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
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
But, I wanted to list every RWD car that could be had with a manual transmission. So, there they were, together on the same list.
Just my view.
Regards,
OW
Another glutton for punishment, I see.
The DC based associate general counsel (a personal friend) for Saab aerospace drives ... a BMW 5 series. Does that tell you something? So much for their "born of jets" commercials. :surprise:
When I was considering convertibles of all types a couple years ago, I tried the 9-3. I sure hope their fighter jets don't have that kind of handling or cowl shake.
That is why when you reach a certain level of anything, it is difficult to "downshift".
In 18 months, I make my move. Let's see what is available so I can continue to move through the gears!
Regards,
OW
Saab
Audi (reliability?)
Volvo
Cadillac -- need to drive the new one. I like the look of the soon-to-be new Jag S-type, but not sure if it qualifies, and its an old chassis. Others, not really interested -- no like."
You are worried about reliability for the Audi but not the Saab? From everything I have read the Saab is a reliability nightmare...much worse than the Audi. Jag reliability is in the crapper too.
But that's the point, isn't it? The BMW does handle better than the other cars here. It is dynamically superior, and clearly offers the best driving experience of the group. Is the CTS also a sporty and capable sedan? Absolutely - just like Yamaha speakers accurately reproduce music, and Denny's steak is 100% USDA top sirloin.
As for your other point, why is the CTS a "better rounded package?" Similarly equipped, the BMW 328i costs $2,500 LESS than the CTS. For example, a 328i with optional heated leather seats and xenon headlights stickers for $35,845. The CTS with optional power moonroof stickers for $38,230.
So, assuming for a moment that the CTS and 3-series offer equal quality, features, comfort, refinement, etc. yet the BMW is the dynamically superior sport sedan, how is it that the Cadillac has more value?
Thanks for the tip.
Fed, It doesn't to the shopper who is in the know regarding ELLPS offerings. This is a global arena and some do not wander off-shore for consideration. For some, and I respect them all, the CTS will do just fine. Heck, my friend bought a 2005 and I made very positive comments to him regarding his choice. The CTS (I'll stay open on the 2008) doesn't do it for me in the looks department which puts it at the bottom of my list.
Regards,
OW
Just the opposite for me: looks are the least important aspect of a car. I drive inside the car - and rarely, if ever look at the car from the outside.
Regards,
OW
True. So to me I can live with a not-so-desirable exterior style but if the interior does not appeal to me then it's off the list automatically.
SAAB and Cadillac have serious issues! Audi has done as they promised and brought reliability back to respectability and CR recommended (even the first year A3). Honda and Toyota are dominant. Subaru is truly performing at Japanese levels. Mazda, Suzuki, Nissan, & Mitsubishi lag behind. They noted that some Nissan models were good while others were terrible. The one's that were terrible were all built in the US however.
VW still has poor reliability.
Audi promised years ago to improve reliability and have done so, leaving VW in the dust.
Mercedes has been negatively affected by Chrysler, and instead of Chrysler improving with the merger, MB has joined them in the pits.
Therefore, I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't care about exterior looks, but I value interiors much more.
By the way, the A3 is not an econobox. It has advanced suspension systems and components. All you have to do is drive one to figure this out.
For BMW, I really liked the 98-2006 E46 and from this board, learned it drove well also. To me, the change in '06 was ok on looks as opposed to the 5'er which I am still getting used to. The new 5's lines from the sketches look much more fluid IMO.
My favorite looking bimmer is the current 6 series.
So, I'm not as pure as others about the drive bent. That is why I perceive the CTS the way I do. No attraction.
Regards,
OW
The CTS that most closely compares to a base 328i with optional leather seating is the "3.6L Standard" model. With optional power moonroof (the BMW comes with one), the Caddy stickers for $34,630. The BMW without the seat heaters (this CTS doesn't come with them either) has an MSRP of $34,545.
Also for reference, MSRP's (rounded off) for some of the other ELLPS's:
Acura TL - $34,000; TL-S - $38,000
Lexus IS250 - $31,000; IS350 - $36,500
Infiniti G35 - $34,000
BMW 335i - $39,500
M-B C230 - $30,500; C350 - $39,000
Audi A4 2.0T - $30,000; 3.2 - $36,000
Here's my take on this class:
If you're shopping for an Auto Transmission equipped ELLPS, I think the G35 pretty much offers the best bang for the buck (HP, handling, luxury, quality, features, etc).
If you're shopping for an ELLPS with a Manual Transmission, things get more interesting. The G35 is out of contention because it's 6MT drivetrain just sucks. I'd then eliminate the IS250, M-B C230, and both Audi's because they either lack HP, weigh too much, or both. The Lexus IS350 and Acura TL don't come with an MT (too bad), so they're out.
That leaves the Acura TL-S, BMW 328i and 335i, the Cadillac CTS 3.6L, and the M-B C350 Sport.
#1. A bare-bones 328i for $33,000 is #1 on my list for it's best-in-class handling dynamics (it weighs 250 lbs less than the 335i!), solid straight-line performance (0-60 in 6 seconds flat), upscale cabin appointments, and outstanding value for the dollar.
#2. A tie between the 335i and Acura TL-S. The BMW offers RWD handling and more power, but the TL is less expensive and has more standard features. Both are outstanding sport/luxury sedans that offer a different blend of performance vs. luxury.
#3. I haven't driven the M-B C350, but I have driven the outstanding C230 Sport. Assuming the C350 offers similar driving dynamics but more power than it's little brother, I'm thinking that the C350 offers BMW 328i performance at a 335i price. Of course, who can put a price on the "Mercedes feel" - it is a nice piece.
#4. The Cadillac CTS needs evolution. It has good ride and handling, but the BMW and M-B are better. The 3.6L engine is smooth and sweet, but the CTS barely manages to reach 60 MPH in under 7 seconds. It's also ugly and cheap looking. I can't think of a single reason to choose the CTS over the less expensive BMW 328i. This is the oldest car on the list though, and the MY2008 CTS is looks promising.
It may seem more intelligible to you, but the reality is it hides vital information.
Is the average 2 or 10 problems/cars? If it's 2, the difference between average and 50% below average is merely 1 problem/car over a period of years. With an average of 10, you're looking at 5 problems/car -- an entirely different ball game.
So, which is it? What if the average is only 1 problem/car?
I think chavis10 is wrongly referring to the A3 as an "econobox" because it is built on the Volkswagon A platform shared with the New Beetle and Jetta, among other cars. The $40,000+ Audi TT is also built on this platform.
What chavis10 doesn't realize is that the size of the platform has nothing to do with the cost/economy/rigidity of the platform. You don't hear many Porsche owners complaining about the wheelbase of their 911's, do you?
6 seconds flat huh? That is pretty fast for a car that doesn't have all that much HP (your same complaint for the Audi 2.0T and 3.2- with added weight)
Where did you get this number? is it BMW's published 0-60 time?
Due to the lack of straight line performance (I value this criteria more than handling), the followings would not be on my list if I am in the market for one today:
328i
IS250
C280
A4 (both 2.0T and 3.2)
CTS 2.8
9-3 (all models)
Car & Driver tested a 2005 325i and reached 60 MPH in 6.1 seconds. The 2006 330i reached 60 MPH in 5.7 seconds.
No single test is definitive, but based on all the magazine tests of the 325i, 330i, and factory claims for the 325i, 328i, and 330i, and factoring the relative HP and curb weights of each car, I believe the figure is accurate.
Car and driver got the less powerful 06 325 to hustle to 60 in 6.1 or .2 seconds. The 07 328i has more power and the weight's the same. 6 seconds seems achievable considering the e46 330i ZHP could pull a mid to high 5 second sprint (best i ever saw was a 5.6 but most places got a 5.8-5.9).
