Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

kdshapiro · January 2004

braking - sorry the 70 to 0 braking of 189 reported in C & D was not the best numbers. I guess if you keep the TL at sixty even your golden.

engines - BMW has a 3L NA engine that puts out 400+ horsepower. But unfortunately we'll never see it.

kdshapiro · January 2004

A new 2004 Accord drove up into my driveway last night. It had all the goodies, sat/nav etc. Out the door price was a little over $28K. The TL with nav is about $35K. After tooling around in this vehicle I realized the only reason that people would go for the TL at $7K more or the TSX which is a four-banger is the "so-called" prestige factor of the Acura brand.

You could never derive the additional $7K in driving benefit from a TL. And it beats the TSX hands down. For the price/feature content this car beats 'em all. Of course it is FWD and if you are happy with that you will probably be getting a reliable Honda, with a powerful engine and a smooth drive train.

After thinking about it I can see why there might be some people who don't want to spring for the extra money for a 330i to get it identically optioned. It's because the perception is they are actually getting less for their money. I can now see that, as I believe when you buy a TL with nav etc your money has hit the point of diminishing returns against a similiarly equipped Accord. You are actually paying more money to get less car.

While I really wanted an X3 due to the NE climate, I might have to reverse myself and say the Honda with nav and such offers the best bang for the buck (even though it has torque steer and fwd) and save myself $12 grand, which I can use towards my kids college education or home improvements.

riez · January 2004

For those who love numbers, compare performance and price numbers for cars like the Neon SRT-4 and Sentra SE-R Spec V. Ensure you add the available performance options like LSD to SRT-4 and the Brembo brake package to the Spec V. Then compare these cars, which cost around $20,000, to the 330i or TL. That SRT-4 will run (run over?) the TL or 330i and save you a small fortune in the process. But is it a legitimate comparison?

Price to performance is not the only way to go nor even always a relevant comparison.

pg48477 · January 2004

kd, People buy TL over Accord, for the same reason you bought your 330 over 325.

riez, Those two cars you mentioned have no luxury factor, if I would settle for something like that I would get WRX Sti or Evolution 8.

zumbalak, looks like you have a lot of experience driving RWD, that is why you had few scary moments driving FWD TL, you dont drive FWD the way you drive RWD. I for example had a few scary moments driving G35 coup 6mt, bacouse I'm not use to pushing RWD to the limit, I even span once.

riez · January 2004

pg48477... You prove my point. If luxury is the primary criteria, then why are people obsessing about performance numbers? And if price/value is the primary criteria, then there are a lot "better" less expensive cars out there.

And that leaves us the dilemma of this board: What does it mean to be a "near luxury performance sedan"? Are luxury and performance equal? Or is performance more important than luxury? Or vice versa?

I firmly believe in performance taking precedence, but not at the expense of luxury. And other factors like reliability, warranty, customer service, operating costs, etc. cannot be left out of the equation.

But if you don't define terms and weight what is important, all you do is debate apples and oranges? Or Granny Smith apples vs. Red Delicious apples?

kdshapiro · January 2004

There have been some recent posts suggesting the TL is overall best value. By whose yardstick are we measuring? And what is the factual criteria?

1. number of goodies
2. size of backseat
3. driving experience
4. hp and torque
5. oveall performance numbers
6. cost and financing
7. drivetrain

What are the soft criteria?

1. looks of vehicle
2. estimated resale value in x years
3. quality/luxury of interior
4. manufacturer reputation
5. dealer reputation
6. supposed value of automobile (note hard value goes up as total cost decreases, but soft value is based on the compromises one finds in the automobile. For example a Hyundai has a lot of hard value, but to some people not a lot of soft value. Is hard value or soft value more important?)

