Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Luxury Performance Sedans

1…3233353738…201

Comments

  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    "I've always found Mercedes and Audi interiors to be far better looking than BMWs."

    We're definitely in agreement there. Audi didnt impress me much in the early '90s, but by the time the previous gen A6 was introduced, they had the best of the bunch.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The Audi system can "transfer" up to 50% of the power to the front or rear?

    The Audi system STARTS at 50% f 50% r power distribution and via an instant acting (not virtually, not electronically but mechanically instant) Torque Sensing (TORSEN) AWD set up can send additional power to the front or rear depending on where the most traction is.

    For purposes of this explanation, I am speaking specifically of the TORSEN quattro set up, not the Haldex quattro set up. However, the quattro intent is to shift more or less power forward or backward regardless of the technology used. The TORSEN system (today) is nominally a 50-50 set up. Upcoming TORSEN set ups will be nominally 40% f 60% r biased (basically to remove the issue of not being an RWD biased AWD system from the discussion).

    Depending on the model (and application), the quattro system will send up to 75% of the power to the front or rear based on traction.

    According to Audis own literature, the ability to pinpoint a single wheel that can benefit from additional torque is also part of the system: "[Under normal conditions] power is split 50/50 front to rear. But in extreme cases up to 67% of the engine's power can be directed to a single wheel. The benefits to the driver are safety, performance, power, and control in copious amounts."

    The Canadian Driver piece is not entirely accurate in its declaration of toque split and torque shift in a Torsen equipped set up such as the A4. The new A4 could actually send 2/3 of the power of the engine to the front left or the rear right for that matter. The most the Infiniti system can do is send 50% forward -- not that that should ever be insufficient. The Torsen system simply can send another 17% forward should it be necessary to do so.
  • mrlizzzardmrlizzzard Member Posts: 31
    All this BMW,Lexus,Jag,MB talk drives me nuts.I've owned them thank God and the UAW I have owned 39 new vehicles of all makes and models.Go down to your Ford store drive these two and tell me where the 30 grand difference is?Better yet buy 2 of them and put $10,000 in your new SS account.
    Buy American.........cause you are one!
    lizzzard
  • docnukemdocnukem Member Posts: 485
    I looked at the Five Hundred AWD. I liked the body, the size, and the AWD. I didn't like the performance figures (from the small engine size with CVT). The car would also look nicer if they took the grille from the Fusion and stuck it on the 500. But you are missing the point. This is a luxury performance sedan board. The Cadillac STS (and to some extent the CTS) ARE discussed here. If I had liked the angular cuts in the STS body, I would have seriously considered it, as Cadillac has changed their stodgy image.

    Remember also that Jag and MB have American connections, now, too.
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    Firstly, not everyone here is American. Secondly, why should "we" support inferior products simply because we hail from the country that makes them? That may be a very nice set up for our car manufacturers, but it does nothing to help them make better products. Think about it, if they make crap cars (and in my opinion most American cars are crap), but we buy them anyway simply because we're "'merican" what incentive do Ford or GM have to make better cars? My father will only buy American and to answer your question, yes I do believe that my 545 is worth $40K more than it. Since we've been talking about cheap materials let's expand that to include American cars which use the cheapest material that I can think of. The leather feels like pleather, the knobs on the dash feel like they'll fall of in your hand anytime you use them and the designs at least to me are for the most part atrocious. The goal of American car manufacturers seems to be to figure out how to transfer our family room sofa into a moving vehicle. The only exceptions I see are the new Mustang, the 500 that you mentioned (though the grill REALLY bugs me, and SOME Cadillacs. So until we learn to engineer better cars, I won't be buying one. If that makes me less patriotic in your mind so be it. Sorry, but I just hate it when people say things like "Buy American.....cause you are one."
  • sysweisyswei Member Posts: 1,804
    thank God and the UAW

    What? IMHO the domestic auto industry would be in better shape now if the UAW didn't exist. In recent decades all they've done is make American auto labor uncompetitive. I'm not against buying from a US or Canadian factory, but frankly the stuff out of the non-union US or Canadian factories is a better value (for what you're getting) and generally better quality too.
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    James Healey's review on the A6. Worth a read. First analogy between the A6 and an Edsel. A little harsh.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-04-21-audi-a6_x.htm
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The new STS cannot be had with a sport set up and come in under $60,000. Even Audi only charges $1250 for the sport package (and one would presume $1000 of that is for the wheels which can be purchased minus the sport suspension for that price).

    The STS too cannot be had with AWD for any price less than $62,000 -- even BMW and Mercedes (using MSRP as my guide) can beat this.

    The new Ford and Mercury cars with AWD are mostly impressive -- but when you can get a Chrsler 300C AWD with every possible option for just north of $42 or $43,000 why would you consider the STS and for the extra performance why would you accept the anemic Ford products (this anemia being the main impediment to their success).

    Insofar as considering the Ford 500 as a competitor in this class, even with a 50% boost in power, well, it isn't likely to happen in my lifetime unless some major sea change happens within Ford.

    I don't believe the 500 is even meant to rival the "usual 8 suspects" in this class.

    Long before the 500 would be an entrant, the 300C AWD would have to at least be up for "honorable mention."

    One thing I do agree on, though, if the difference is $30,000 between a Ford 500 AWD and the Mercedes or BMW or Audi or Infiniti, etc -- well I think our new poster does have a point (where is the $30,000 difference). There certainly is a difference -- and the difference probably justifies a 5 figure premium for the 500's "rivals" (in mrlizzad's opinion). But I dunno if that new Audi A6 is worth $30,000 more than the 500; but, if true, that is the "market's" tolerance apparently since most of these Premo cars are selling at least "OK."

    While we're at it, we could probably include the new Passat at $37,000 as a contender, too (at least for the CTS customer's dollars).
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-04-21-audi-a6_x.htm
  • ed22ed22 Member Posts: 2
    I am new to the forums and I would like to give my opinion on this as well. I think there is nothing wrong with being patriotic, but like others I have to agree that if you don't buy the vehicle for legitemate reasons, you are definately giving the manufacturer a reason to improve.
    Unlike most people on this forum, I actually like the new Cady design theme, in fact I love it and if it wasn't for that interior I would probably be driving one myself. That is a big part of a car for me, and I have sat and driven all sorts of luxury cars when my dad was making his decision and I have to say that most European cars with the exception of Audi, have really bad interiors (Merc, BMW). There are way too many buttons and stuff, I drive has reduced this but at what price. At this moment I would say that the American manufacturers are definately picking up some speed and if the Europeans are not carefull they could be outclassed just as quickly.
    To me it seems like the European manufacturers are selling only one the fun factor, and mainly the badge. Their quality is simply bad, the interiors are very bland and not designed very functionally (unless you are comparing them to other European manufacturers), and you get very little for your dollar, most things that should be standard are considered options.
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    Parents want their children to be special; companies want their products to be premium. Where's the glory in competing on price when you can compete on how powerful, fast, accurate, tangy, plush, or greaseless your offering is?

    One way to differentiate a product is to add stuff to it. When the stuff is useful, we praise it as "functionality." When the stuff is just stuff, we dismiss it as "bells and whistles." Excessive features confound buyers with complexity. Useless features anger them, especially if they detect a trade-off with economy, portability, or convenience.

    A mousetrap isn't better because it includes an electronic rodent counter or a cheese freshness gauge. It's better because it does a superior job catching mice.

    With I-Drive, MMI, and COMAND, the German engineers don't seem to grasp this. At least in the RL, M, and GS, you can manage most primary controls without the need to "interface."
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    Found this footage that appears to show the new LS460. It's a yet-unreleased commercial. Look carefully and turn up the sound.

    http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?video=Car-Commercial
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    Honestly, I have no idea where the idea came from that you have to use iDrive to manage most primary controls. I guess it came from some writer that most likely doesn't like any of the computer systems in cars. I haven't touched iDrive for climate control or seat heating since the second week I had my car (that's how it works, you set up your preferences then you really don't have to use it much). I only use it about half the time for the radio/SAT/CD. The climate can be controlled by dials on the dash and the radio can be controlled using steering wheel buttons. Both can also be controlled through voice commands on cars equiped with it. I realize it doesn't matter how many times 5 series owners tell people this because people seem commited to believing it regardless. It's kind of like how people not from Chicago are commited to it being called The Windy City because they think it's the most windy city in the country. In fact, the name has nothing to do with the wind (Chicago is behind several other large cities in wind statistics), but people will insist that's why it's called that. Same with iDrive. Some guy that probably also feels that computers took the fun out of filing didn't like it and it stuck. Fact is, all luxury cars now have or soon will have some variation of it.
  • warthogwarthog Member Posts: 216
    Ok, I'll bite: why IS Chicago called "The Windy City?"
  • jjacurajjacura Member Posts: 807
    Yes...why is Chicago called the "Windy City " Rich? ...we know it doesn't have anything to do with Harry Carry.
  • docnukemdocnukem Member Posts: 485
    "The name of 'Windy City,' which is sometimes used by village papers in New York and Michigan to designate Chicago, is intended as a tribute to the refreshing lake breezes of the great summer resort of the West, but is an awkward and rather ill-chosen expression and is doubtless misunderstood."
    Chicago Tribune 11 September 1886

    There is an earlier citation from the Cleveland Gazette from 1885.

    However, during bidding for the World's Fair/Expo of 1893, New Yorkers complained about Chicago's bombastic attitude and referred to it as the "Windy City".

    (From Michael Quinion--apparently a lexicologist--or is it lexicographer?)

    Take your pick, but the Tribune reference predates the other.

    I'm sure all of the discussed luxury performance sedans on this board would have no problem handling the cross-breezes in Chicago, and their owners might sometimes be referred to as "windy" when describing them.
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    Seems there is resignation to the fact that BMW provides conventional controls and everyone reverts back to using them in spite of iDrive. Now, where’s that at? What’s the purpose of iDrive if no one uses it or only uses it when the car is not in motion?

    BTW, I understand that Wyoming is the windiest place in the USA, and that it has or at one time had the highest suicide rate because of it.
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    Those were the exact two explainations for "Windy City" that I was going to give. Along those lines, if anyone is looking for a good book to read, "The Devil and the White City" is about the World's Fair in Chicago in 1893. I know, sounds boring, but half of the book is about the architects that build the fair buildings, the other half is about the serial killer that hunted during the fair. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
  • warthogwarthog Member Posts: 216
    Read the book and enjoyed it thoroughly. However, it appears that "Windy City" has at least something to do with wind.
  • commofficercommofficer Member Posts: 50
    Mmmmmm..........To each their own.

    On Unions----syswei is correct IMHO also. They are dinosaurs that just don't die.

    If American manufacturers believe their products are better, then they need to back them up with better warranties and stand behind their products like their competitors. A 3 yr/36,000 mile warranty is not adequate to compete anymore and a Cadillac/Ford dealer is not the sale as an Audi/Infinity/Lexus dealer.
    I noticed that the Five Hundred and Freestyle are both built at the same plant and you stated that you own one in another post so you have some loyalty to it. That's good and I hope you feel the same 1 or 2 years from now when you trade it in. Having owned 39 vehicles means you either keep them for a short period or you have a huge parking space.
    You won't change minds with you attitude and your statements here seem to be misplaced. We buy what we perceive to be the best car for the money. Email the Big 3 and tell them to build better products and to force their dealers to provide better service. My Pacifica is like your Freestyle in that it will take a couple of years to see how far they have come. From my Pacifica experience I would say they are taking baby steps. Nothing for the luxury car makers overseas to worry about.

    Money isn't everything. I don't like my time wasted on needless repairs and I am willing to pay more for reliability and good engineering.

    Capt. Phil
    An American in Iraq.
  • commofficercommofficer Member Posts: 50
    I read that article in USA Today (thanks for the link) and it's not good for the A6. It is just one person's view and I like the look of the new front but not more than the last front especially the one on the RS6. This is what I took away from the article and something we seem to discuss a lot here:

    "It could be a sign that Audi underestimated the competition, and it's certainly emblematic of today's auto market that even slight slips in execution can knock a car off the short list."

    These cars are all so well built that it's the small miscalculation or lack of good historical performance that reduces the buyers willingness to even go to the showroom. iDrive, which might be misunderstood, was a bad choice for the American market along with the new MMI.

    Capt. Phil
  • pearlpearl Member Posts: 336
    Amen, Moxie! As the continuing proud owner of one of the first E39s sent to America (delivered in June 96), I have loved this car like no other I have owned (including much of the relevant competition). I especially marveled at the quiet interior and was set to buy a new E60 until I saw and drove one. No doubt, the E60 is "still a BMW" and drives/rides/handles beautifully and puts most of the rest on the trailer - but I could not abide the styling, the interior (which seemed very chintzy compared to my E39) and the idiotic I-drive. While I won't buy one, no one should try to trash anything to do with the pure car issues related to BMW. They are the BEST and everyone else is a wannabe. Yep, some mag may have the M faster in various dimensions, but just drive one some time after driving a BMW and tell us that the latter was not quieter, handled better, FELT better, etc. All of that said, if I went down today to buy a new car, it would be the M before the E60 simply because of styling, features, quality, as well as performance. Shame on BMW for letting such a huge lead on the pack evaporate to placate some design bozo like Bangle.
  • turnbowmturnbowm Member Posts: 76
    The conventional controls in the BMW provide convenience in making quick changes in the A/C (temp, blower speed, etc.) and in the Sound system.

    The real value of the iDrive is in "personalizing" the car to suit the driver's preferences. The 7-band equalizer settings (boost/cut), for example, are easily accomplished with the iDrive. The alternative would be seven slide switches on the dash. As another example, with iDrive you can set the system to Flash and/or Annunciate for Lock mode with completely different settings for the Unlock mode. Want to set an audible warning when exceeding a preset speed? No problem with iDrive. The list goes on and on. To provide this same capability with separate switches and controls for each function would be mind-boggling!

    Martin
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    I cannot refrain myself from saying again that I am very pleased with iDrive in my daily experience. It works as said by turnbowm. I keep only repeating it because of so many posts written by people who are not apparently familiarized with iDrive. Having said this, it is also true that iDrive is only a convenience. I could buy a car without iDrive. On the opposite, I think there should be no reason to don't buy a BMW because of iDrive.

    Best regards,

    José
  • liyliy Member Posts: 47
    :mad: I think this Washington Times review of the A6 is far more accurate than the whines, gripes and ad hominem argument of Mr. Healey.

    Washington Times Review
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I don't find either article has the market for accuracy cornered. The new A6 has certainly won plenty of accolades. And, there have been three or four "all hands" test comparison reports -- only one (Automobile) put the Audi at the top. None of the other comparos even put the Audi in the top 3 (of 7 or 8).

    I have no axe to grind with the new A6 -- do I have any criticisms of it? Yes. Would I have paid my money for it if it had been (to my criteria) financially competitive? Without doubt.

    I am certainly pleased that the reviews of the new Infiniti M's have been so positive -- the reviews did not cause me to buy the new M over the Audi.

    My own test drives plus the apparent inflexibility of Audi Financial made the decision -- the positive reviews only were the icing.

    My impressions of Mr. Healey do not include a belief that he is a whiner or griper -- but it is OK if you see him that way. My general favorite auto writers overall work for and contribute to Car and Driver. But, by the same token, I have enjoyed David Davis for years, too. If I could have but one magazine resource, it would be, at this time, C&D.

    Edmunds has been influential in making me willing to look beyond Audi. Of my possible choices, I suspect the Audi would be my #2 choice. A lot of folks here would argue with that, though.

    I liked both articles FWIW -- the USA article did seem to justify or explain Healey's reasons based on his comparison of the Audi with other "like class" cars, notably the "M." I don't exactly think that makes him more or less accurate, it does "tell me more" of how he got to his conclusions.
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    My only reaction to the Washington Times article is that it doesn't really delve into the writer's personal opinions about how the car drives and performs. It doesn't talk about the dynamics and differences between the 3.2 and 4.2, nor does it contrast the car (good or bad) with the competition. It mostly regurgitates specs and statistics that anyone can copy out of an Audi ad or brochure. It reads more like an Audi advertisement to me.

    Some writers obviously take the easy road with auto critiques, because newspapers rely so heavily on car company advertisement for their revenue. Witness the recent flap between GM and the LA Times, where GM has pulled $10 million worth of advertisement from the paper over a recent editorial that was critical to GM.

    I don't exactly agree with Healey either, but at least when you read his articles, you are getting his honest, personal and gut feelings about any car he tests. That sense of honesty is not always seen among newspaper beat writers. Motor Trend used to cowtow and lob softballs at the car industry, but they have recently stepped up the quality of their writing, and is now on a par with Car & Driver, Road & Track, etc. Although I don't have to agree with a writer, I do appreciate it when they step out and tell us how they really feel.

    Ultimately, I think Healey summarizes his take on the Audi well when he says "Good Car, Poor Timing."
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    The Washington Times article was more of an Audi brochure, I agree. Funny, as I am typing this, I am watching C&D TV and the test review of the new A6 was just broadcast -- they loved the car, but hedged their bet a bit by saying the A6 was "expensive" -- this is their way of suggesting that the car is great, the interior is "the best" -- but that at this price point, the competition is stiff.

    I represent this conclusion.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Please do us a favor and know what you're talking about before you post pointless statements such as the one you made. First of all, Jag is owned by Ford, so are Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Volvo. When you buy any of those, you technically ARE buying American. Sure, most arent built in the US, but then, a large percentage of the big 3's production comes from Mexico, and Im sure there will be plenty of Ford, GM, and Chrysler plants in China.

    Chrysler is owned by Daimler. They made it look like "a merger of equals" but it was really a buyout. Daimler is German. As for the rest, Bill Ford and Rick Wagoneer have never helped pay my taxes, so what exactly do I "owe" them to buy their crappy cars? As for the 500, Toyota has a 1000% better product called the Avalon with 280hp. For Freestyle, see: Toyota Highlander.

    If I wanted a Volvo S80 or XC90 with a Ford Taurus engine in it, I'd.. well I'd never want a car like that, so the Fords are out, thanks. This is the "luxury performance sedan" forum. Ford makes neither luxury sedans nor performance sedans.
  • bartalk3bartalk3 Member Posts: 692
    Lexusguy, when you say that Ford makes neither luxury nor performance sedans, you may not like the Lincoln LS, but technically it should be considered in this category, no?
  • liferulesliferules Member Posts: 531
    I have to agree with many of the BMW posters who say these computer enhancements on the cars are getting a bad rap. They are being misrepresented as essential in using the auto on a daily basis. When in fact, they merely allow you to tailor the cars "preferences" rather than having to go to the dealer to do it (as in the older days).

    To complain about how difficult it is to change the clock, or to erroneously say it takes 3 steps to turn up the air conditioner or change the radio is perpetuating these false accusations for the cars. These clueless writers need to be reigned in... and unfortunately, it appears that some prospective buyers are actually buying this misinformation and changing their interests because of it.
  • 00boxsters00boxsters Member Posts: 202
    I have emailed and criticized James Healey (USAToday) a number of times and he has apropriately responded everytime! Why not email him of your concerns and post his response.

    While I do not buy everything I read, as noted above, I believe these writers are more informed than 'some prospective buyers' and overall do us a service.
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    The basic questions are---

    1. Are these interfaces necessary in the first place? I would suggest NO.

    2. Is the delivered total value justified, relative to the time, effort, and learning curves required to master them? Based on my experience with my RL (which is more simple than its German counterparts), my jury is still out. I know this much already---I would pause before I let my 18-year old son or daughter, or even a close friend, drive my RL, when in the past I would not have hesitated. It has nothing to do with their driving ability, but instead the level of confusion presented to a brand new driver who hasn't spent a few hours getting acclimated with technologies that have nothing to do with driving to the corner grocery store.

    3. Are the different technologies and approaches to these interfaces (adopted by competing companies) simply adding to the clutter, confusion, and polarization? IMO, yes.

    4. Is the lack of a single (or manageable) standard of engineering and design with such devices a negative trend? Does it take away from the primary purpose of why cars exist---TO DRIVE and ENJOY that experience? IMO, an unequivocal YES.

    5. People are already yacking on the phone, checking their Blackberries, eating a cheeseburger, or applying makeup as they drive. These complex interface technologies are a prime safety factor when placed in the WRONG HANDS. I fear this is an issue in American society, where driving is considered a right rather than a privilege.

    Lastly, the level of complexity in these cars simply adds to the many things that can break down. There is a direct correlation to the lower JD Power, Consumer Reports, and other customer satisfaction indices for certain luxury brands. IMO, the unparalleled cocktail of unnecessary complexity, gee whiz "one upsmanship," and exclusivity in the technology from brand to brand, are definitely issues.

    I always read my owners manual from cover to cover, but lately the owners manuals are beginning to resemble the stuff that accompanies my desktop, laptop, Blackberry, and digital cameras. I honestly don't need that kind of technology when I simply want to blast through a canyon at 85 mph, or cruise to the coast for the weekend.

    As a 20+ year subscriber, I really respect (though don't always agree with) Car & Driver. In their recent comparo test, they say "Even though BMW has pulled some audio and ventilation controls out of the iDrive's convoluted clutches, we still uniformly despise the system." Last fall, I drove a rented 2004 5-series on the autobahn for 400 miles from Munich to Berlin (my first experience in a BMW in about 4 years). I was left with the same impression. It's just not necessary!
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    "I have to agree with many of the BMW posters who say these computer enhancements on the cars are getting a bad rap. They are being misrepresented as essential in using the auto on a daily basis. When in fact, they merely allow you to tailor the cars "preferences" rather than having to go to the dealer to do it (as in the older days)."

    So iDrive and the like should be perceived as control panel only. Fine, but this was not the original BMW plan. It was supposed to be an all-encompassing mouse and field-of-vision monitor that improved ergonomics WHILE DRIVING and it was supposed to unclutter the dashboard. It's not working out that way so BMW can blame its own marketing strategists for the bad rap it is getting. Clicking through hierarchical menus can't possibly trump the one-button move, hence the continuing necessity for conventional dashboard controls.

    I subscribe to the merits of computers and control panels such as iDrive for improving function and luxury via preferences. However, it is not a replacement for conventional dials, switches and buttons which are ergonomically superior because of their immediacy.

    People argue that computers and computer interfaces are here to stay. I agree. But so are the buttons that BMW tried to sweep foolishly under the rug. This is where the confusion and criticism lies. The user perception is quite different from what BMW has tried to foist on buyers.
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
    response to post 1796

    This is the "luxury performance sedan" forum. Ford makes neither luxury sedans nor performance sedans

    You say Ford makes neither luxury or performance sedans. True the Focus, Fusion, Taurus, Five Hundred and Crown Victoria are not luxury or performance sedans. (The Fuve Hundred comes close to me). True, however Ford makes Lincoln correct?

    As far as I know, the Lincoln Town Car is a luxury sedan. The Lincoln LS is supposed to be a performance sedan, although, yeah it falls short of the class leaders. Regardless, it is still a luxury sedan. Ford also owns Jaguar, and they make luxury sedans.

    I personally think Ford will introduce SVT versions of the Fusion and Five Hundred in a year or two. I'm not sure about the Five Hundred, but definetly the Fusion. Ford needs a legitimate contender in the midsize sport sedan segment. A Fusion SVT would be a good contender against the Charger, Mazdaspeed 6, Maxima, Impala SS, Legacy, Malibu SS. Ford hasn't had a sport sedan since the retirement of the Taurus SHO, which was back in 1998 I think.

    Even if they never make a Ford Five Hundred SVT, they need a stronger engine with at least 250 hp and more torque. Almpst every review of the Fuve Hundred criticizes the engine, and it's a shame that such a large car only has 203hp. The new Hyundai Azera has more than that, 265.

    So, the next time you say Ford doesn't make luxury or performance sedans, remember the Town Car, LS and the Jaguar brand. By any definition, they are luxury cars. Ford may not have nay performance sedans now, but I bet within 2 years they will, or they should.
  • bartalk3bartalk3 Member Posts: 692
    cstiles,

    I second your critique of what's become technology for its own sake, brought on by senseless me-too competition. As you noted, the more complex the cars become, the more there is to go wrong. That's the source of many of Mercedes problems lately.. Even Acura, normally very reliable, has been having all kinds of glitches and gremlins with their new RL, including dead batteries, weird and unpredictable electronics failures, etc.

    So much of this stuff is unnecessary. Do we really need keyless entry (something that's been plagued with problems)? Is it really too difficult to push a remote? Do we really need rain-sensing wipers (that probably don't turn on when we want them to anyway)? And on and on.

    Because all this useless (in fact dysfunctional) technology is being introduced at the high end of the car market, it turns out that the most sensible and reliable cars are the less expensive models that don't have this stuff--e.g., Honda Accord, etc.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Well I can't in all sincerity go too far down this path, but I can perhaps support part of this technological march (forward?).

    I am old enough to remember the original PC's -- the ones that used DOS. When Windows first became available, I was appalled. What a joke. If you remember Windows 2.0, then 3.0, you may have been, like me, constantly shaking your head, cursing the system. It was not until Windows that the frequent and regular ALT-CTRL-DEL key sequence became familiar. For reasons unknown that to this day still plague some Windows applications, the phrase "just reboot it" has become commonplace.

    For years as a Software and Systems Consultant, I have watched the relentless move toward GUI interfaces for the so called back office systems that drive much of the commerce here in capitalism central. Indeed, when I am involved in system selection engagements to this very day, there are companies that will completely dismiss a system that eschews "point and click" even if the application in question is less efficient and sometimes less effective with such technologies.

    Moreover, when I am working on an engagement where the technology is point and click, GUI and "i-Drive" like, the engagement is often longer and more expensive for my client.

    Now, before you say "he longs for the good old days," I must tell you even if that were true, it would be professional suicide to decry these systems. I view my small part, my cog in the wheel of progress, so to speak, is to make these systems both more effective (first) and more efficient (second).

    We are in "the time between the parenthesis" a period of change from analog to digital as it were. The issue is, as I see it, much of the analog world really did have a superior "user interface" and although the potential is there for the digital (in my analogy) to surpass the analog, it has not yet reached the level of simplicity masking complexity that I am convinced will -- ultimately (and eventually) -- happen.

    There is one last analogy I will leave you with -- an analogy that for me completely symbolizes the issues we are having with MMI, iDrive, etc. And, an analogy that I do not have or see an alternative to/for.

    Currently the rage seems to be to shift to flat screen (plasma) or flatter screen (LCD, LCoS or DLP) HDTV's. Yet, without spending huge sums of money, all of these technologies are (or can be) easily surpassed by RPTV's -- analog, CRT based RPTV's. A 65" CRT based RPTV can be had often for under $2,000 -- although there are plasma TV's that exceed 50", only the ones costing at least $20,000 or more (at full MSRP) are able to display convincingly the "color" black. Black is the most important color for producing "depth" -- the almost 3D quality that convincing home theater demands. Yet, this immature and darn near lousy technology (without spending huge sums of money) IS the (or "a") future of TV and I would not suggest we abandon our move in this direction. It is, for those of us who have, thus far, never spent over $10,000 on a TV just not a practical technology. But hope springs eternal that "next year" flat screen TV's will finally get both better and affordable.

    Windows XP is, using a baseball game, the first pitch of the first inning; iDrive then is batting practice, it isn't even game day yet.

    I agree with much of the criticism of such technologies, but I also would characterize my inclination is to "encourage" and support the development of the technologies. Ultimately, I would agree, we will need to have a standardization of the "human-machine" interface. Right now, we have both DOS and Windows and the Mac interface all competing for our attention. Ultimately, some kind of standardization will become "mandatory" in cars, indeed mandatory for cars to evolve.

    We are simply at version 1.0, just wait for what's next.
  • senneca01senneca01 Member Posts: 34
    Here is a another very positive review for the Infiniti M45 Sport:

    April 20, 2005

    LA Times Infiniti M45 Sport Review

    The reviewer loved almost everything about the car and said that is has a "world-class interior".

    He also said, "This is an awesome car."

    "Infiniti has little rival for the title "most improved car brand". The M45 Sport is the worthiest yet."
  • liferulesliferules Member Posts: 531
    I disagree with many of the points...

    1. "Are these interfaces necessary in the first place?"
    No one said they were necessary, in fact, in my 1st post I stated that they are NOT essential. They are, like many if not most amenities in luxury cars, mere enhancements. Take them or leave them.

    2. "Is the delivered total value justified, relative to the time, effort, and learning curves required to master them?"
    I don't know about the RL, but the Audi is fairly intuitive and I haven't yet had to go back to the manual to figure out how to do something. Again, it is not essential to use the MMI in order to use the car. I can drive without having to use the MMI whatsoever. Thus, I would have no problem letting your son, daughter, or close friend drive it to the store, as they would not need to learn to use it. They just need to know how to drive a car.

    3. "Are the different technologies and approaches to these interfaces (adopted by competing companies) simply adding to the clutter, confusion, and polarization?"
    I have to agree with you here... automakers, like all other industries, refuse to work together (Blue Ray DVD anyone?). It would make things so much easier if all were similar, but I guess that's how they are trying to distinguish themselves, by exterior and interior looks and by differing styles of amenities.

    4. "Is the lack of a single (or manageable) standard of engineering and design with such devices a negative trend? Does it take away from the primary purpose of why cars exist---TO DRIVE and ENJOY that experience?"
    Its just the MMI, not anything more. I can love the drive regardless of I-drive or MMI, or whatever Mercedes has... It just allows customization to be done by the owner rather than having to take it to the dealer for them to do it thru Vag-Com, etc...

    5. "People are already yacking on the phone, checking their Blackberries, eating a cheeseburger, or applying makeup as they drive. These complex interface technologies are a prime safety factor when placed in the WRONG HANDS."
    Once again, I agree with you about people driving with cell phones or other distracting behaviors. But to place the MMI alongside cell phones is again giving it more credit than is due. It is not needed for driving, nor would one suspect someone will change their preferences or program the CD titles while driving (though there are some I wouldn't put it past).

    I think the automakers are touting these as auto "control centers" but we're not there yet. For now, the MMI is merely a way to customize the car to your liking. You can turn up or down the radio without using it. You can change the temperature settings without touching it. Its not needed to enjoy the car, and in fact, its purpose it to help with the enjoyment.
  • jjacurajjacura Member Posts: 807
    "We are in "the time between the parenthesis" a period of change from analog to digital as it were."

    Mark, you are the "Cognoscenti of Technology".... "Are you saying we are living in a world of digital "incunabula"? :D
  • docnukemdocnukem Member Posts: 485
    Hmmm...The incunabulum of the new digital paradigm?
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    Don't get me wrong....I'm all for technological enhancement, and am relatively comfortable around it. And Mark is right in his assessment that we have just only reached the nascence of these types of technologies in automobiles. I also keep reading about nano-technology, how it's already here, and what it can supposedly deliver in the years to come. Some heady stuff, for sure.

    However, somehow we have to sort out the hype, the b.s., and the marketing drivel from the realities. Many of us consumers are also serving as guinea pigs as auto companies roll out these various technologies.

    I did get a very positive preview of the promises behind GPS-driven real-time traffic management when driving the BMW on the autobahn last year. Germany has real time traffic in place throughout their main arteries. As we were speeding away, blissfully unaware of what was ahead, the navigation system suddenly alerted us (unprompted) that there is a traffic jam ahead in about 15 miles, and to prepare to slow down. It even offered some alternative routes (which we didn't take not being familiar with roads off the autobahn). Sure enough, traffic came to a standstill, precisely as alerted.

    I wasn't happy to slow down, but was pretty impressed with the technology.
  • bartalk3bartalk3 Member Posts: 692
    On iDrive and its ilk. The point I'm making is that these technologies are making things harder for the driver, not easier. Old fashioned BUTTONS that controlled the radio, A/C, defroster, etc., were very simple to use and user friendly. But now that's all considered old fashioned and "obsolete." So instead we get these complex and even incomprehensible screens and you have to scroll through 18 menus to change the radio station, while of course taking your eyes off the road. Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration, but it all makes no sense, and can be called perverse competition. Same thing with increased tire size. No real functional reason, just mindless competition. No company wants to be left "behind", so it's a race to see who can produce the most complex (and error-prone) technology.
  • cstilescstiles Member Posts: 465
    Totally agree with bartalk.

    One extremely nice feature with the RL is the voice recognition. I can just say "temperature 65 degrees" or "XM Satellite channel 80" or "turn off air conditioner" or "fan speed 2" or "turn on CD" etc. etc., and the car adjusts those various settings without the need to hit a single button or interface. And a sexy lady's voice responds.

    On my wife's setting, a husky man's voice responds. We each get our jollies.

    It isn't perfect. Today, I asked it "tell me outside temperature," and it immediately set the internal ambient temperature to 80 degrees.

    But she still sounded sexy doing it.
  • karmikankarmikan Member Posts: 116
    A thoughtful post as usual Mark. You infer a certain inevitability to the march in car technology once the human interface issues have been resolved. While you may well be correct, there is an alternative path I think.

    A couple of counterbalancing analogies:

    1) I was employed in photogrammetry (developing mapping using aerial photography) during the years that the industry transitioned from analogue to digital technology. During the prolonged transition period we couldn't imagine Internet deployment (MapQuest etc) or the marriage of digital map data and GPS (Nav systems). But it was always obvious that the inherent flexibility of digital map data would open whole new vistas. Technological advancement with a clear purpose, obvious advantages and diverse applications.

    2) A colleague many years ago was one of the first to buy an LED digital watch which cost hundreds of dollars at the time. He had to press a button to display the time and the display was not visible in sunlight. This was indeed the warm-up pitch of the ball game and it seemed that a refinement to the human interface was all that was needed. The technology evolved through LCD displays and quartz movements to a point where everyone can figuratively get a highly accurate digital watch in a box of Corn Flakes. Strange thing though, the world's most desirable timepieces (Breitling, Rolex etc.) largely use centuries-old analogue technology that largely disdains digital advances.

    Many automotive applications of digital technology such as ABS, stability controls, engine management systems and nav systems clearly fall into the same class as my analogy #1. Clear purpose and obvious advantages. Can the same be said for iDrive-like systems? At this point "clearing dash clutter" is about as provocative an argument as I've heard and it's not too compelling.

    Will iDrive-like systems be a dead end like the LED display on watches? Will they evolve (through voice commands or other interface advances) to be the equivalent of the ubiquitous quartz watch? Or will the evolution turn full circle so that an elegant, well designed analogue dash is as desirable as a mechanical Rolex watch? Because cars evoke emotions of an "artistic" or esthetic nature in many owners (much like a fine watch), this could indeed be the case.
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    Hey, you just need to admit it once and for all. It doesn't matter what iDrive is meant to do or whether it is easy to use; you just don't like it, and don't want it in your car. So the entire discussion is pretty useless. It could be the greatest computer interface ever developed and you'd still hate it. Bottom line is, BMW COULDN'T design a system like iDrive that you'd accept. Sorry, but first it was "it is too distracting." Then numerous E60 owners tell you that it isn't really distracting because you don't need to use it all of the time. So now it's "if it isn't needed all the time why have it." How would you know what BWM tried to "foist" on buyers? They designed a system that E60 owners like so who really cares about all of the rest of the speculation about what they intended?
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    Right, but I drive the car every day and I don't feel that iDrive has made anything harder for me. Several others that own the E60 feel the same way. So I just have to ask what you're basing your opinion on. Some car reviewer's opinion???
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    Rich, what's your take on iDrive being an option in the new 3-series but not the 5 and 7? BTW, I know you hear me complain about iDrive often but I actually find it to be quite tolerable, much more tolerable than styling. We tolerate the bs that Microsoft, Apple and Quark lay on us. It's the same thing. It's a matter of principle. They're all raking us over he coals IMO.
  • liferulesliferules Member Posts: 531
    I don't know what automobile you drive, but my A6 has a knob for volume and 2 buttons for advancing or backing up in the radio memory cue. There is a button for the defroster (actually one for front and one for rear windows). Which vehicles are you talking about that hide simple tasks deep into the computer display menus?

    The controls on the steering wheel, IMO, make my driving safer than cars from the last decade which don't have it.

    But I guess we've gotten to a point where we're beating a dead horse. There are those of us who feel that the MMI/I-drive features allow customization and enhancement of the joy of owning and driving a car, and there are those of you who feel it is an intrusion in the years-old tradition of simplicity...
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    I should've been more specific, when I said Ford I meant the Ford brand specifically, not Lincoln or Jaguar. My point was that the 500 and Freestyle dont belong in this forum. It would be nice to see SVT do SOMETHING, though I doubt they'll do anything with the 500. The Volvo S80 platform is not geared for performance in the way the E class parts are in the 300C. The Fusion on the other hand technically is a Mazda6, so I dont think giving the Fusion similar upgrades to the Mazdaspeed version would be very difficult.

    Mark, I definitely understand what you're talking about. At work I'm a linux man, I dont have time for an "eccentric" PC.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles