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

Luxury Performance Sedans

1111112114116117201

Comments

  • turnbowmturnbowm Member Posts: 76
    jimbres,

    It seems that our wives have a lot in common. My wife has a '98 ES300 that she has loved from day one.

    She recently drove the new GS300, but said that it didn't feel or drive any different from her ES300. Really liked the LS430, but felt that the styling was looking a bit dated. The Mark Levinson sound system in both was a BIG disappointment, compared to the Nakamichi system in her ES300.

    She really likes the styling of the E-series MB, but the reliability issues are a deal-breaker. Every MB owner that she has talked to (including her sister) has had nothing but problems!

    I keep telling her to wait for the new 2007 ES350(?). With my luck, however, the new 2007 LS-series will be "drop-dead" gorgeous, in which case I will be writing a much bigger check!

    Martin
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    Sounds to me as though both you guys may be writing substantual checks...The same happened to me a few month ago Tony
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    The Avalon may also be worth considering. No info on the ES yet, but considering how nice the new Camry is, I'm sure it will be very impressive, and will have a lot more high tech features than the E class, for a lot less cash.
  • aas5aas5 Member Posts: 50
    I still don't understand how you seem to be fine living with the premise that you expect to shel out $2K on car related issues (and I don't know whether this is per car or total) within the next 90 days while the extended warranty for my M45 sport for 10-years and 100K miles is less than $2K. As much as I believe in reliability of japanese makes, my parents' 10 year old Camry required $4K to $6K in repairs every year until we traded it in. And if you do the research, you can find more than one A+ rated companies that are underwriting these extended warranties, and even these companies have performance bonds so if they go out of business there is an insurance company that will pay for your repairs. I just don't understand the premise of tying up capital if we are talking less than $2K up front on a $55K+ car.
  • calidavecalidave Member Posts: 156
    I don't think there is an extended warranty out there that is going to pay for repairs on a 10-year old car. Most of us will hit 100k miles long before ten years. It's essentially a 7-year warranty. So you'd be SOL for those $4-6K/year in years 10, 11, etc.

    If there is a true ten-year warranty (without a mileage limit), it will cost more than 2k.

    if extended warranties were such a good idea for the consumer, they'd be more expensive

    ;-)

    but you guys get my meaning

    the insurance companies do make money on these policies, or they wouldn't sell them. Insuring against a 5k loss is just bad home economics. If you can't afford to fix a car when it needs a repair, then you probably spent too much on your car to begin with. You should have bought a used one and saved your money for when the repairs come.

    for every one of us with a story about how great extended warranties are, there are ten of us who have bought an extended warranty and never made a claim
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Wondering:

    "what is the dollar value of the factory 50,000 mile warranty or warranty/maintenance?"

    Wondering:

    "would you take a new XYZ with a 'credit for no warranty' or would you jus' go ahead and pay the price for the car with the warranty?"

    My neighbor's 7 year old SUV is paid for. His maintenance costs are probably somewhat higher on this vehicle than on a 2006 model. His "fix" costs, so he claims have exceeded, $4,000 per year (so he says) for the past 4 years. I keep trying to cipher and speculate and calculate, because this, apparently, doesn't include tires, oil changes and "wear and tear" items.

    He has no payments (no fin or lease payments), but he is apparently running some $350 per month AVERAGE to keep it going (not including the expensive maint items like tires, etc.) I dunno how much the thing cost new but it is a Chebby Suburban, Land-Yacht edition (and he does love the car, so that is a factor.)

    I just wonder if my "permanent" car payments (which includes 'everything' since I have one Audi and one BMW both with full maint and warranty to 50,000 miles) are that much different than my neighbor's?

    Someone here will certainly tell me where my thinking has derailed -- but, it seems he has had the same car for 7 years (not that there is anything wrong with that), meanwhile for similar out of pocket money I have a current technology (and hopefully superior content) vehicle and in the same period of time have had three vehicles.

    I don't know that this makes sense, most of us seem to be ready to argue that this "story" even if we accept it as 100% true and accurate is an anomaly. In fact it seems that some folks here think "reliable German cars" are an oxymoron (or just an anomaly) but that "reliable Japanese cars" are standard normal expected outcomes.

    I'm probably wrong headed and what's wrong with this country today, but I'd rather cough up my monthly lease payment which includes the "insurance policy" from the factory in the price, rather than be in my neighbor's situation. It just smells like he spends about the same as I do, but has a 7 year old car that seems to need something worked on regularly and frequently.

    The Audi CPO at ~ $1295 seems like a great way to "self insure a bit and spread the risk a bit."

    If the 1 in 10 comment is accurate, and I have no way to prove or disprove it except that it seems to make sense, perhaps simple self insurance still is prudent and my neighbor's situation would be the 1, rather than the 9.

    I'm so confused -- I thought I had a pretty rational approach, you have made me reconsider it.

    Ignorance may actually be, after all, bliss. :confuse:
  • calidavecalidave Member Posts: 156
    anyone spending $4k/year to keep a $20,000 (at BEST) vehicle alive is a moron.

    Granted, we never know what next year is gonna bring, and we all hope that today's big car repair expense is going to be the last one for a while, but....

    I can see spending that money in year 4...and year 5...but AGAIN in year 6???...AND year 7? not likely
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Go back & re-read my post. My point (& perhaps my style of writing obscured it) is that past experience has taught me that this $2K expenditure will probably be house related - not car related. I then went on to list all of the stuff in my house (antique washer/dryer, etc.) that will likely head south during the coming year. My conclusion is simply this: if you don't know what tomorrow's crisis will be, you're far better off building up your savings.

    Suppose you spend $1800 on a gold-plated service contract on your new car. Six months later, your cesspool caves in. Wouldn't you have been better off if you had stashed that $1800 in, say, EmigrantDirect.com's 4% savings account?

    (I'm not a shareholder in or an employee of Emigrant Bank. Just a satisfied customer.)
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    There's another way of looking at this, Mark.

    Yes, the $4K per year that your neighbor is spending to keep his SUV on the road seems like a lot of money. Hell, it is a lot of money.

    But the 1st-year depreciation on a new $35K SUV will be at least $6K. So you could argue that your neighbor is actually saving a cool $2,000 per year by fixing what he already owns.

    At some point, of course, he'll grow weary of the hard seats, old magazines & bad coffee in his dealership's service area waiting room, march into the showroom & pick out something new & shiny. We're only human, after all. We can only take so much.

    But your neighbor isn't dumb. I've observed that most folks worry too much about post-warranty repair costs & too little about depreciation. Most of the time, what it costs to keep an old car on the road is less than what depreciation will cost you in the 1st year that you own (or lease) a new car.
  • calidavecalidave Member Posts: 156
    But your neighbor isn't dumb. I've observed that most folks worry too much about post-warranty repair costs & too little about depreciation. Most of the time, what it costs to keep an old car on the road is less than what depreciation will cost you in the 1st year that you own (or lease) a new car.

    you are right (and don't forget the sales tax on that new car) - but 4k/year for a 7 year old Suburban? Maybe it's smart to do that on a $60,000 vehicle, but there's no way that's smart with a Suburban that is 5-years old and has become a money pit.

    and the car's big depreciation is in year 1, not years 2, 3, 4, 5. So even with 6k depreciation, the guy is "making mone" half-way through year 2.

    I agree with keeping old(er) cars on the road, but not at 4K/year.

    I'm still not sure how you spend $4k/year on repairing a Suburban. It's probably completely rebuilt by now.
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Something else to consider is what I call the "strand factor" - the possibility that an older vehicle's breakdown might leave you stranded far from home. You obviously want this machine out of your life before this happens to you, particularly if you live out in the sticks. (But I haven't been stranded since I got rid of my cursed Audi 5000 back in '87.)

    Broadly speaking, I don't mind spending $2K annually to keep an older car on the road if - & this is a big "if" - I like the car.
  • nebraskaguynebraskaguy Member Posts: 341
    Something else to consider is what I call the "strand factor" - the possibility that an older vehicle's breakdown might leave you stranded far from home

    That's my feeling exactly, though I'd take out the "far from home" caveat. I don't care where a car strands me, unless I'm reasonably sure it's a one-time issue, that car is history.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    LPS car: $54,000.

    Cash up front or mo pay these days, argument can be made that the differences (opportunity cost, e.g.) are minor.

    :confuse:

    Cost of LPS car "just to have it" - $750 per month for 6 years and you own it. If it is one of the cars that has maintenance and/or can be CPO'd (this is why I picked 6 years) from date of service to 100,000 miles or 6 years, it is for purposes of a broad brush analysis said to be literally $750 per month, free maint for 50,000 miles, free repairs for 100,000 miles and probably 2 sets of tires beyond the OEM tires (maybe three sets if the tires are really high performance and possibly four sets if they are off the wall high performance versions.)

    At the end of 6 years the out of pocket cash will be $54,000 for the acquisition and for the miles above 50,000 there will be some maint costs -- oil change every 10,000 miles, "tune up" every 30,000 miles etc. Other maint items (not repairs since they will be effectively free) will certainly be required as well, but let's assume they are really minor (set of brake pads, etc.)

    What will a $54,000 car with 90,000+ miles on it be able to be sold for in 6 years? If the nominal residual after three years is 50% then after another 3 years will it still be worth 50% of that ~$13,500? I assume it ought to be, but someone here needs to speculate since I am totally making this latter part up.

    $54,000 cash out to acquire residual value at 6 years and 90,000+ miles $13,500, acquisition cost $40,500. Cost per year $6,750 (assuming you traded or sold the car at 6 years and 1 day for $13,500) or $562.50 per month.

    Maint during the last 40,000+ miles $1,000? (too low, too high?) -- increases monthly number to $576. Two sets of tires (beyond the factory original) $1,400 (@ $175 per tire.) Monthly number now $595.

    Lease @ 15K per year for 36 months, $640. During the 36 months you may have purchased one set of tires out of your own pocket for $700. Cost of "ownership" for 36 months rises from $640 to $659.44 -- total out of pocket if this car came with factory maintenance = $23,739.84 and at 36 months and 1 day you have nothing and owe nothing and have spent nearly 24 large.

    Rinse lather repeat the process. At the end of 72 months, then, you would be coming up on the end of your second 36 month lease and your OOP for two new cars with full maintenance, etc, would be $47,479.68 and you would have nothing, no car no payment.

    Assuming you did sell your car at 6 years and 1 day in the first example, you would have nothing, no car no payment and you would have effectively put out of your pocket $42,800 ($4639 less.)

    If you keep the car, the monthly payments stop, and your out of pocket is $56,400 (but you have a car, admittedly one with no warranty and one that needs a set of tires.)

    You will have spent $13,600 more over 6 years than the person who leased two cars of the same price in that same time frame.

    Continuing a monthly payment of $640, it will take over 21 months to break even in the amount of cash the person in example one would have laid out. Then your 93 month old car starts to "save" $640 a month. Since you would have the car and have no payments and would have spent the same amount out of pocket (assuming at the milage which would now be ~ 120,000 you had no repair issues, just on going maint issues.)

    Example 1: 2005 LPS "German Car" (Audi or BMW) followed by a 2008, followed by a 2011 that the LPS driver would be driving in month 93.

    Example 2: 2005 LPS "German Car" (bla bla bla) 93 months later in 2011 and at ~ 120,000 miles.

    Both the LPS "drivers" would have between 2005 and 2011 put out the exact same amount of cash over this 7.75 year journey.

    The 93 month old 2005 MY car should have SOME value at 93 months right?

    Should there be a "strand" factor taken into consideration?

    Should there be a "value of the content changes" factor taken into consideration?

    Should there be a "value of improved efficiency, emissions, performance and safety" (that one would hope would accrue over this time period) taken into consideration?

    Should there be a value placed on the "joy or pleasure" that [may] accompany the newer vehicles, even if it is entirely perception based (perception, after all, being reality?)

    I keep being persuaded (by some of the posters here on edmunds) that these LPS vehicles are only sanely looked at if they are purchased either in cash or with below real interest rate deals.

    I call my Audi and BMW dealer (in the spirit of full disclosure) and am told over 75% of the cars are NOT sold, rather leased and that at this point in time the leases appear to be on a path of being "permanently" subvented.

    The allure of no car payments remains, but when I factor in both the objective and the subjective (values), I would rather be driving a 2010 or 2011 MY car in 2011 than a 2005, especially if I knew I had spent the same amount of money during that 93 months.

    Luckily I am not in the market right now, for, I bet someone here will "set me straight" and make the argument that the ONLY sensible and pragmatic and prudent thing to do is to "make a deal, write and check and drive it till the wheels turn square!" And, then, and only then, repeat the process.

    At this point, I can't (under the market conditions that are out there now) make the case for buying (unless buying "used" [CPO'd]at say 25,000 miles is taken into consideration.) :confuse:
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Member Posts: 334
    I think your leasing scene makes more sense than buying except for those motorists who don't take care of the vehicle, and the long -distance drivers that go way over on the miles at the end of the term.
  • bartalk3bartalk3 Member Posts: 692
    Good analysis, Mark. Very convincing case for leasing. However, what about the intangible thing called "pride of ownership"? What's that worth? Can you put a dollar figure on that? The joy of waxing your own car on Sunday morning and the pleasure of all the TLC you would never give to a leased vehicle.

    I've rented (leased) many an apartment in my day, and it was convenient, but nothing is as satisfying as OWNING your own home (or car?).
  • bdr127bdr127 Member Posts: 950
    I've rented (leased) many an apartment in my day, and it was convenient, but nothing is as satisfying as OWNING your own home (or car?).

    The funny thing, though, is that most people who "own" their cars or homes don't actually ever own them.... Their bank does! :P
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    I agree there is a value (your value) not the market value mind you, but there is a value that can be placed on pride of ownership.

    I have washed, waxed, dressed the tires, etc, my leased cars and for the 30 - 36 months have a great sense of Pride of Ownership.

    The house car satisfaction is somewhat of an argument that must be based on an assumption that is rarely true. That assumption is that houses and cars either retain, rise or decline in value in synch.

    My brand new house in 1990 has doubled in market value (even in one of the weakest [economic] US states, Ohio), few cars will even retain their value let alone grow in a like period of time (unless the car is/was a collector's car or in some way a vehicle that will or may become a classic or collector's item.)

    As a mortgage amount switches from interest and principal to principal and interest (and even before) it is very easy to turn that principal (equity) into cash with a second mortgage. A fifteen year old car would have little liquidity unless it just happened to be so special and/or so rare that you could convert it to cash by selling it or by finding a financial institution willing to loan against the asset.

    Of course, there is, today, (in some cities) an argument against buying your own house. Generally, buying your own house eventually generates a nice entry on your balance sheet. Generally, the same cannot be said about a car.

    And, with subvented leases (as noted in my example) leasing actually is a decent way to have minimal and predictable impact upon cash flow.

    In my example, above, I assumed the buy of the car was both at 0% interest and was somehow free from sales tax. Conversely, I assumed the lease example included sales tax and did also include a money factor greater than 0.

    Finally, I assumed total expenses from 50,001 to 90,000+ miles would be $1,000 plus $1,400 for tires. It seems that this assumption was perhaps a little light, but I let it stand just in case the car in question was a Lexus (of course the Lexus would NOT have included maintenance for the first 50,000 as would the Audi and the BMW.)

    Now all of this goes to heck in a handbasket if leases stop being subvented. Moreover, although there are still below market financing rates out there today, 0% has become a rare bird indeed.

    Then there is the "high mileage" argument. I assumed 15,000 miles per year. I also assumed that the person who wanted to argue for value would literally have to sell the car at year 6 + 1 day to actually recapture the $13,500 estimated market price. A 6 year old car with 90,000 miles on it may not be able to be sold that quickly 1 day after the payments cease. And, as a practical matter, every day that passes tends to erode ever so slightly the market price of the car.

    If you drive 6,000 miles per year does this equation change in favor of one vs the other? I don't know, but it seems that it would be more desirable to "buy" the car if your total mileage at 6 years and 1 day was only 72,000.

    Of course the cost per mile of the lease would drop too in that example and it would rise if the mileage instead of 15K per year would rise to 20K per year, etc.

    My attitude seems to have come full circle, I will buy commercial and residential real estate, I will rent cars and computers (for business use.)

    Of course conditions change, and this analysis and these conclusions are based on what seems to be the case "today."

    Realistically, it seems hard to imagine BMW, for example, can stop subventing their customers leases. My wife, an attorney, not an accountant not a financial analyst, said to me recently, "My $47,000 BMW is $580 per month, it will be hard for BMW to convince me to pay much more than that for a comparably priced car in 2008." In other words, when she goes back to BMW for her 2008 Bimmer and the price comes in at $47K (or a couple thou more or less) the payment will have to remain in the "range" that they have already established.

    I don't know if she is correct, I know that with that thought process going on, BMW will be hard pressed to convince her to pay significantly more per thousand than she is currently paying. For right or wrong, BMW, then seems likely to continue subventing. Ditto Audi and probably some of the other guys.

    Pricing pressure from Japan, Korea, China! and even as reflected by GM's price decreases (announced this month) are highly unlikely to encourage significant rises from the "we've been attracting customers by subventing" crowd.

    Random Thought/Question

    Why would the Chinese bring a car to market and name it Geely? Haven't they ever heard of the movie of a similar sounding name from Ben and Jen? :confuse:
  • mg808mg808 Member Posts: 22
    Very good analysis. LPS in any dress is a considerable investment. Buying vs. Leasing has always been a good topic.

    Right now, Leasing looks to be the better value due to the "nice" monthly payments and lower out of pocket.

    Why doesn't everybody lease? I understand your theory of 6year lease vs. 6year ownership. Your analysis is a perfect scenario, kind of like having the car in the garage and never driven.

    I can't see how and why people would every purchase a car outright if it was true.

    If I can go into a dealer and lease $50K car with $640 no questions asked, then I will do it. But, the endless fine print and gap insurance this and fine print that, its never $640.

    BMW, Mercedes & all the LPS manufacturer's lure the buyers by saying, lease a LPS for $599 for 36months....with $3500 due at inception. Then the fine print comes and in the end, you probably will owe more than the $25K they calculated.

    Leasing is the dealers advantage. If it wasn't we would never have the option of leasing.
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Good post, Mark. I appreciate the time & effort that you clearly put into it. You've given us a lot to think about.

    The only thing that puzzles me is your seeming belief that other posters here are insisting that buying (as opposed to leasing) is the only right way to get into the game.

    I haven't seen that here - not on this board, at any rate. All of us would agree, I think, that there is no single correct solution to this complicated business of acquiring & operating an automobile.

    My experience has taught me that the economic "sweet spot" of a car's life is the 4-year period that begins in its 5th year.

    By this point, you've paid off most or all of any loan that you might have taken out to finance the initial purchase. Depreciation, which is at its fiercest during the 1st 4 years of a car's life, levels off significantly. And although the warranty has expired by now, repair costs are manageable - assuming, of course, that you've maintained your car properly. Also, you're likely to see a drop in your insurance premiums. (This seems to be the case in downstate NY.)

    For me, the cost per mile during these years is as good as it gets. I'm not sure, though, that there is much benefit in keeping your car beyond its 8th birthday & I know that I will probably never again hang onto a car for more than 10 years. (I did keep 1 car for 13 years. That was a mistake; I won't do that again.)

    So this is what works for me, but I wouldn't dream of pushing this approach on someone else. I also wouldn't rule out leasing in the future, although I've always owned & must admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with leasing.

    Some years ago, a fellow who posted on the Edmunds Audi A4 board (but who has since disappeared, unfortunately) offered what I've always thought was the most convincing argument in favor of leasing. Put simply, it came down to this: "I work hard at a stressful job. Leasing may cost a couple of extra dollars per day, but a new car every 3 years gives me real pleasure & makes my long hours more bearable."

    I've never come up with an effective rebuttal to that. Our vices, after all, are what make us interesting.
  • bartalk3bartalk3 Member Posts: 692
    Another advantage of leasing: not having to go through the hassle of selling your car privately to dozens of strangers who come to your house and want to take it for a long test drive, or trade it in to a dealer who will always give you much less than you know it's worth.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    In my case my Audi required NO security deposit (the loyalty factor.) I did have to pay a plate transfer fee from my 2003 allroad to my 2005 A6. I did have to pay my first month's payment up front (this varies based on the loyalty bonus Audi and BMW (for example) offer from time to time.)

    My monthly payment is literally $641/36 months @ 15K miles per year.

    Had I financed the car at MSRP @ 0% for 72 months with no money down and assuming that there was $0.00 sales tax, the monthly payment would have been dead on $750 x 72 months and there would have been no mileage issue.

    In either case the warranty is 4 years or 50,000 miles 100% and the service is paid for almost entirely (gone are the days of unlimited free wiper blades every month, for example.) Oil changes are @ 10,000 mile intervals and a "major" service interval @ 60,000 miles would not be paid for even with the CPO'ing from 50,001 miles to 100,000 miles which essentially simply holds the owner harmless from repair costs (but NOT maintenance costs.)

    Will Audi lease another $50,000+ vehicle to me in 2008 for the same cost per thousand or in some way figure out a way to keep me a loyal customer via subventing? I have no idea. I have a hunch, they will, after 28 cars from AoA, figure out a way to come up with a custom tailored loyalty incentive.

    I read an article, and I do not know if it applies to things like cars that continue to become commoditized (and I do believe the LPS cars continue to become more alike, other than style, as time marches on), but the gist of the article was that it cost 5 times the marketing and sales resources to attract a new customer than it does to retain a current customer. If this is indeed AT LEAST IN SPIRIT applicable to LPS cars, it seems loyalty programs don't cost they pay.

    All of this leads me to the conclusion that the fact that two Cincinnati dealers (one Audi and one BMW) claim 75%+ of their sales are leases, indicates that subventing is here to stay.

    Don't tell anyone, but here is another data point, I thought the new Jeep SRT8 might be a serious contender against -- for instance -- a BMW X5 or Audi Q7 (to name two) considering its MSRP of $39,995. The lease payments at this point in time make this car with all the options which MSRP's @ about $43,000 cost more (on a lease basis) than a much more expensive German car.

    My friend and his wife looked at some SUV type vehicles lately -- they were thinking American. But apparently depreciation (real or artificial) or lack thereof relative to the American cars, made a more expensive Euro car less money per month than an American model with a lower MSRP.

    These are complicated issues or they can be -- but it is now less an issue of MSRP and content (and even performance) than it is of subjective preferences.

    Repeat after me: the next wave is "Mass Customization."
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    I've never had a problem selling my cars. In my neck of the woods (a NYC suburb), the demand for well-cared-for used cars far exceeds the supply. Just in my neighborhood, there are easily a dozen folks looking for reliable used cars for their about-to-be-licensed teenage offspring.

    Then you've got the middle-aged guys looking for cheap cars so that they don't have to leave their Boxsters at the railroad station.

    Most of the time, I don't even have to advertise.
  • rrobrrob Member Posts: 51
    My experience has taught me that the economic "sweet spot" of a car's life is the 4-year period that begins in its 5th year.

    I agree and also like the thoroughness of Mark's post. Therefor, I paid cash for my minivan and will keep it for 9-10 years, I hope. However, I plan to replace my M45 in 3-4 years, as it is an indulgence, and I do like having a new car. With the apparent break given by the makers for leasing many of these LPS sedans, it seemed to me like leasing was the way to go, for short term commitments, anyhow.

    As you said: Our vices, after all, are what make us interesting. ;)
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    This forum seems to have tapered off quite a bit in the past few weeks. Has that "new-car-smell spell" worn off all the new LPS owners?
  • docnukemdocnukem Member Posts: 485
    No, but nobody has any time to post on this board after taking the time to read all the posts on the HELM board. :)

    Now that some of the hyperbole and troll trolling has calmed down a bit over there, we may continue to see the erudite postings over here.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    No, but nobody has any time to post on this board after taking the time to read all the posts on the HELM board.

    I know exactly what you are saying.

    I stopped participating in the HELM forum after finding out that my virtual life was consuming a good chunk of my real-life time.
  • warthogwarthog Member Posts: 216
    Pardon my ignorance, but what's the HELM board?
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,196

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Been reading all over about the new product coming soon from Audi.

    Been critical of Audi for some time for "wasting precious time and resources" to be able to claim rear-biased AWD when, unlike many AWD cars that default to FWD, Audis were 50 50 biased nominally and used TorSen which shifts power "before wheel slippage" unlike many of the other AWD systems out there that don't kick in UNTIL slippage is detected.

    Yea, I know, it splits hairs and fractions of a second, but overall my feeling has been that Audi needed to spend their resources NOT on RWD biased AWD but better "weight" balanced cars (instead of spending time to get to 40 60 AWD bias, I thought they should get closer to 50 50 WEIGHT bias.) I thought TorSen was already "superior" enough that the nose heaviness needed to be addressed long before some shift to a rear wheel drive posture.

    Audi and the folks who make TorSen obviously thought otherwise -- hence my lament that Audi had squandered its two decade plus "advantage" when in 2005 all the LPS players started offering at least one AWD version of their ~$50K LPS product.

    Now, Audi is "threatening" to have much better balanced cars with RWD biased AWD in the next year to three (perhaps coming first to the new A4 B8 and A5 also B8 generation.)

    One thought is that Audi may go with transverse engine mounting or push the engine back so it is no longer ahead of the front axle. These approaches almost certainly would improve the F/R weight balance -- but it is possible that in doing this, Audi may not be able (or capable) to continue to use quattro (where TorSen = quattro.)

    "Inferior" lower performance systems as are used by most of the "other LPS" manufacturers would (perhaps) have to be employed.

    How does Audi "spin" this, if it really comes to pass?

    For years, Audi and many far more "objective" reviewers have praised the advantages and efficacy of Torque Sensing systems (specifically quattro.) It might even be said that Audi attempted (somewhat invisibly if you asked me) to differentiate itself from other AWD systems by providing "education," to anyone who wanted it, to explain and proselytize the market (or at least anyone who might be a prospective customer) as to the superiority of quattro because it was TorSen.

    Well, if Audi turns the engine sideways or moves it back somewhat behind the front axle rather than ahead of it, it would seems they will perhaps have to reconsider the TorSen system (for three reasons: deployment/engineering considerations, weight and cost; it works "easier" when the engine is ahead of the front axle, TorSen is heavy and it is, generally speaking, a more costly AWD approach than, for instance, BMW's or Acura's.)

    While there certainly may be impressive performance gains (in handling, to name just one area) by becoming better balanced, offering RWD biased AWD across the board and by virtue of using potentially lower cost/lighter components, how will the marketing department "spin" this if they are unable to retain the TorSen system?

    "For the past 25 years, Audi's quattro system, based on TorSen, was the Gold Standard for customers wanting high performance AWD sports sedans. . ." Uh, hmm, gee, "That was then, this is now. . . ." "The New Generation of quattro eschews TorSen for Haldex technology" (just like Volvos which are 95% FWD, 5% RWD and shift power after wheel slippage is detected.)

    Forward into the past?

    Or will Audi figure out a way to continue to produce AWD LPS cars that can lay legitimate claim to the best technology rather than be seen to be the "same as the other guy's?"

    :confuse:

    Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island: Debate. :shades:
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Actually, the TT already uses a Haldex system, and is still badged as a Quattro. Would they have to say anything? I think that most consumers don't really care that much about the technology behind any particular AWD system. A lot of people dont even know the difference between AWD and 4WD.

    To the performance oriented customer though, a 50\50 balance presents a problem. The performance oriented customer wants that RWD "feel", with the foul weather advantage of AWD, which BMW and Infiniti can provide. ATTESA has a 50\50 lock switch for snow traction. What I'd like to see, is a 0\100 "fun" lock switch.
  • rich545rich545 Member Posts: 386
    If it's true that Audi would have to use an AWD system other than TorSen, I doubt they'd have to "spin" it at all. I'd be willing to bet that most LPS buyers wouldn't understand or really care what the difference is. As long as it's called AWD I don't think they'd even notice the difference.
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    While it is true that the TT uses a Haldex system, those of us long time quattro drivers have been given years of Audi marketing materials pertaining to the value of quattro.

    And, while I am not discounting or discouraging (better said) the shift to a rear wheel drive AWD bias, I do believe that Audis would have been higher in the performance pecking order over the past few years if they had not been so darn nose heavy.

    Some of the AWD autos today are largely FWD, Audis at 50 50 and with TorSen have been able to take advantage of the performance aspects of AWD but have had to perform almost unnatural acts due to the huge penalties of often having 60% of the weight on the front wheels (understeer being first and foremost.)

    Perhaps at the $50K Luxury performance Sedan customer at which the A6 (for instance) is aimed, people don't really care.

    I have been on two other blogs this month and there is some concern among the more "Performance luxury Sedan" customer that losing TorSen would be very noticable and a step backwards in performance.

    But, you may be right (I may be crazy, but. . .) my wife loves her X3 and probably doesn't care even if she knows (which I doubt) that BMW doesn't use TorSen.

    She has been to the Audi driving school in Seefeld Austria four times and probably would be quick to recall the classroom experience where the different AWD systems and their strengths are discussed.

    At this time, ONLY the TT uses the Haldex, and it was my understanding that is because of the east west engine. I'd assume that the A3 (in AWD guise) may also be Haldex, but I think I'd better scope that out.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Yes the A3 3.2 Quattro does use Haldex.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    A structually shaky BMW Z8. Problems with its aluminum undercarriage:

    BMW Z8
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Yikes, talk about maintenance problems. :(

    RAVENNA, Ohio -- A man facing a big bill because he had blown the engine in his 1997 BMW decided to bury his car instead and collect $20,000 from his insurance company by claiming it was stolen.

    Avoiding Repair Costs
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Doh! :surprise:
  • garyh1garyh1 Member Posts: 394
    I often suspected that you BMW owners were a "bit off", but this proves it. Oops, forgot I used to own one. Never mind. :P
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    often suspected that you BMW owners were a "bit off", but this proves it. Oops, forgot I used to own one. Never mind

    Well in that case I am "far off" but enjoying every minute of it while having "Ultimate Driving" experiences on the road(except during traffic jams). :P
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    What do you think of the new Q7? I think if Audi can get people in to drive it, it should sell like crazy....Beautiful IMO.
    Sorry for the off topic rant....
  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    Maybe it would belong in an LP-SAV/SUV board.

    I have double checked with my dealer.

    The darn thing with the V8 is $49,900 and that is pretty well decked. Add what I would call the vital options (technology, cold weather and bling wheels) and the price would climb to a $53+ number.

    I have an A6 3.2 w/MSRP of $53,286.

    Now, does this mean the 280HP version would be $44,900?

    Check out the press release on the V8 version, compare it to the Cayenne and the Touareg AND the X5 V8 while you're at it -- what am I missing? This is with leather, third row seating, lots of good stuff and a few options as noted.

    This HAS to be the V6 price -- but NOOOOOO, it really is the V8 price.

    This may not be the be all end all for any of us, but it certainly looks like they are bringing this to market as a bargain (maybe to catch up for being so late?)

    With the popularity of this class/style (7 seater, etc, SUV) etc. This is a better price than any of the LPS cars (Audi included) with a V8 by far.

    Bucks no other measure -- bucks -- this is a high buck offering at a relatively low buck "introductory" price, or is it introductory priced?

    There is a Premium Version that comes with hot and cold running water and a built in home theater and Pizza Oven -- it is $59,900.

    Seriously, this isn't that much more than the fully equipped Toareg V8 in 2004 (which wasn't even a 3 seater.)

    Now, back to LPS CARS.

    Don't know about you, but at this price if I felt I really needed this kind of people hauling power and room, etc, and IF the 280HP V6 isn't a bone power wise (arf arf), I would think some of us would consider such a vehicle as our LPS CAR despite the fact that it is an SUV type object.

    Remember when Lexus first came to the US? Low price, good product, good dealers and service and . . . well the rest is history.

    We'll see. :confuse:
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    France to Battle BMW in Korean Car Market

    I've driven Citroens in Europe and was quite impressed. It is a shame that the LPS below is not available here. I guess I am among the minority here who likes hatchbacks and who is a French car fan.

    link title

    image
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    I think the Peugot 907 concept is an absolute knock out, but otherwise Im not too big on French cars.

    image
  • newaudilovernewaudilover Member Posts: 23
    I have always wondered about the following question but have never had the opportunity to ask the right person. Based upon the enthusiasm and knowledge of this group, I am sure that it can be explained.

    Why can't automotive manufacturer's develop a car that has adjustable steering so that the amount of assist (and I guess to a lesser degree, amount of road feedback) can be adjusted for driving conditions or moods? That way if we are in a particularly "aggressive" mood we could make the steering more responsive or if we were in a "lazy" mood we could soften the steering response. It would be much like adjusting the suspension on some other premium cars from firm to soft.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Good question. Cars have been able to control the amount of power-assist based on speed and other factors for quite awhile, and more recently have offered ratio adjustment, which hasnt really gone over so well. Driver adjustable power-assist would be a nice thing to see.
  • bmwdougbmwdoug Member Posts: 248
    I am on a James Bond kick, since Bond will be returning to the Aston Martin in Casino Royale, the next movie. An Aston Martin is NO Where In Sight of my budget. So, I thought I would ask a question that could apply to me and many others. Thus, the requirement of a four door sport/luxury sedan. Plus, this could be a fun thread.

    What sports/luxury four door sedan under $50,000 MSRP would James Bond drive? Here are the requirements:

    Sport/Luxury four door sedan, fun to drive, yet provides a decent comfortable ride when needed, will not have excessive road noise, so conversations with M can take place in the car, will absorb bumps fairly well so Ms. Money Penny does not complain, will be able to have Ms. Money Penny in the Front seat, and Q and M in the back seat for a trip from MI6 HeadQuarters to Bond's Country Getaway, will be able to cut up turns and move fast to get away from a chase or danger, and will have class, elegance, and Bond Style :)

    So, what do you think Mr. Bond would be driving?
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Peugot 907

    Oo la la cest Magnifique!
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    I have also rented French cars over the years. The worst was probably the Renault Alliance I dealt with a couple of times in the mid-80's. I rent a lot of cars, but this was the only one that actually died beside the road and had to be replaced with a vehicle brought to me (by Hertz).

    Lately, I have been much more favourably impressed. I've had three Pugeots & (to your point) a Citroen (all diesels) over the past few years in England. They've been excellent, but it's going to be an uphill battle to market them on this side of the water, in my never humble opinion.

    If they brought a diesel with a manual transmission over here, I'd give it a hard look, along with probably, oh, 9 other people on this continent. I'd dearly love to be able to bring some of what I've rented across the water back home to drive.

    Pigs will fly sooner, sadly.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • warthogwarthog Member Posts: 216
    Does it come with an integral fire extinguisher system?
  • james27james27 Member Posts: 433
    I owned an ID19 way back in the early 70's...it was a really neat car. I'd like to see what they have in their current lineup, but don't get to europe often.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    If they brought a diesel with a manual transmission over here, I'd give it a hard look, along with probably, oh, 9 other people on this continent.

    Well at least 2 out the 9 people on this continent attend this forum. Unfortunately the only turbodiesel with a stick you can buy here is a VW Jetta. That is not my idea of exictement. :(

    James27, the Citroen IDs and DSes were way ahead of their times when they were intrdouced almost half a century ago.
Sign In or Register to comment.