One size doesn't fit all.

pg48477 · January 2004

For me performance is important, but money is also important. For example I would not pay 10K+ more for 330 over TL for only marginally better handling, but worse power train. On the other hand I would pay 20+ more for M3 which has way better handling and way better powertrain.

pg48477 · January 2004

You finally answered your Huyndai question.
Both are important and TL would be had to had with 330. If you compare everything you just said, assuming that TL and 330 cost the same , we probably would have a tie. But being that TL cost 10K less, we now know who the winner is:)

saugatak · January 2004

Think that's a topic for another board, but I don't think anyone can argue that v6 Camry or v6 Accord (will refer to them as CamCord from now on) give you best bang for buck. Yes, you can get a lower brand car but the CamCord is renowned for its reliability and low gas mileage and due to its reliability has a low Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

With respect to the price differential between a nav-Accord and a nav-TL, I agree the nav-Accord wins in the value equation, but from what I've read (somebody with more exp. with both systems please help me out) the Acura's nav system is a lot better. I have not bought any nav systems in my cars to this point (I find a $20 map/atlas that I can carry from car to car is a pretty unbeatable value) so I don't know this for sure, but my understanding is that the nav system on the TL allows you to say "Phone Home" and then the car will dial the number for you, whereas this is not possible on the nav-equipped Accord.

Now this may seem silly to you but I kind of dig this feature a lot for 3 reasons:

1) I never use a cell phone when driving (unless I'm stuck in traffic and need to tell someone I'll be late) because it's dangerous so to be able to make voice-activated calls is incredibly useful. Time is money and if I can conduct some business while on the phone and save some time, the Nav system on the TL could pay for itself. Also, if you must talk on the phone, this is a much safer way to do it and could save your life, which is definitely worth something.

2) One of my favorite shows as a kid was Knight Rider (in spite of David Hasselhoff) because the talking corvette with the roving Cylon eye was just so cool. There is a fun factor in talking to your car and getting a response back that is hard to quantify.

3) If I buy the TL, it'll be the 6MT so with a stick in right hand and wheel in left hand, voice-activated calling is really more than a luxury, it's almost a necessity.

The point is although objectively the nav-Accord beats the nav-TL, I think there are some good reasons to spring the extra $ for the superior Acura nav./voice system.

With respect to the current generation v6 Accords, I found that Honda took all the driving fun out of the current gen. Accord. To me, they have the driving feel of a Camry and frankly, the Camry is a better Camry than the Accord is. When you compare prices on the non-nav Accord v6 and non-nav TL, I think the price difference is only $3,700 (based on my market research that I could get the Accord for $600 over invoice and the TL for $2k under MSRP based on what's been posted on the prices paid boards).

I think the extra $3,700 is money well spent to upgrade from non-nav Accord to non-nav TL. Also, I really want a 6MT and unfortunately the Accord sedan does not come in 6MT and v6. I'd have to get the Accord 6MT v6 Coupe.

And my wife's response when I suggested that we save some cash on my car by me getting the Accord 6MT Coupe was: "I always sit in the front and you are responsible for putting son in the back seat and pulling him out of the back seat."

Well I like to save money like the next guy, but destroying my back is not the way I'm gonna do it so it's the TL for me.

saugatak · January 2004

I don't normally defend kdshapiro, but I really think that his basic point that "value is in the eyes of the beholder" is correct.

It's kind of hard to compare the TL to any BMW b/c pricewise it's closer to the 3-series but sizewise it's comparable to the 5-series.

If you are someone who places a high premium on being able to hit 270 degree exit ramps at 65 and really enjoys driving your car beyond 8/10ths on twisty roads, there really is just one sedan out there for you and that's BMW. Also as someone who drove a 3-series in his 20s, I have to say that I had a much, much easier time picking up hot girls with that car than any other car I've had before or since.

I think if you exclude the 2 factors I mentioned above, the TL whomps the BMW 3-series, but getting hot girls with minimal efforts is, as they say in the MasterCard commercial, PRICELESS.

OK, I think most of the people on these boards are men and hopefully I haven't offended any women.

pg48477 · January 2004

TL is right in between 5 and 3 in size, plus its being considered Near Luxury Performance Sedan.

Everybody have their own opinion on any subject, but consideration by majority puts thing in perspective.

I also place a high premium on being able to get of the corner by accelerating hard, and I believe FWD is better in this department.

kennyg5 · January 2004

Your post is interesting in that you are arguing with yourself, at times, as to what is a better "value" - the Accord or TL.

As many of us have noted, although value is relative, it may also be measured objectively. However, even this objectively quantifiable factor may be viewed subjectively, depending on the viewer's wealth, dispositions and priorities in life, spending habits ... and not to mention the proverbial "ego" or "status" factor. As to the last factor, people seem quite touchy -- defensively and offensively :-)

kennyg5 · January 2004

"OK, I think most of the people on these boards are men and hopefully I haven't offended any women."

I would be more careful if I were you, because I am not sure whether our revered host "Pat" is Patrick or Patricia :-)

kahunah · January 2004

...the Knight Rider car was a Pontiac Firebird not a Corvette. Perhaps the show's producers felt that the Firebird offered better value.

riez · January 2004

pg48477... You write, "For example I would not pay 10K+ more for 330 over TL for only marginally better handling, but worse power train." But you can say the exact same thing, only even worse, for the Accord V6 vs TL. They are siblings from the same company. Thus, if you can't say it for the Accord, you can't logically say it for the 330i.

riez · January 2004

We always end up apples to oranges because we can't agree on even the most basic of things. For example, what is the relevant price spread? Is it under $40K? Over $25K but less than $45K? For me, I think the "meat" of this market segment is in the $27,500-$32,500 range but this segment includes outliers costing at least $25K but no more than $35K. But notice how subjective everything is?

Thus, for me, the 330i comparison should be with a stripped one, not a loaded one. The loaded ones and the 330i with Perf. Pkg push $40K. To me, $40K is squarely in the realm of luxury performance sedan. There ain't no "near" at $40K. That is why I went with a loaded IS300 manual for approx. $32,500 MSRP when a similar 330i was nearly $40K. For $32,500 MSRP I could get a decently equipped (but just) 325i but not a 330i. (And I don't want to bring in ED issue.)

Wish we had three boards. One for FWD, one for AWD, and one for RWD. For me, there is no such thing as a "performance" FWDer. That is an oxymoron. And I wouldn't want the weight penalty that AWD brings.

And, staying purely, subjective, there is no such thing as a "performance" car with an automatic transmission. So these discussions would only be covering cars not controlled (dominated) by slushboxes. "Performance automatic" is also an oxymoron.

kahunah · January 2004

The IS300 is simply no match for any model TL (automatic or manual) in all categories.

shenkar · January 2004

"And, staying purely, subjective, there is no such thing as a "performance" car with an automatic transmission. So these discussions would only be covering cars not controlled (dominated) by slushboxes. "Performance automatic" is also an oxymoron."

Uh..riez, there's a Mr. Enzo Ferrari on the line to speak with you.

shenkar · January 2004

saugatak, the cellphone interface you described (Handsfreelink) is a standard feature on ALL 2004 TL's...not just cars with Nav sys.

pg48477 · January 2004

First, IS is not really a performance car, RWD dos not make akar performance.
Second, we all know that BMW makes one of the best handling cars in the world and it have nothing to do with it's being RWD. If you know Mini Couper is also made by BMW and it handle better than 3 series, and it's FWD.

kdshapiro · January 2004

"Second, we all know that BMW makes one of the best handling cars in the world and it have nothing to do with it's being RWD. If you know Mini Couper is also made by BMW and it handle better than 3 series, and it's FWD."

As the saying goes on American Idol - "I beg to diffa". Your statement is incorrect to the extent it is not the size or weight of a 3 series. Yes you can make a go-cart perform better than a three series, but make the Mini-cooper 3300 lbs, give it four "real" seats and it wouldn't outhandle a go-cart. With 0 to 60 acceleration of 8 seconds, I'm not sure how it outperforms the 330i. But in it's weight class, it just does fine. The SRT4 also outperformns the 330i, but add an additional 400lbs or so and it wouldn't accelerate it's way out of a paper-bag. Add 500lbs and 2 more seats to an S2000 to make it's weight equivalent to a 3 series and it wouldn't perform either. Yes it's very easy to make a car that out accelerates any other car, just cut down on seats, and mitigate with weight and you've got a winner. But we are not talking about these types of cars.

To some paying the additional $$$ for a 330i, a vehicle with the best drivetrain in the business, smoothest in-line six, vaunted handling is worth it. To others it's not. What's so hard about that?

riez · January 2004

shenkar... Over the past 50 years, what percentage of Ferrari have had automatic transmissions? Just check out the resale value of Ferrari, comparing automatics to manual.

riez · January 2004

kahunah... I beg to differ. My '04 IS300 manual brings way more many smiles to my face than any FWD TL ever can. And certainly more than any '03 or earlier TL Type S automatic! There is nothing less fun than torque steer. And having 60% of weight over the drive wheels isn't my cup of driving tea.

But guessin' we are talking apples to oranges. I'm talkin' pure driving pleasure on real world roads I drive. Not tracks we don't drive on or track test results. Huge difference.

Will be interesting to see how reliable the new TL will be. The IS has a proven track record.

shenkar · January 2004

"...Over the past 50 years, what percentage of Ferrari have had automatic transmissions? Just check out the resale value of Ferrari, comparing automatics to manual."

riez, I'm just saying you might want to rephrase that last statement in post 332, cause it's false...and I just proved it. The "past 50 years" and "comparing values" are separate and unrelated issues. I'm only talking about the manual vs automatic argument you made in that post. Doesn't hold water, as is.

kdshapiro · January 2004

riez - is somewhat correct but where I live I would never own a manual as a daily driver. So if by definition I don't have a sporty car, so be it. I would however own a SSG/SMG or the like. I just don't want to have to put my foot on the clutch.

pg48477 · January 2004

OK, I am glad you understand that RWD is not everything in performance.

0-60 acceleration have nothing to do with handling, that what I was talking about handling not overall performance. But if you want to go this way TL is fester than 330 0-60, so what's your point?

pg48477 · January 2004

IS is not 50/50 balanced either, so I don't know why you so proud of it. Plus 5MT is not enof for 225 engine, you need at least 6MT to even be close. IS have nothing on TL, NOTHING.

kahunah · January 2004

As in your IS300 is no match for my 270 hp Brembo equipped 6MT TL...on any road! But I didn't have to say it, as others agree also.

shenkar · January 2004

riez - is somewhat INcorrect, kd. And so are you, if you believe his assertion.

I ask you both to consider, among others: Ferrari Stradale, Modena, Spyder, GTA, Maranello and Enzo models, which all have automatic transmission options. Would anybody in their right mind presume to say these are not "performance" cars because they don't have 4, 5, 6 or 7 speed manuals, as riez is asserting?

Or what about the Porsche Turbo, BMW 760i AND the M3, Maserati Cambio, Audi RS6, Mercedes E55, C32, S55, S600 and a slew more than I can think of at this moment.

He kinda jumped off the bridge without a parachute on that one, and you playing the devils advocate again, followed him over.

brightness · January 2004

In the same way as your analysis of Mini Cooper vs. 330i, the 330i would also lose its edge if it had to gain the extra width and wheel base to match G35 and TL, as the 530i indeed does in the handling and accelearation departments to both. BMW has been playing this rigged game of fielding a smaller sausage to win the handling-happy rag writers for a long time.

kdshapiro · January 2004

brightness - you are somewhat incorrect as these cars are in the same class. The mini-cooper by definition, or the S2000 is not considered the same class of car. We have been through this conversation previously, it is what it is. Our somewhat worthless CR considers the 530i to be the best car it has ever owned period. I guess that's rigged also?

pp - the 330 goes to 60 in 5.6 seconds. It is what it is. It also goes to 60 in 7.5 seconds. Yes there is a range of performance a range of models and a range of price. It is what it is. If you feel better in saying the TL is faster to 60. I'm not gonna disagree.

riez · January 2004

As with price and performance, this is subjective. Which I have repeatedly stressed. For me, there is no such thing as a "performance" automatic. And the performance and fun-to-drive factor of even a Ferrari automatic pails in comparison to the same experience with a manual.

And keep in mind that SMG-type systems (used by Ferrari, Maserati, BMW, Aston Martin, etc.) are NOT automatics. They are manual transmissions with software and systems to allow an automatic mode but still don't have a torque converter.

And, yes, cars as expensive as the new MB McLaren are still not true performance cars. What is up with a hyper expensive "supercar" with a 5-speed MB automatic transmission? Even AutoWeek ran a poll on this issue.

shenkar... I stand by my subjective opinion. A Ferrari with an automatic transmission is a travesty, one reflected in the future resale market. It is less than what a Ferrari could and should be.

kahunah... And your 270 HP TL FWDer will also out torque steer my car. Too much weight over front wheels which are also drive wheels. FWDers can never escape the laws of physics.

pg48477... The IS300 sedan is about 54/46. The SportCross (wagon) is about 53/47. Not 50/50 but certainly not 60/40. (Lexus should've moved the battery to the trunk.)

qbrozen · January 2004

anyone who thinks a TL is just an expensive Accord has apparently not driven both (or they have and just have so little perception of what they are driving). I have. They are not the same in any way. Even the shifter and clutch in the accord V6 coupe has an entirely different feel than in the TL.

shenkar · January 2004

I guess it depends on your definition of "performance".

I'll agree that on the racetrack or on the twisty-bits, the manual equipped car will generally rule...all else being equal. But on the drag strip, or in stoplight skirmishes, the situation is generally reversed. Even the car mags acknowledge this. Therefore they BOTH deliver performance...just a different kind. And while that may not meet your individual subjective standard, but please don't denigrate cars because of that.

I, for one, would love to have an E55 which I think you'll agree could blow the doors off 96% on the cars on the road today...regardless of transmissions.

BTW...applying the personal bias you've expressed to the equation, does this mean that your automatic IS is not a "performance" car, but your 5 speed is, by virtue of the transmission only???

riez · January 2004

My WIFE's '03 IS300 automatic is her "performance" car. She cannot drive a manual transmission. MY '04 IS300 manual is a performance car. Almost as much fun as my former '98 540i6 at half the price! Do I miss the 4.4L V8 and 6-speed manual? Yeah, but I get nearly as many smiles per mile with the 3.0L I6 and 5-speed manual? And the 540i6 didn't have LSD! BMW only offers that in M3 and M5.

And I can make the same case for my former '96 Impala SS (5.7L V8 and 4-speed automatic) versus my former '97 Camaro (3.8L V6, with Perf, Handling, & Suspension Pkg, and 5-speed manual). Take the manual any day! Much more fun to drive. But if you like to be driven, an automatic is just fine.

fedlawman · January 2004

Your assertion that a car must be RWD to be a "true" sports car is preposterous.

Compare the IS300 to the Mazda 6s. Both cars are within a hair of each other in HP, TQ, 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration, skidpad grip, slalom speed, and braking distances.

Even the weight distribution is close (54/46 vs. 59/41).

Yes, dynamically FWD and RWD perform differently. From a standing start, the IS300 has an advantage over the Mazda 6 because it has better traction to the drive wheels. On a racetrack however, that advantage is gone, as it simply requires a different driving technique (line) to make a FWD go fast vs. a RWD.

Basically, going around a road course quickly involves three elements - power-to-weight ratio, braking performance, and traction. In corners, traction is key because the more you have, the more power you can put down on the pavement. The factor that most affects traction is weight transfer, which is why smoothness is so important for fast lap times.

Compared to a FWD car, in a RWD car, turn-in happens sooner because during braking (entry), weight shifts away from the drive wheels, and the resulting loss of traction can cause oversteer. Since turn-in is earlier, the apex also comes sooner, causing the line to straighten and allow the driver to begin accelerating. This technique obviously won't work well in a FWD car because the "wrong wheels" need the traction to exit the corner. Therefore, weight transfer through a corner must be managed differently for a FWD car.

If you're piloting a FWD car into a corner, you adjust your line by braking and turning-in later. This adjusts the line by moving the apex out farther. With a later apex, the FWD'er straightens the line through the turn and can accelerate harder, sooner.

It may not seem as natural to you, but it is no less effective at producing fast lap times.

As far as torque steer is concerned - no it's not fun, but modern high performance FWD cars (like the Mazda 6 or Acura TL) have it managed very well, so if it's present at all, it's more of a distraction than a performance handcap.

Of course, all of this talk is moot on the street. At 8/10ths, it rarely comes into play.

For the most fun and biggest performance gains, attend a driving school and put good rubber on your wheels.

chrisboth · January 2004

"As far as torque steer is concerned - no it's not fun, but modern high performance FWD cars (like the Mazda 6 or Acura TL) have it managed very well, so if it's present at all, it's more of a distraction than a performance handcap."

I just drove the new TL my dinner buddy purchased last week and watched the review on the TL on Speedchannel...cant remember the show as I was taking one of my 14 naps over the last two weeks and so was groggy at the time...but the reviewer hammered the thing for having too much power for a Front Driver.

All the nice sentiment over FWD is great but the platform will have a limit that this car seems to exceed. The comment was the accord has about the right of power...anyone else see this so as to help me remember the show?

The very thing Rear Drivers enjoy is the differnt stlye of driving that reat powered cars afford us.....that little correction to puposefully oversteer to put the car in line as the weight transfers to the drive wheels is the majic that people wont give up. As a 10 year front driver...they are fun in turns - really...but not as fun and not as easy to apex as RWD.

The chatter from torque steer is one of the most unsettling things you can deal with - not for fear of losing control as FWD are easier to keep in contol...just feels cruddy when your driving and it feels like an earthquake is shaking the wheel...and combined with LSD and traction...its a little bit worse than my integra was.

shenkar · January 2004

Ok, riez. We'll end this little chat for now. But if I do get that E55, I'll look you and your 5sp IS up, and we'll pick this "performance" discussion back up then. Chiao!

fedlawman · January 2004

I haven't driven the TL so I cannot comment on its torque steer. I do admit that 270 HP is a lot to send to the front wheels...

That said, while I don't believe FWD takes away from the fun to be had driving the TL, I do suspect that its 3700# curb weight makes it more of a Grand Tourer than a canyon carver.

I would take a TSX over the TL any day...and in fact, I did!

chrisboth · January 2004

ACura rocks in many ways - the TL is a sweet ride but it is not a sports sedan at 85-95% of the envelope - while it may perform in curves nearly as well - hell even as well - better? possibly with ASPEC, it won't feel as competently done.

That late turn in the FWD offers is kinda neat and I enjoyed it in the acura's I've owned and driven but the rumbling torque steer over bumps or uneven pavement is a very unimpressive offering for you and your passengers in a heavy car even.

The tsx may be the best value for that market segment ever. It's very much like the TL in terms of appearance and stance...TSX owners must love it! And not vice versa

riez · January 2004

fedlawman... Please review the earlier recent posts. As I said, I am NOT talking smooth test track performance. Heck, using that criteria a FWDer with a live rear axle can be quite the performer. I'm talking on the real roads I drive every day. On the twisties. On the curves. On the bumps. (You really appreciate IRS when you are taking a nice sweeper fast and you hit a bump. When you lack IRS the entire rear bounces up in the air and you say a silent prayer. Not unlike torque steer!)

Today I had fun "playing" with my business FWD Sonata (V6, 5-speed manual with defeatable traction control) in the snow and ice. She tugs and pulls like crazy every time she loses traction. All that weight over the front wheels and those drive wheels trying to steer at the same time they fight for traction. You fight to steer her. Just take a corner as you lose some front wheel traction. Pulls left then right. Laws of physics. That is true for every FWDer I've ever driven hard. (And, yeah, I had fun driving '01 TL Type S but she torque steered. Same for the I35 Sport I drove.) Only way to go is to ensure the drive wheels are not the steering wheels!

Don't forget that 5% of 3,000 pounds is 150 pounds. FWDer is like having your pre-teen sitting on your hood all the time.

saugatak · January 2004

FWD vs RWD has been debated to death. My personal take is that the difference is overrated.

MB makes RWD vehicles but how well do they handle? Every MB I've ever driven has been a nice car but handling wasn not really its strongest characteristic.

Lexus makes both FWD and RWD cars, but aside from Riez's favorite IS300 (LOL, he has 2 of 'em), I would really have to focus very hard to tell the difference in the drivetrain. A soft plushy ride completely divorced from any feel for the road sucks whether the drivetrain is a FWD or RWD.

If you really want to make a performance car, you not only have to have the RWD but you need to do all the other things it takes to get the weight balance as close to 50-50. Not sure what the exact weight balance on the IS300 is Riez, but it doesn't sound anywhere close to 50-50, so on that basis Infiniti G35 and BMW are going to be a lot better than IS300.

Also, I think if you are used to a RWD and then go to a FWD, the difference is really noticeable so you tend to overemphasize it. The opposite is also true.

For example, I'm now used to my MDX and when I had to drive an ML320, it took me a while to get used to the turns. Once I got used to it in 5 mins. it was fine.

I find that as long as I have some feel for the road, I can get used to just about any car and drive with my normal skill level, and after a while don't notice it unless I try to go above 7/10ths.

Living in the NE, I prefer FWD b/c I can slap on all seasons and not worry about snow tires. Yes, you can get a RWD/AWD sedan, but those are a lot heavier, so their performance is compromised and they eat up a lot more gas.

When I move to CA, where bad weather isn't as much of a problem, I'd give a lot more consideration to RWD, but I'm not going to let the drivetrain alone influence my decision as to which car I want.

riez · January 2004

saugatak... Be real. Just drive a...

FWD Lexus ES330 and a RWD IS300.

FWD Cadillac Seville and a RWD Cadillac CTS.

FWD Lincoln Continental and a RWD Lincoln LS.

FWD Infiniti I35 and a RWD Infiniti G35.

The list could go on...

(And don't forget that Lincoln killed the Continental and Cadillac is moving back to RWD for next Seville. Not to mention Chrysler and Dodge going RWD for the next 300/Magnum platforf.)

kdshapiro · January 2004

"MB makes RWD vehicles but how well do they handle?"

Good enough to get you to 180+. You are right the difference is negligible between FWD and RWD for those who can't tell the difference. However, I believe you underestimate the number of people who can tell the difference. For those that can tell the difference: "the difference is real, and it's spectacular."

shenkar · January 2004

riez, try comparing apples to apples (if you absolutely must), not apples and oranges.

saugatak is right about this fwd/rwd thing being way overblown. 99% of the drivers on the road (including you, unless you have a professional racers license) won't notice a bit of difference in their morning commutes to the office.

The overwhelming mass of opinions either way, have been driven by the marketing spin of the manufacturers and the auotmotive press. We bite into something that sounds good, and promote it as gospel when for the vast majority of us...it makes absolutely no difference.

You've found a ride you really like. We're all glad for you. Why spoil it for everyone else who may like something different. Can't both decisions be valid???

pg48477 · January 2004

All FWD cars you mentioned are soft and there were build to be soft. How about RWD Crown Vic, or Town Car they are also soft. Why dont you compare your beloved IS to Mazda 6 or TSX, and you know what Saab will out handle your IS any time.

kdshapiro · January 2004

"saugatak is right about this fwd/rwd thing being way overblown. 99% of the drivers on the road (including you, unless you have a professional racers license) won't notice a bit of difference in their morning commutes to the office. "

This is where I say, the car matters little and we should all be driving Hyundais and buying McMansions with the money that has grown out of the investments we have made because of the cars that we bought.

kdshapiro · January 2004

pp...can you way torque steer....? The Saab really doesn't count. Let's put a supercharger on the IS and then give it a shot. Might as well compare the Mazda 6 to an EVO.

saugatak · January 2004

yes, if you take the worst handling FWD cars and compare them to good handling RWD cars, then you are right.

But the point of the post, which you clearly missed, is that first you have to make a good handling car and then putting in a RWD drivetrain will make a difference.

I think a more valid comparison is the ES330 vs GS300. Both offer soft, plush rides with little road feel. ES330 has too little power to have any torque steer. Does the drivetrain really make a difference? I mean, how much do I care that a bad handling RWD car might handle slightly better than a bad handling FWD car? I would never push a bad handlng RWD car to the limits anyway so what have I gained with the RWD drivetrain?

riez, it's great you love your IS300 so much that you got 2 of 'em LOL, but there's a lot more to handling than drivetrain and you know it.

shenkar · January 2004

Ok, kd. Time to retire the Hyundai bit, like I had to do with my "real" Lexus spiel.(:^))

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles