Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
I'll try to look it up later...
Xenon Adaptive Headlights automatically swivel in the direction of the road ahead even up hills and around curves. Sensors measure the vehicles velocity, direction and yaw. This information, combined with the movements of the steering wheel, is fed into an on-board computer. Based on this data, the system calculates the direction in which the vehicle is heading, and automatically points the headlights in that direction.
It's very obvious that both swivel in turns. Mine also won't swivel when stopped (but they do the quick test as well), but they do swivel a low speeds. If I'm at a stop, and I make a turn at the stop they will swivel. But if I just sit at the stop, and turn the steering wheel back and forth they don't move.
No cap. cost reduction. No security deposit since I am a continuing BMW customer.
Tax is added on monthly and the monthly payment becomes $720 a month.
Enough typing. I have some driving to do. Zoom! Zoom!
May 2005 = 23,501 units
May 2004 = 23,967 units
down -0.4% YTD
FX 35/45 sales...
May 2005 = 10,975 units
May 2004 = 12,235 units
down -8.9% YTD
Interestingly, Pilot sales are still red hot....
Pilot...
May 2005 = 52,227 units
May 2004 = 45,089 units
up +18% YTD
I believe the MDX and Pilot are both due for a styling update this fall, even though they are still selling strongly. The FX35/45 is selling at less than half the rate of the MDX. The bright spot for Nissan is that the Murano (+37%), Pathfinder (+187%), Xterra (+5%), and Armada (+33%) are all selling well. I've said this before, but with its weird Jabba The Hut styling, the FX will have limited market appeal, and Nissan has an awful lot of trucks in their portfolio. The fact that Murano is doing so much better than the FX is also revealing, IMO. I think the styling is much cleaner on the Murano, for $10K to $15K less.
G (all variants): 70,000
M (all variants, including a future coupe/convertible): 35,000
Q (or its successor): 7,000
CX: 40,000
FX: 30,000
QX: 15,000
GTR: 3,000
Total: 200,000
A G25 would add volume (which I think they'll do), as well as a more conventional SUV based on the Pathfinder (which I don't think they'll do).
Not sure what the percentages are, but the C definitely isn't sixty percent new, but neither is the Audi. Unless they're counting the nuts and bolts we can't see.
M
The RWD bias of these AWD cars IS NOT unimportant, but it still seems that weight distribution (along with appropriate suspension design) would go a greater distance in making all of these car's handle better than RWD biased AWD alone.
As I read posts here and there and magazine articles, the subject of understeer and oversteer seem to weigh more heavily on the car's overall objective and subjective handling prowess.
This must be a difficult engineering feat to accomplish, unless the mfgrs don't believe this argument has merit.
Today, based on a "statistic" that I cannot prove or disprove 80% of all cars are still FWD for a variety of reasons some we would agree on some we could debate.
The direction is clearly to produce more and more AWD vehicles. Why not simultaneously make them better balanced and take the quantum leap in performance that this combination of engineering applications promises.
I noticed my battery in my new Audi is in the rear (unless I am completely nuts), this must be yet another attempt to improve weight distribution, but the A6 is still something like 59 41 F/R. That is a huge issue despite all the geniuses of suspension systems that Audi employs.
RWD biased AWD is a good goal -- FR balance is a better one, IMHO.
F/R distribution is probably easily solved by ADDING weight to the rear of the car until you get 50/50, but this is unrealistic since it just makes the car heavier overall.
The problem with F/R weight distribution is inherint in whether the car is FWD or RWD. FWD cars are usually front heavy since the mass of the car (engine) is placed right over the axle. Making the FWD car AWD doesn't improve weight distribution unless they intend to make the front very light by using exotic materials and make the rear heavier. the RL and audi's are all FWD based, which is why their weight distribution is much heavier at the front. As much as a manufacturer is going to try to optimize this, it's gonna be difficult since they're working against the weight of the engine.
As for rwd cars, the engine can be placed behind the front axle which improves the weight distribution (like nissan's FM-front midship platform of the M45, which places the engine as far back as possible). The m35x and other awd's based on RWD cars have another driveshaft that drives the front wheels, unlike FWD based cars that don't need the extra driveshaft.
It's probably too costly for Acura and Audi to switch to RWD based awd, since that would require re-engineering of all their PROFITABLE platforms.
E = 4,205
5 = 4,183
STS = 3,719
GS = 3,317
M = 2,480
A6 = 1,581
RL = 1,565
Sales of the 5 are 4005 units. Wonder what the discrepancy is with other manufacturers?
Mercedes E class 4343.
http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/5404/
My figures are correct for June 2005.
it's best to check each manufacturer's own press releases.
Here's BMW's for Jun-05:
BMW Press Release
Will lackluster sales encourage Audi to promote better leases for it's '06s???
(I know they are clearing out the '05s with special lease deals, and the upcoming price increase is not making me happy as I will be purchasing this Fall)
Where do you get Nissan/Infiniti figures from??
If Honda/Acura were smart, they would play the RL's market segment just like Benz, BMW, Lexus and Infiniti play the game: Offer at least 2 engine choices, one a 6 and one a V8. And obviously they should bother to make it bigger inside than their $15K cheaper TL.
I think if you asked 100 people which one would have the better reliability, more than 85% would have to go with the Japanese car. It's just their reputation. I know people who had a nightmare with Audi's the same year as my previous one. Mine was great. So, test them all, if your leasing don't worry because in three years, you can get a chance to do it all again!
I had a bad experience with an '01 VW (Audi's parent) GTI, hence my vigilant search for all info concerning these models. I, too, will have an A6, most likely, but I am concerned with Audi's reliability, and need more convincing than a 90-day JD Power survey... I had three plus Airbag warning lights go off in the VW (among many other problems), now I start hearing similar issues occurring in the Audis. Coincidence?
More attractive prices would be a good start, Audi! I can help boost their sales, Audi should just give me reason to purchase their car vs. competitors (it's called sales strategy, non?) The answer is out there...
Acura RL
Audi A6
Cadillac STS
Infiniti M 35/45
Mercedes CLS
You obviously missed the entire point of the post!
Tell me something I don't know.
Consumer Reports’ analysis for each manufacturer is based upon the number of problems per 100 vehicles. The average problem rate for all 2004 vehicles covered in the survey (including domestic, European, and Asian brands) was 16 problems per 100, down from the 2003 rate of 17 problems per 100.
Snore, tell me something new, PLEASE.
This just in!
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors inched a little closer to Asian automakers with an overall problem rate of 17 per 100. Last year, U.S. automakers had a combined problem rate of 18 per 100.
The problem rate for European automakers rose slightly, to 21 per 100 from 20 per 100 last year. BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen had more than their share of problems.
Only Audi came out better than the industry-wide average, with a problem rate of 12 per 100 for the two Audi models covered in CR’s survey.
The Asian manufacturers (Japanese and Korean) once again produced the most trouble-free vehicles, with an overall problem rate of 12 per 100 (the same as Audi) for the 2004 model year. That rate has not changed in the past three surveys.
Brand Problems per 100 vehicles
Subaru 8
Honda 9
Acura 10
Toyota 10
Hyundai 11
Infiniti 11
Lexus 11
Audi 12
Mini 13
Ford 15
Pontiac 15
Cadillac 16
Chevrolet 16
Chrysler 16
GMC 16
Jeep 16
Mazda 16
Saab 16
Dodge 17
Mercury 17
Volvo 17
Buick 18
Nissan 19
Saturn 19
BMW 21
Volkswagen 23
Mercedes-Benz 25
Lincoln 26
One wonders where Jaguar may be or would be on this list? :confuse:
Generally you would do something like that with cars that arent selling (see GM).
Boy oh boy. still missing the point.
Oh, and to bondguy1, to put this matter to rest so that maxhonda99 can enjoy his Independence weekend... My point of the lackluster sales by Audi was this: Should the sales numbers for Audi not meet their expectations, it would imply that something is wrong (bad design [not the case], high price, crappy ad campaign, something). If you have a product that ain't selling, maneuver it so that it's sales will increase (probably why they have begun the lease deals on the '05s to clear the lots for the '06s that could become stale due to a price increase!!!)
As I just stated, Audi is increasing the price on the '06 A6, while cleaning up the options packages--perhaps a trade off. But it is counter-intuitive to increase the price on your product when you are having troubles moving it in the first place. Although, there are probably some MBAs or others here on the forum that are aware that sometimes this type of price increase actually increases the attractiveness of the product. I see it in the San Francisco real estate market occasionally, homes won't sell for three months, taken off the market for a week, and then re-listed at a higher price, and quickly are sold! Market psychology is strange, and I am no expert. Could it work for Audi? I doubt it with all the extremely rich competition out there, but would be an interesting debate...
I will purchase the car I most enjoy, while considering the financial implications.
I just want Audi, and all car manufacturers, to know that we are no fools! At least I'm not!
I hope that clears up my point for everyone, maxhonda99. Happy 4th!
As for this Infiniti dealership specifically, I doubt they thought it would do anything for the Q45. That car as it is right now is basically unsellable, as I'm sure Infiniti's dealers are well aware. As you said, I think its meant to help G and FX sales.
As for the original Q, it was killed by one of the worst marketing campaigns in luxury car history.
http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/vds2005089.asp
How do you get that from the JD Powers Chart? Subaru looks like it's below the middle of the pack at 260 defects per 100 vehicles.
In previous versions of Audis 5 speed tips, control of 2 - 5 was possible -- 1st gear was still under "Hal's" control, "Dave, what are you doing? Dave?"
The new 6speed tip does at least two things better than even a two year-old tip:
1. Control of 1 - 6 is about 98% "in your hands and feet" (it still will upshift if you have a stupid attack, it will downshift if you are in 6th and slow down to stop and "forget" to use the shifter and it will also kick down if you punch the throttle all the way down.)
2. Responsiveness -- actually forget responsiveness in the previous versions, there was little to speak of (upshifts were sort of responsive, downshifts less so in the 5 speeds -- even with the 4.2. Note: the previous version S6 tip seemed to have a "better" program, as did the RS6, I assume -- I never drove an RS6, i.e. )! The new 6speed tip shifts "now" when I say not a .5 second (or more) after I make my request. This is a substantial improvement.
I am sitting here chuckling that I am going to great pains to explain how the new automatic transmission is almost as good as a manual, almost. The tip, with my only 1,000 mile experience is still "more work" arguably than a 6speed manual -- not that I am opposed to "more work" but that it is odd that so many computer programs (and programmers) and electro-mechanical bits (and engineers) have put forth so much energy and thoughtfulness to make something that is "almost as good" as some (many?) manual transmissions have been for years and years. :confuse:
Of course the positives about this car outweigh this admittedly [very] personal preference. Important suggestion: My advice on this matter -- do not test drive a BMW 530xi with a manual transmission (it is OK, however, to test drive same with the step transmission BMW offers), for it will make you wonder why virtually all of these LPS cars are ONLY offered with "genuine imitation crab meat" instead of the real thing.
While I'm on about the transmission, I started cleaning up the accumulated test reports and brochures from the various and sundry cars my wife and I tested. I have, for another day or two probably, kept the Audi brochure, the Cadillac STS / 4 brochure and my favorite (brochure) the Infiniti M(35X) piece. My checklists, notes, comparison and one-off magazine test drives and reviews are all neatly piled up soon to be tossed -- but I, of course, made a last -- final -- glance at all of them.
My memory of the Cadillac and the Infiniti, I'm certain, do not do them justice, but there are a few "notes" that do bear sharing.
The Audi wins, hands down, not even close, the prize for the interior -- the Cadillac loses hands down, not even close. Yet, the Infiniti (I had configured Platinum with Bourbon for my M35X order -- and ended up with my first choice color combo of Dark Green Pearl and Amaretto in the A6) with this love it or hate it interior (Terracotta in the BMW X3 -- a rose by any other name, that is) was certainly worthy of an honorable mention even though it does come in as second to the Audi. Remember, Audi's interiors are often thought of as "the benchmark" in Premium Class automotive interior design -- they ooze quality and taste. For the Infiniti on its first car in this class (arguably) to come this close basically means that Audi had better keep looking over its shoulder and it will certainly see Infiniti gaining on it.
The Audi, too, has a bit more solid "thunk" when the doors close -- again the Cadillac is a distant third and the Infiniti (without the benefit of comparison) would be completely satisfactory. Considering the differences in MSRP, the Infiniti would have to be the winner, even if only by a nose. Without the price consideration the Audi's nose protrudes, however. Look out Audi.
Engine refinement (not in a vacuum) -- hmm, much tougher to call, or at least initially so. The Northstar V8 is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Yet the Cadillac comparably equipped to either the A6 3.2 or the M35X is $10,000 minimum more money and technically it is more like $13,000 since the Cadillac requires the sport package option to even think of keeping up with the Audi or the Infiniti once the road ceases to be flat, straight and wide. Both the Audi and the Infiniti leave the Cadillac in the distance in this respect. The Cadillac engine may be a jewel but its "setting" is just all wrong in standard trim.
The Infiniti V6 is about halfway between the Audi 3.2 and the 4.2 in terms of urge -- it is the winner in the power department for certain. In terms of smoothness, refinement, maintenance intervals and SOUND, the 3.2 rivals the sweetest sounding engine I've ever heard -- the Audi 4.2. I can only conclude that "had I a magic wand, I would want my 3.2 equipped with an Audi bi-turbo breathing apparatus."
I loved the power of the M35X -- the A6 3.2 is "decent," "adequate," "capable," but hardly likely to go much beyond a 7.5 (or MAYBE an 8) on the grin meter. The 3.5 M35X is at worst an 8. Audi is so close, but just can't quite manage the hustle that the extra ponies provide in the Infiniti.
Sound systems -- the BOSE system in the Audi IS the best Audi sound system, ever. The surround capabilities (for Sat Radio) are notable and quotable. The Infiniti, however, has the best system I have ever heard, period, in ANY car (tied with the Acura TL). The M also plays DVD-Audio discs. Bonus! The Infiniti is a 9.5, the Audi an 8.5. Notably the Cadillac system is fine, but it seems to lack definition (almost as if there is a fine mesh of cheese-cloth over the tweeters) and gets an OK 7.5.
Comfort -- the Cadillac in a straight line, the Infiniti and Audi are tied for second place, simply because of their more "sporting" capabilities (apparently.) Drive a Cadillac with Magna-Ride and ask yourself if such technology can't be reverse engineered or outright purchased and put to good use by Audi and Infiniti -- I'd pass on the Audi (allroad-like) air suspension for Magna-Ride in a heartbeat.
Overall, you have three decent cars (and I am not discounting the RL or the 530xi, I just didn't consider them after a certain point in time.) The Infiniti still seems to be the most impressive -- FOR THE MONEY. My heart, as you probably already know/knew, belongs to Audi though.
Moreover, for those of you who followed my "saga" with respect to getting the Audi at "price parity," I still think Audi would fare far better in the sales stats if it returned to those days of yesteryear and priced the Audi du jour aggressively against its Japanese rivals.
Then as a final note to Cadillac -- unbundle the HUGE $ option packages so that a guy like me could actually go into the dealer and "build" an STS w/AWD and sporting intention for less $! :shades:
;-)