Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
They are protecting their trademark and are doing the same thing any other company would do.
However, when Microsoft sues their competitors for infrigement on trademarks, it's not insecurity but greed? :confuse
So does BMW have a trademark on an alphabet? Maybe your right most companies would do the same.
IMO the only threat to The BMW M series trademark is any shortfall in their performance/handling specs. Fortunately that is currently not happening and nobody will ever mix up a a Mazda M3 with a BMW M3 or a Infiniti M with a BMW M.
I don't think Ford has trademarks on A or T (as in "Model A").
You don't see MB going after Jaguar with the S-class and S-type.
But I guess you are right. Z.com goes to the Nissan Z web page, and there is the ® after the Z.
Curiously D.com goes nowhere. Hmm, I'll have to go to Network Solutions to see if it's available.
;-)
Mark, I agree that the playing field is a bit more even now than in the past, but in terms of AWD, Audi still seems to be pretty much ahead of the curve.
"While the Audi A6 traveled the 60 feet in our ice-rink test in a speedy 6.25 seconds, others were so pokey we wondered if they could beat even the rink's ice-resurfacing vehicle. (The result? BMW 0, Zamboni 1.)"
I am not saying that if you want a BMW, for whatever reason, you are not justified in doing so. (It has been mentioned numerous times that a large factor in car buying is subjective). I was just pointing out that if AWD is a deal breaker, you would be settling for a suboptimal system in any car other than an Audi.
Also, I think that the LPS segment is by definition a hybrid, tweener segment. One is trying to get both Luxury and Performance in one car. Most people that buy an LPS are not looking for true performance, but something that gives them a sense of sportiness, with all the creature comforts and other conveniences of a sedan. To get true performance you will have to go with a true sports car. And I think that is where you will find most of the stick shifts.
BMW, for instance, shows a 3 series able to bob and weave the snowballs being thrown at it. BMW does not with this commercial attempt to demonstrate much of anything other than what the visual suggests.
The other companies touting AWD or the availability of AWD or SH-AWD don't spend much if any time talking about the bias of their AWD systems. Only Acura (because it can one would imagine) tells you why SH-AWD should be important to you. BMW dramatically demonstrates how your X3 can help you avoid accidents, and so on.
My point pertaining to Audi was that they were (a couple of years ago) virtually unique due to their AWD system.
Clearly AWD has become a competitive advantage (a competitive need) as the LPS cars have certainly demonstrated. If you are Audi, however, how do you get your message out that your AWD system is different and/or better?
Somewhat quietly, I think, Audi is moving from the 50 50 f/r power split from rest to 40 60. This, in their case, is perhaps a good thing, it is certainly a reactionary rather than leadership move, however.
In the real world that most of us must drive in, the difference between Audi's traditional 50 50 power split vs BMW's 50 50 weight split (even with their X drive option) will be more likely to demonstrate the benefits of balance (favoring the BMW) than the subtleties of f/r power distribution.
The cost, to Audi, of a design that improves balance must be darn near unaffordable, I assume, or they certainly would have attempted better balance first.
I have googled information (facts) and opinions pertaining to the Audi employed TorSen system (old, current and now being adopted by Audi in its more performance oriented and newer to market offerings.) The Quattro system is one of the best if not the best offered in this class (there is at least one system that is "better" but it is not used by the LPS class probably due to cost factors.) So the TorSen system is at the top of the heap in terms of its engineering, etc.
"Wet tongue, frozen pole," both in words and pictures tells a story in seconds. The anatomy and benefit of a torque sensing AWD set up is, or at least has not been, made interesting or entertaining (or memorable?) by Madison Ave or any other place where adverts and mktg campaigns are hatched.
Besides, I indicated darn near my ONLY reason NOT to get a quattro (all price points being in alignment) would be the offering of a stick shift (which, at this point, is a BMW exclusive.)
25 years of quattro has probably put Audi in the AWD LPS leadership position insofar as that technology and engineering is concerned -- I will not quarrel with the spirit of that concept.
I remain disappointed that Audi (my fave) has IMHO squandered this position this differentiation. Only the Audi driving UP the ski lift evokes anything that even approaches the compelling marketing from some of the other guys.
Trouble is, I am not sure many people believe that the Audi literally drives UP the ski lift -- some folks swear it is just towed up (even though the fine print explains the tow cable is to prevent the car from sliding back down the lift.)
Now Audi offers up a V-10 S6 (at what price, $70, 80,000?) when it would seem there is, even in this class, ever greater interest in fuel economy.
I guess if you can afford the MSRP, the 5+ liters of displacement and its appetite for fuel are immaterial.
Maybe the V10 is an attempt to differentiate. All this time Audi had the "difference" it was called quattro.
Of course the new S6 only comes with an auto -- the market seems increasingly less interested in shifting for itself. Hence my current lament. :confuse:
That must have been the reason the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) sued the World Wrestling Federation (WWF).... They made the wrestling entity change their name and initials to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).
I'm sure there were a lot of people out there confusing those two groups.
Wish it had more AWD comparison in it though.
-Paul
It is [or it may be] splitting hairs and in "real life" it may have a minimal effect, but I'll venture a 50,000 foot "defense" of TorSen (the underpinnings of Audi's quattro.) "Just because someone has been doing it longer doesn't mean its better," [sic] was posted here recently.
How can you argue against this? In some things (perhaps even most things) experience "counts." But, we're at some water mark these days where the similarities are greater than the the dissimilarities. Most LPS AWD systems, practically speaking are indistinguishable from one another, in ever day use, right?
Well, yes, no, but.
Well, at least you know that is my sense. Sure, a system that is 95% FWD and 5% RWD nominally may be said to be less than ideal when performance is your goal.
Folks here seem to believe (and I am not arguing the point, with this post), when speaking of AWD systems, FWD bias is the least desirable and RWD bias is most desirable.
If you are uncertain where Audi's quattro system stands (or has stood) it has fundamentally been a 50 50 bias system, a system that can shift power to the place it is needed most. Currently several Audis offer 40 60 f/r bias with more to come according to the company.
Of course BMW's X-drive and Infiniti's mouthful MLA and everyone else's I can think of can shift power, too. Note Vovlo's brochure for the S60 Type-R (their "hot rod" high zoot performance/lux less than full size car) says 95% FWD 5% RWD until slippage is detected (which will become an important qualification in a paragraph or three), then the power shifts. As recently as last year, Volvo apparently felt no need to jump on the RWD biased AWD is the "true way" and the "true light" if your goal in any way includes performance.
Anywho: Audi (and although they are NOT alone, they are rare in their choice of AWD systems) decades ago chose the Torque Sensing system (aka TorSen.) So what?
Well, some would consider this a technicality, some would consider this important but not significant and some would just throw all the cards (or most of them, anyway) in favor of what has been labled by engineering and marketing types alike as a "superior" AWD system: TorSen.
In a nutshell (yea, yea, a really big nutshell -- rim shot):
o The TorSen differential is entirely a mechanical device; it has no electronics, clutches or viscous fluids.
o TorSen works as an "open differential" only when the amount of torque going to each wheel is equal. When one wheel starts to lose traction, the difference in torque causes the gears in the TorSen differential to lock. And, the design of the gears in the TorSen differential determines the torque bias ratio. E.g., if a particular TorSen differential is designed with a 4:1 bias ratio, it is capable of applying up to four times more torque to the wheel that has good traction and so on.
o TorSen differentials are often used in high-performance all-wheel-drive vehicles. TorSens are like viscous coupling differentials in some respects: they are typically used to transfer power between the front and rear axles.
Yet, in "high-performance" [you decide] cars, the TorSen is superior (but the average LPS driver may never notice the difference, and no, that is not a "slam') to the viscous coupling (and almost any other system currently deployed) because it transfers torque to the wheels that need it prior to any actual slippage.
In these days where manufacturers are measuring the "rise time" of LED brake lights versus incandescent light bulbs and claiming the brake light's rise time can shorten stopping distances (due to reaction time) by over 22 feet at "X" miles per hour due to the fraction of a second quicker "rise time," it only seems reasonable that instantaneous response is better than "virtually instantaneous" response.
The quattro equipped car will shift power "before" slippage.
On The Other Hand
Quattro weighs more than the other systems, generally speaking. Quattro is probably the most or if not THE most, "almost" the most expensive system to render AWD.
Quattro NOW, this very second, is available with RWD bias all the while retaining the "instantaneous" reaction/response time.
Quattro is, then, "technically" (and within the confines of what can be bought today, not some theoretical or more expensive and/or esoteric system that certainly does exist) superior -- I agree.
My point earlier, not to counter my own arguments and the "facts" of the situation, was "X-drive" or SH-AWD will be imperceptibly different ("worse") than quattro.
Indeed, where Audi MIGHT be superior totally cannot be determined, for that place would be an Audi with Rear-Biased quattro (based on the latest quattro system) and a neutral f/r weight bias.
Such an Audi does not currently exist.
A well balanced, equally powered (255hp Audi 3.2 vs the BMW) 530xi with a stick shift however is within the realm of the LPS universe and probable affordability by us participants here on this edmunds blog/topic.
While it may technically have a cheaper, lighter, "not quite as good" of an AWD system, I think most of us would never be the wiser nor feel we had been saddled with "second best" with the X-drive system.
Audis experience may be a factor here in its ability to be the current "best" AWD provider (in this context.) I just don't think it matters much any more, hence my current mantra (one of several) "Audi squandered it superiority."
And who cares who won over a Zamboni -- other than entertainment value, it is not "real world," at least not in my real world.
To clarify further one point -- I'd still take the Audi (over the Bimmer) if forced to only have a clutchless system and I'd still take the Audi if it price (at some point) is in its favor.
:shades:
The violent agreement is "how much difference, practically speaking, will it make?"
Some folks here (me included) will split hairs and then split atoms over .1 second or .25 inches of legroom or .2 cubic feet of. . . or 2 foot pounds of torque on Tuesdays in months beginning with the letter "R" -- so you would think the "technical" advantage offered by quattro would amount to MORE than a hill of beans.
Since most of us make our decisions based not on merit (other than what we tell ourselves has merit) I can tell you 'til I am blue in the face that the TorSen system should merit your consideration.
I might as well try to hold my breath until the first Robin Redbreast of Spring comes bob bob bobbin' along.
But, it's fun trying. . . .
"Quattro Rules" -- yep, what a great slogan, probably sell a lot more cars now, don't you think? Not hardly.
Drive it like you live. :shades:
"Quattro Rules" does sound a lot better than, "ATTESA Dominates", or "SH-AWD Kicks A**"
You may make decisions based on merit, but I think most people make decisions based on what they tell themselves is merit. But most people don't know that, do they? ;-)
interesting analysis of the Audi and BMW, but what of the other systems? (Volvo?)
and just how "useful" is that Quattro system if the car is in the shop ten days/year?
OUCH.
:-)
"Since most of us make our decisions based not on merit (other than what we tell ourselves has merit). . . ."
Rather than write a REALLY long post -- as if -- my analysis was not of Audi and BMW at the exclusion of other systems.
The analysis or explanation if you will (and even if you won't) was ONLY of the quattro system. I did in fact mention the Volvo system (but I don't think I used any names OTHER than TorSen.) Sure I used the brand name, quattro, X-drive an SH-AWD, I alluded to Infiniti's and made mention of Volvo's which is, as I recall, a system called "Haldex."
As I have come to understand, in my own muddling way, TorSen systems react prior to wheel slippage while the other systems, generally, react after slippage occurs.
The real world value proposition remains subjective or at least it is open to an individual's determination of how much "performance or safety and value" the TorSen system imparts.
I attempted to analyze the TorSen's salient technical attribute -- not its only attribute; and, although I think it is clear I think its difference is both real and could be significant, I also recognize the very real possibility that the differences may be insufficient motivation for LPS AWD purchasers.
It is true, that out of 28 Audis, ONE, was in the shop for 11 days right after I got it -- that car was my 2003 allroad. The car remained in the shop AT MY REQUEST. There was an issue with On*star. No other mechanical or electrical problem required the car to be there.
Just to cover myself, virtually no Audi I have had has required more than 3 visits annually to the dealer, inclusive of normal maint and or repair work.
Since 1995, almost all work done on my Audis has been service interval work.
Audis have been very reliable from my perspective.
If your personal experience over many many many Audis belies mine, well that is too bad. And, assuming you too have had at least two dozen Audis, our combined 48 Audis are probably not all that revealing considering that Audi must sell at least 20,000 cars per year (even in the US -- and yes, I know it was 83,000 in 2005, I am trying to make a point about the statistics that we represent -- we two multiple multiple owners of Audis.)
If calidave has only owned 4 or 5 Audis personally instead of my "presumed" dozens and has ONLY what he reads here to go by, for instance, well I would at least like to represent an owner of Audi products since early 1977 and "testify" that they have been very reliable.
Of course, most of you long time posters will also recognize that I am NOT able to comment as to the durability of Audis since I cannot recall EVER having kept one past 50,000 miles.
But, my experiences in the first 50,000 miles have been so overwhelmingly positive that I just can't wait to get my next, newer and better version. If I thought they were troublesome or had issues of any kind in this regard, I certainly would not keep repeating the acquisition of these fine cars.
I may be crazy, but I am not stupid -- OK, maybe a little bit.
:shades:
Since that time I have neither read nor posted there again.
I don't recall anyone complaining about how the car drives except for a few people who state some issues which sound like alignment/tire-inflation problems and some slippage on icy roads.
There are two or three who seem to have had more issues. One of these has cut-and-pasted the same post on multiple boards (praising the car, d***ing the company--making my first impression one of a competitor's shill). That particular problem seems to be more individual dealer-related.
If you check the M problems board, you will find most love the car and have one or two minor issues.
I have never personally owned an Audi. My sister had one in the 70s. It was cute, sporty, but a complete dog from a reliability standpoint. Without question the worst auto-buying my family made. I have three friends who owned Audis in the last three years. All three loved their Audis, and all three sold them within two years of purchase because they were getting eaten alive by reliability issues. One of my colleagues has an Audi, and loves it, and has had no troubles with it. And he would definitely dump it if it even hiccupped. (sic)
I realize this data is certainly not sufficient for decison-making. I have not been confronted with this decision for years, however, as my last two car purchases have been of vehicles in segments that Audi did not play in.
I wasn't criticizing your non-mention of Volvo/Haldex. Was just wondering what your take on it was.
They are meant to direct power from front to rear and rear to front (and in the case of SH AWD a bit from left rear side to right rear side and so forth.)
TorSen, not exactly quattro (even though since every quattro BUT the TT is TorSen, the TT is Haldex) is "different" in that it is the system these LPS guys could use that can actually said to be effectively "pro-active" rather than "reactive."
BMW with its longitudinal engine COULD be TorSen if the engineers and managers and accountants wanted to adopt it.
And, etc etc etc the other guys.
TorSen is some evidence that "doing it for a long time" may have value to the consumer. Or plainly put, experience counts (at least a little bit.)
I do not understand the statement that some folks had some reliability problems with their Audis and were being eaten alive. Audis have come with maintenance and warranty since 1988 -- at one time they had a three year test drive program 100% of everything except gas, plates and insurance for 3 years. Today Audis are covered by a 4 year 50K program called the Audi advantage.
If they had had an Audi for 2 years, recently, the only way they would have NOT been held harmless from issues is if they exceeded 50K miles OR did not CPO the car.
Further, why would someone dump an Audi if it hiccuped? Or would this person dump ANY LPS brand if it burped?
"... I totally agree with your assertion that dissimilar tires neuter the comparo"
I agree, leveling the playing field by putting on identical tires would make the test more objective, but I don't know if that would account for a nearly 40% difference in time.
And, I hope you are not saying that BMW and Lexus are putting significantly lower quality tires on their cars compared to Audi. If that were the case, I guess there should be a HUGE performance disadvantage in everyday driving as well (a 40% disadvantage?). Maybe BMW and Lexus owners should go out and replace their tires for the "superior" Continentals the Audis come with.
I understand that every test drive or comparo has it's flaws, they are never performed scientifically. But, one can at least get a general idea of a cars performance and come away with a bit more information.
At least one thing can be said, AWD vs. Rear (or Front) Wheel Drive makes a significant difference [in identical cars (and I am assuming identical tires)]:
"On the ice, the rear-drive GS was practically uncontrollable, and took 15 seconds to travel 60 feet. The all-wheel-drive GS covered the distance in about half the time..."(actually in about 8.6 seconds)
I agree that Audi squandered it's advantage it had for so many years with it's AWD. AWD seems to have caught on and may be a real selling point in the years to come.
" "When you're spending $50,000 or more, all-wheel drive is such a small percentage of the total...It seems silly not to get it."
the guy who would sell if it hiccuped would sell ANYthing if it burped - so I am guessing that his Audi has not burped (though it is that odd purple/grey shade)
I'll bet we have serious life insurance policies, even if our houses are paid for. I'll be we have serious "home owner" insurance policies with multi-million dollar liability (umbrella) riders.
I'll bet we bundle our car and homeowner's insurance together maybe we even do this with our car, house and life policies to squeeze out that little extra % discount.
Speaking as an insignificant statistic: We made one claim against our auto insurance in the past few years (10?) and that was for a two by four that fell off of a truck and hit my wife's new BMW front bumper (plastic) and it had to be replaced (we have $250 deductible.) We have earthquake insurance (in SW Ohio, who would've thought?) In 1990 just after we moved into our then brand new custom built (by us) house, it was struck by lightening (twice) which fried every electronic doo dad we own, including the toaster. We made a claim on that.
We keep paying for all this insurance. My guess is we're way way way upside down on the auto insurance equation having paid much more in in premiums than we have made claims. Now at year 16, I would guess we're pretty far upside down on the homeowner's policy including the new home theater, PC's and modem and toasters lost in 1990.
We keep paying for all this insurance.
I'd wager, to repeat, we would not even consider NOT continuing our car and house insurance.
Yet, we buy $50,000 cars with the expecation (apparently) that they should "be used and used and used" without ever breaking (or hardly ever.) We "expect" a warranty, heck some of us even expect free maintenance, free loaner cars, free coffee and donuts, free car washes and a box of cookies annually from the dealer thanking us for buying a car in 2003 (or whenever.)
I have been in the "argument" before -- probably even here on edmunds -- but, IMHO we should not expect to keep these cars without sufficient financial resources or "extended" programs, for these vehicles even more than most are "breathtakingly expensive" to service, maintain and repair.
If I decide to keep my 7 month old 2005 A6 to 49,998 miles, I cannot dream of NOT paying the dealer the "quoted" cost of $1,195 (my cost, so he says) to get the car "certified" to 6 years or 100,000 miles (whichever comes first) by the time 49,999.9 miles rolls around on the odometer.
I would no sooner drive on the public highways without collision, liability, medical and comprehensive insurance than I would keep one without a service and warranty insurance policy. I would not own my house (even after my last mortgage payment) without insurance (all kinds: fire, theft, so-called act of god, liability and earthquake) even though I know I have had virtually no use for such insurance in my 54 years on planet earth.
Just a thought.
I am not trying to excuse the European (or American) LPS cars nor suggest somehow that Japanese cars aren't as reliable and durable as so many appear to be convinced.
Simply I am pointing out my own inability to see THAT much difference between the insurance policies we buy for houses and life and health and even auto accident coverage and "insuring" against catastrophic repair bills that are becoming more and more commonplace due to the complexity of an LPS car.
Yet, even the folks who live in extremely safe geographies, I would imagine, continue to buy other kinds of insurance despite the apparent lack of "need" for such.
Automobiles hit potholes have often violent presses of their pedals and turns of their wheels, etc -- and this kind of wear and tear is expected to be taken almost indefinitely without financial consequences.
We would not go without insurance on anything valuable or expensive, is my point. And the secondary point is to consider extended warranties on $50K cars to not be an unreasonable or perhaps even unexpected expense beyond the first 4 years or 50,000 miles.
We insure our LPS "lives" why not our LPS cars with respect to wear and tear?
I am, apparently, making less sense than usual. Sorry. :surprise:
One of the fundamental axioms of property & casualty insurance is that one should not pay a 3rd party to assume a risk that one can afford to assume on one's own.
In other words, self-insure whenever possible. Buy insurance only to protect yourself from truly crippling losses.
A few years ago, an electrical fire caused $150K worth of damage to our next-door neighbor's house in only 15 minutes. The house was uninhabitable for more than 6 months afterwards. (What was particularly unsettling about this was that none of the damage was visible from the street.)
That, my friend, is a genuinely catastrophic loss - one that would bankrupt most of us in the absence of insurance - & that's why I carry the best available homeowner's coverage from the financially strongest carrier doing business in my area.
By the same token, I don't consider even a $5K+ transmission job, which should be a once-in-a-lifetime event, to be remotely comparable. Mind you, if this were to happen to me, I'd be cranky as hell that week. But I wouldn't have to postpone retirement or even skip a vacation. I'd moan & groan, grumble & complain but I'd pay it. It wouldn't change my life & it shouldn't change yours.
To my way of thinking, anyone who owns or is close to owning a car in the $40K+ bracket should have a suitably strong balance sheet. That means little or no non-mortgage debt & plenty of liquidity. A solid balance sheet beats the stuffing out of & eliminates the need for any extended warranty / service contract.
I must admit that I was immunized against these things at an early age. When I bought my 1st new car - a '74 Honda Civic hatchback - my father insisted that I buy a service contract. He was co-signing the loan, so I reluctantly did as he asked. A couple of years later, on a whim, I pulled the fancy warranty certificate out of the shoebox on my closet shelf & called the phone number for claims, only to get an out-of-service recording. It turned out that the service contract issuer went belly up not long after I bought the contract. For some reason, I wasn't surprised.
I never again purchased a service contract & have never regretted it. (For the record, the most expensive single repair bill I've ever had to pay was > $1.4K, & that was on an 11-yr-old car.)
:-)
I do agree with the rest of your post. Just yankin your chain re the repair on the junker.
I do think, though, that he should've put me on his Christmas card list after that.
I'll probably never again keep a car past its 10th birthday.
My M was on the second shipment from Japan and had both the moonroof rattle and exhaust pinging sound during cool-down problems. My dealer bent over backwards in correcting both problems (TSBs were issued for both - that's my car in the picture!). The engineers were really eager to find out about and to resolve any issues with their new baby. Infiniti quickly changed their production methods so both of these are no longer an issue. I've had no other issues with the car. My complete story is documented on the Edmunds forums.
I'm a previous owner of a 5-series, E-series, Porsche and Lexus Coupe. All were first years of their design and all had issues. The difference is that not only did the BMW and M-B have more problems but their service departments treated me so poorly - I'm wasn't sure that they cared about such mundane things as quality. Lexus acted liked Infiniti has - Porsche in the middle.
In 12 years of BMW's, the only service visits were for oil changes, hot chocolate, bottled water and Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies.
I, like many folks, do indeed self insure many things. I self insure appliances, but not my uber expensive washer and dryer -- considering the cost of the insurance was $29.95 per year.
I read with "concern" the posts from folks who have NOT had such and such a car that are both positive and negative and based on the person's proclivity at that time, apparently, they use this as part of the rationalization to buy or not buy.
"I wouldn't have such and such because Consumer's Opinion magazine said they have such and such issues."
Based on such reports and the hostility (almost) against Mercedes (for instance), you'd think they would be pulling out of the US sometime in the near future. Yet Mercedes and BMW are neck and neck to be either one or two in terms of popularity based on unit sales.
Were I to acquire a Mercedes, I might, for instance, allocate (as a journal entry) an expense item, "reserve for bad debt" (or the automotive equivalent.)
Or I might consider extending the factory warranty for a price that at the time seemed appropriate.
I didn't want the older tech, thirsty engine.
I have had three Audi 4.2 engines -- they were very enjoyable and quite thirsty. An FSI version at the time was not available. I love the sound of the 4.2 when it is angry.
I drove both.
Under urban conditions the differences were certainly noticable but not compelling even though my preference would be for the V8 all other things being level.
I also found the M35X was certainly adequately powered, too.
I miss my 2.7T with a 6spd manual. I'll bet my current car with the manual treatment normally passed on by Audi (lower final drive ratio and different gear ratios) coupled to the exact same engine would be perhaps 1/2 second quicker. And more fun and more likely to impart the feeling of control.
Traffic and perhaps even my age have made me reconsider the need for ever greater engine displacement especially considering I am convinced that $4+ gal gas is coming soon to a pump near you.
I did not even price or configure the 4.2. I had configured the M35X and the A6 3.2 as comparably as possible and I was willing to drive either car for at least 33 months.
Since then, I have driven the 530xi auto and found the A6 3.2 auto preferable. But the STS V6 completely blew me away when I was offered the opportunity to compare it to the 530.
No stick version with AWD of the BMW is or has been avail to test, but I suspect it would get my dollars today over either the M or the A6 (assuming all 3 were close in cost.)
My A6 was $53,286. Lease is $642 with no upfront money and 15K per year for 3 years. I am NOT displeased with the car, the technology, the appearance or the cost.
Actually I am very pleased with just about everything with this A6.
My decision, once the financial playing field was leveled, was not particularly rational; but, it was not insane.
A combination of reading, test drives, experience and edmunds posts made and read lead me to the conclusion that the LPS cars generally discussed here are pretty darn close to each other in terms of content and performance (and even, today, reputation, given their past 15 year or so history in the US.)
Audi is the big loser in terms of monthly sales (or is it Acura?) Yet, 2005 for Audi was a fantastic year when they compared the year to their own history rather than the other LPS cars here discussed. Mercedes or BMW (one of them) was the winner in 2005, but wow Mercedes must need a technician and a parts inventory or both in the trunk to read some of the posts.
Lexus seems to "get the reliability" defense more than the performance, safety or fun to drive argument. Yet, other than the car magazines, not much negative is ever written about Lexus cars -- it is just that beyond reliability it certainly seems that even repeat owners seem less interested in driving than they are in frequency of repair.
Yet, even this, is most likely my own bias showing through. The BMW folks have to be the most passionate, at least this would be my take based on what is written here. Infiniti M drivers and even RL drivers are quite powerful advocates for their cars. And a few of us seem very pro Audi, but I read many very passionate "I wouldn't consider an Audi because they are unreliable" posts even though not many of them seem to come from past or present owners.
That's just what I've done for years, except that I do it for all of the stuff in my life that might go wrong - both automotive & non-automotive.
Here's how I look at it. The odds are fair to good that at some time in the next 90 days, I'll have to cough up at least $2K to cover an unexpected expense.
Perhaps my wife's Lexus, out of warranty now for 3 years, will require surgery. Or my beloved 330i, also out of warranty, will break down in some expensive, characteristically BMW, way.
But my experience has taught me (& 13 years of Quicken data will confirm) that large unexpected expenses are far more likely to be house-related than car-related. I have no idea how old our washer & dryer are - they came with the house - but the color scheme suggests that they date back to the glory days of disco. And then there's the designer oven, which was cutting edge in the 2nd Reagan administration but which is beginning to beep in a strange & alarming fashion. I'm almost certain that I'll spend far more money on appliance repair or replacement during the coming year than I will on car repairs.
And that's only a small part of what can go wrong in modern life. We have a new puppy, & my vet might nail me with a 4-figure bill (my sister spent over $6K last year after her beloved pointer was hit by a car) or I might have to bail out my brother-in-law or the IRS might dun me for back taxes.
All of this goes to the heart of my objection to "extended warranties." When you don't know what will go wrong next, you can't afford to lock up dollars in a single-purpose service contract. For real peace of mind, you need nothing less than a sizeable interest-bearing slush fund.
My wife sometimes talks about replacing her Lexus with an E-class. Am I concerned about post-warranty repair costs if she goes ahead with this? Yup. Will I buy a service contract? Nope. But I will add more dollars to my slush fund. For this sort of thing, you can't beat money in the bank.
Regarding 10+ year old cars, I passed down my 93' Infiniti J-30 to my son, and 13 years 142K miles later, it is still going strong. He was six when I bought the car. The only major cost was a timing belt replacement, even though I had a contingency slush fund. My only "service contract" was the extra cost for synthetic oil.
My son still gets the Saturday car washes, coffee and donuts at the Infiniti dealer, and they treat his car, and him, just like the guy that drove the new M35 off the lot.
Thats not really what I was getting at. All-season tires are by definition "compromise tires". Where were those compromises made? In C&D's big tire test from a few months ago, the differences on the skidpad of tire grip mounted on the identical car in wet conditions were as much as .20g from worst wet tire to best wet tire. I would think that if they did a skidpad test on ice, the differences could be even greater still.
It's a tough trade-off, but we found that a new unit paid itself back in about 5 years. PLUS the new units are so much quieter,they get the clothes cleaner, they look better, and ours are stackable, so we gained a nice spot in the garage (much needed in our cramped California "two-car" - yeah right - garages)
and....er....then we have more room for the Luxury Performance Sedan of our choice......
I also hope that at some point in 2006 my lovely wife will settle on a replacement for her '99 Lexus ES 300.
Over 6 months ago, at the beginning of last summer, I suggested that she test drive the Japanese Big Three: the Acura RL, the Infiniti M & the Lexus GS. I was certain that she'd come home with the GS.
Several weeks later, she announced that she had narrowed the field to 2 candidates: the Lexus ES 330 & the Mercedes E350.
I know what you're thinking & what someone will probably say: these cars are in altogether different categories & happen to be some $20K apart in price. No one who knows anything about cars would cross-shop these 2. And you wouldn't be wrong to say this. That would certainly be my response.
But my wife isn't a car nut & doesn't think along these lines. It doesn't matter to her that 1 of these cars is a sub-$35K front-driver that some would describe as a dressed-up Camry while the other is a north of $50K (well north when you add the stuff that most of us want in our cars) rear-driver. All she knew was that these were the 2 cars that she found most appealing. She liked both the way they looked & the way they drove. For a bunch of reasons, she didn't like any of the original Big Three enough to go back for a 2nd test drive.
(FWIW, if I had been permitted to make this decision, I would have picked the Infiniti M. But my wife hated it. It seems to me that the Infiniti M, more than the others discussed here, is a guy's car. Women's reactions to it range from indifference to outright dislike. Has anyone else noticed this? Any ideas why?)
Finally, after listening to her hem & haw ("I really like the Mercedes, but I'm not sure that I like it $20,000 more than I like the Lexus"), I suggested that she wait until the spring of '06, when Lexus will roll out the next-generation 2007 ES 350, which, it has been speculated, will feature a 6-speed transmission. (This is one of the benefits of owning, as opposed to leasing, a car. You can always put off these decisions until next year.)
I've also heard that the E-class is up for a mild exterior refresh & that these '07' cars will hit the showrooms sometime in the 2nd quarter.