I believe the new TT is a new ASF platform...which is why it's so much lighter than the old.
I tend to wash/wax and repair dents in the cars I drive, even though that is on the outside.
Also, in February R&T's Japanese sports sedan comparison, IS350 posed a 0-60 time in 4.9 seconds so currently there are 2 ELLPS that has the ability to put out sub-5 second times.
Undoubtedly -- I'm biased as I just happen to have experienced VW/Audi unreliablity first hand -- loved the car (GTi) but problem after problem.
And, frankly, those reviewers are full of crap. The 335i is, indeed, a big step up from the former 330i. But even my nephew, who owns one, proclaimed after driving an M3, that the handling differences were enormous and the M3 is a much more aggresively tuned car all around. As far as I know, the 335i is not a significant advancement over a 330i ZHP in the handling department. Again, very good, but nowhere near M3 territory.
If posting sub 5 second 0-60 times were all it took to invoke M3 comparisons, there would be a lot of inferior cars trying to lay claim to being comparable.
Mazdaspeed 6 (2006 model) has 90% of the maximum 280 lb/ft of torque available beginning at 1800 rpm and 90% of that 280 lb/ft for another 500 rpm past the 5500 rpm horsepower peak. The torque peak is at 2570 rpm. Peak horsepower is 274.
The GT model is the most luxurious, not LTD as I incorrectly stated earlier.
price MSRP 0-60 1/4 mi top 70-0 skid EPA city
$28,555.00 5.4 14.0 149 155 0.87 20
$34,620.00 5.3 14.0 137 177 0.87 20
$45,720.00 4.9 13.6 144 160 0.87 19
$36,000.00 5.2 13.9 158 160 0.87 16
$35,565.00 5.6 14.2 145 169 0.78 17
$54,720.00 6.9 15.3 150 176 0.82 19
$40,000.00 5.1 13.7 142 167 0.85 19
$45,055.00 5.5 14.2 132 175 0.83 20
$35,870.00 5.9 14.6 152 170 0.91 20
$32,064.00 7.1 15.4 142 170 ?.?? 20
$38,795.00 5.7 14.3 147 999 0.91 20
Mazdaspeed 6
Subaru Legacy GT spec B
BMW 335i
Infinity G 35
Dodge Charger
BMW 530
Lexus IS 350
Mercedes C 350 sport
Acura TL
Lexus IS 250
Acura TL type S (Road & Track, 70-0 braking not given)
Road and Track and Car & Driver test results are usually very close in numbers for the same car. They do not mollycoddle the cars. If the best times are achieved dumping the clutch at 4000 rpm on a manual or holding the brake while revving the motor on an auto trans car, that's how they launch them, even if it is hard on the car. That's why their times are always better than Consumer Reports.
Rocky
Nobody here HATES the CTS, some just DON'T LIKE IT AS MUCH AS the next one. To use your way of thinking I would say that rockylee hates all non-domestic makes whether they are Asian or German. Is that the truth Rocky?
By the way, I am neither a GM band-wagoner/cheerleader nor the so-called "Bimmer crowd".
2008 528i zero to sixty: 6.5 Seconds
2008 535i zero to sixty: 5.5 Seconds
The official 2008 5-Series brochure quotes the following numbers:
2008 528i zero to sixty: 6.5 Seconds
2008 535i zero to sixty: 5.6 Seconds
Oh damn, my source was off by a tenth of a second on the 535i. Sue me. :P
Best Regards,
Shipo
Welcome back!
Regards,
OW
I called a local dealer today and he hasn't gotten confirmation yet but has heard this fall. This website also backs his claim:
http://www.cadillac.com/index.jsp?noredirect=true
Click on 2008 CTS bottom of screen and slightly left.
Rocky
P.S. BTW- nice to be back thanx..I've had computer virus problems, been busy, and have been ill with this sinus/pneumonia bug. :sick:
Rocky