to restore the position anyway. And it is a potancial danger since you are easily ignore the right mirror until you are on the road. Then try to push the button on the door.
I struggled with this problem for my new 2002 A4 3.0 for nearly 1 year, talk to dealer, AudiUSA and AudiUSA field rep many times. About half year ago, the field rep let me stop complaining and tell me it will be fixed in 2003 model. But now, it turned out it still not functional in 2003 model and I was told they just do not think it will be fixed and I should treated it as work per design.
It is horrible for Audi not to fix such an apparent problem for such a long time, and looks like there is no way certain level of decision-maker can hear customer’s voice.
The $30k isn't a hard and fast rule, though it
would be nice.
Please contact jfallon@edmunds.com if interested.
Thanks!
I'd strongly recommend you do a ton of research and a lot of test driving. Start with the "acknowledged" leader in this segment: the BMW 3 Series. Then expand out to those cars that meet your needs, criteria, and price.
Short list of cars you should consider:
BMW 325i and 330i
Lexus IS300
Infiniti G35
MB C-class
Jaguar X-type
Lincoln LS
Cadillac CTS
Audi A4
VW Passat
Acura 3.2TL
Acura TSX
Saab 9-3
Volvo S40 and S60
325i auto (esp. heavier AWD version)
TSX auto (uses small 2.4L I4 that needs high RPMs for power)
A4 1.8t auto (esp. heavier AWD version)
X-type 2.5 auto (made heavier by standard AWD)
MB C230 (esp. heavier AWD version)
Noticed you left one car off your comments: Lexus IS300. You should take one for a spin. My wife loves her IS300 automatic.
If you are considering the Cadillac CTS, you should also look at the Lincoln LS6. Lincoln dealers are really discounting these fine cars. Most CTS' I've seen at two local Cadillac dealers tend to be loaded up with $5-7K worth of options. Hard to find one near $30K.
If you want powerful car and don't mind FWD, you might consider Acura 3.2TL, Infiniti I35, Nissan Maxima SE, or Nissan Altima 3.5SE.
Jag S-type is not normally considered "near luxury". Thinking its base price starts in the low $40,000s and quickly moves up with options. If you can afford this, you might consider BMW 5 Series (525i or 530i) or Lexus GS300.
G35 vs C240 (best budget RWD from across a pond)
04CTS vs 03LS8 (best America has to offer)
03I35/Max vs O3TL-S (best FWD on a budget)
04TL vs 04 9-5 (best FWD)
04 S60R vs X-type 3.0 (not sure there's any real AWD competition under 40k)
Some of these autos (03 TLs, LS8, I35) are great bargains (compared to original list) but it's no deal if you are unsatisfied.
Are you confusing the IS300 with the ES300/330? The ES is FWD V6 and based on the Camry platform. The IS300 is RWD I6 based on the Toyota Altezza. The IS can be had with manual and automatic transmissions. The IS300 also has a SportCross touring (station wagon) version.
ES does look like Camry (it is basically a Camry). Actually the ES body looks a bit bloated, with too much overhang on the sides.
At post #198 you wrote, "tryin to see if I can get a deal on a base [Jaguar] 3.0 S type and go from there." The Jaguar S-type competes with Audi A6, BMW 5 Series, and MB E-class.
Then at post #205 you write, "now as to the [Lexus] ES300 and [BMW] 330[i] I like but they are out of my price range." How can these two cars, that are less expensive than a Jaguar S-type, be out of your price range?
If you can buy or lease a Jaguar S-type, you could certainly buy or lease an ES300 or 330i.
Then you also write, "I have no idea as to how well they lease... my max payment is [$]300 and then there is another [$]250 from parents on top of that but I'd rather not have a [$]450 - 500$ lease payment but I don't know."
What you can afford to lease is way different than what you can buy. You should check out the various lease deals. Jaguar X-type leases heavily subsidized. Seen some inexpensive rates with 3 Series.
I leased a 2002 Acura TL-S and the tranny failed after 6,100 miles. Go figure.
Huge difference between an Altima and an E-class. Even bigger difference between nearly every car we've talked about an a LeSabre.
Let me know what you end up buying. Best thing for you to do is serious test driving. And crunch your lease deal numbers.
The A4 3.0 has one of the nicest interiors around. I also do mostly highway driving, and the interior combined with the performance handling makes this a pleasureable ride. In winter, the Quattro system really shines. I've been able to drive through some nasty snowstorms over the past 2 years, and I've always felt under control wherever I was going.
Audi also has a 4 year / 50,000 mile service program that covers all service at no cost to you. With that along with the 4 year / 50,000 mile warranty, all you'll spend is for gas and tires (if needed). With the 2004 models now appearing on the lots, you can make a good deal on any remaining 2003s.
Just some insight from a fellow Cleveland driver! Good luck in your decision.