Naw, it's the same one. I just figured I would save traffic school for the inevitable next one.
I saw a blue LS driving to work yesterday. Whose is it?? He looked to be following a Galant. I was being cautious and going only 75. Well, I just HAD to fall in line. At one point we were doing a rather brisk 90. I didn't even get the LS look. He seemed to be oblivious to another LS. Oh well....
kemo: One thing to think about. MB and Lexus weren't treading new ground with the C-class and SC430, respectively. The "C" seems to be a smaller "S" and Lexus had a previous SC. Lincoln is in, for them, uncharted territory and needs to let the buying public know that they also have an entry in the sport/luxury class. You wouldn't believe the response I get when I tell people I have a Lincoln! The responses at the various autocrosses are priceless! And as was said earlier, the geriatric crowd thinks the LS is a baby Town Car. They will never appreciate the F1 inspired suspension, or the fact that the suspension components are aluminum! And, reading Jonathon's smile, the future of the LS is so bright, I need TWO pairs of shades!!
Thanks for the link. That is definitely a preproduction model, those rims are from the 2000 V6 Jaguar S-type. I will take you guys word for it that lincoln's future is very bright-I am assuming that includes its future cars and not just its trucks and SUVs.
Well guys, I live in import country up here in the Northeast. In the town where I live BMW's outnumber Lincoln's by around 10:1, Mercedes around 8:1, Lexus 6:1, Audi's, around 5:1 and Jaguars by at least 3:1. The Lincoln vehicle I most often see around town is the Navigator.
I would say that the number of any of the BMW, Audi, Mercedes or Jag owners that are auto enthusiasts doesn't even make 10%.
80% of those Luxo car owners are looking for luxury, style, prestige and a means to display their status.
Unfortunately, neither Lincoln nor Cadillac carry much of any prestige or status these days. The LS was a start in making Lincoln more desirable.
Some other comments:
The S-type V-6 / 5 speed manual has been available in the rest of the world since the S-type intro. It is just now being made available in the US. Since Lincoln is now supposed more focused on Cadillac I assume that Jag has to be made a bit more sporty in order to compete with BMW, which is where Ford marketing is aligning Jag.
Now don't get me started on the logic of focusing Lincoln on a dying US competitor, I guess Caddy is dying more slowly than Lincoln, but it sure doesn't make any sense to me to go after a dying market. With BMW sales up 14% YTD in 02 vs 01 and Lexus up 11%, and those 2 brands are now #1 & #2 in the US luxo car market it seems so me that it would make a lot more sense to focus on competing with the #1 & #2 luxo brands, or even #3 Mercedes than distant #4 Caddy. Oh well I'm just a stupid customer not an auto marketing genius so what would I know.
For us northeners who drive on bumpy frost heaved roads the LS has too harsh a ride. The BMW's and Audi's that I have driven seem to have just as much in the handling department as my LS but with a lot less harshess, but of course they both cost a lot more than a LS.
I honestly don't mean to start any kind of a flame war here, but I was hoping someone that actually drives an LS and one of the German sport sedans would have commented on this. Don't laugh, these people exist and have posted on this site. However, I, for one, do not put much stock in the automotive press and READING about their perception of ride quality. This is even more true when comparing the likes of a very small, short wheelbase A4 to the LS. Also, their perception of NVH is highly dependent upon the specific car they're driving. Unlike Autoweek, I'd say that more than 95% of LS owners do not experience steering wheel vibration (unscientific poll of LLSOC members), yet SOME people do (and the automotive press seems to have gotten more than their share).
I just don't see how BMW, with their McPherson struts can be perceived to have a more compliant ride over frost heaved roads. Admittedly, I haven't driven a BMW or Audi up north, so this is mere speculation on my part, but my take is that the marketing folks and press have snowed alot of people. The Germans don't necessarily design their cars for this condition, as their roads are far better designed and maintained than northern US roads are. Please don't mis-understand, I'm not claiming that the LS is better, but I have serious doubts that its significantly worse than the German sedans . . . certainly not enough to justify ANY cost differential. From my perspective here in the Arizona desert, there's no way I'd ever characterize my 2 1/2 year old LS8 sport as being "harsh" in the ride department nor significantly different from a comparable year BMW5 series. YMMV.
I owned an LS8 Sport for 2.5 years and 40,000 miles.
I “complained” about the ride / handling harshness on the LS early on – but it was the best compromise available for me at the time. Specifically, the low speed compliance over RR X-ings and such was not all I had hoped for, given the overall sophistication of the LS suspension. I did like the highway speed (60+ mph) ride compromise – a lot. And yes, I did test drive a Sport vs. Non before ordering my LS.
As I approached the 40,000 mile mark, I noticed a further, significant degradation in the ride under such circumstances. If Bilstein or Koni had a replacement shock (damper, actually) for the front and rear of the LS I would have been tempted to replace the OEM shocks. I replaced the car instead. And I did drive a 2002 LS Sport a couple of times (thanks to my understanding, local LM dealer!) – to check and compare the ride, among other things.
Anyway – my current car is a German import. (Passat W8 - No struts in front or rear, like the BMW 3 and 5, however – SLA F&R.) My personal opinion is that the W8’s ride compromise better suits me. The high speed ride shows no noticeable ‘float’, but the harshness and low speed compliance is better – handles the RR X-ings ‘test’ (for instance, 2 I happen to hit at least a couple of times a day) significantly better.
Just my $.03.
Cheers, - Ray Who has finally completed the ‘break-in’ 1,000 miles on the new car – YE-HA!
Sorry - didn't mean to imply the Stype manual was Europe only. I meant that since they're selling the car in Europe they must have a manual (like the original LS). But now that the LS isn't being sold in Europe it becomes harder to justify. I'm hoping the extra power in the V6 would increase sales as that seemed to be a common complaint among manual shoppers - power was good but not good enough for some people. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Too bad the 6-spd OD manual will be on the 5.0L mod V8 - doubtful it would bolt right onto the existing V6 or V8. So it's probably the Getrag or nothing until the 400 hp screamer gets here.
I guess slacks would be ok with the earrings but please don't put your makeup on while driving. :-)
I don't intend to come across as a zealot on this issue (I know, I know . . . too late for that!), so this will be my last post on this point. To me, the issue of ride quality and comparison between different vehicles is much like judging Olympic Figure Skating . . . very subjective at best, though people have obvious preferences. Ray (rayainsw)above indicates this as well.
I will say that I did cross railroad tracks during my critical assessment of each vehicle back in the summer of 1999. I did not notice a significant difference between the BMW528, A6 2.7T or 3.0Q, and the LS8 sport. I too cross railroad tracks on a daily basis, and my LS handles them with aplomb (I cross these tracks at speeds ranging from as low as 10 mph to as high as 55 mph, depending on traffic).
I have no problem with people that decide for themselves that they have a preference for the ride quality of one vehicle over another, but I do take issue with people that merely parrot back someone else's commentary from a car magazine. There's no substitute for DRIVING the cars and deciding for yourself. I also take issue with folks that characterize the LS sport as having a "harsh" ride, as it just doesn't wash with me. If people characterize the LS ride as harsh, IMO, they made a mistake in buying it because the LS simply is not harsh for a sport sedan. For me, the LS was (and still is) the best sport sedan under $40K and I find no "flaws" in its character.
My LS, non sport, is just plain too bouncy when driving at modest speeds (30 - 50 MPH) on the bumpy frost heaved back roads we have here.
You guys will want to hang me from a cross for saying this, but my friend's Focus gives a smoother ride on the back roads around here and still handles like a go cart. (Yes I A - B tested them on the same roads). Another friend's S-type is unbelievably smoother than my LS (& the Focus) on the same roads again A - B tests.
As far as when I test drove BMW's, 3 coupe, 3 sedan and 5 sedan they plain have better rebound control. Yes with the BMW's (& Focus) you feel the bumps as does my LS, but all of the other cars I've listed have better rebound control and damping. Again I'm not complaining about feeling the bump, I'm complaining about the lack of, or what could be improperly timed rebound damping that gives my LS a bumpy, bouncy sort of feeling.
My LS feels considerably better at higher speeds on the same roads, 50 - 60 MPH. However driving a back road at >2 times the posted 25, 30 or 35 MPH speed limits when it has deer and small wild animals that like to run across the road, blind corners and on coming traffic, not to mention the local law enforcement keeping watch, just doesn't seem like the best way to improve the ride.
Maybe $600 of aftermarket shocks would help out, but hey my LS is leased and in my mind you shouldn't have to dump any money into a $35K luxury car to get an acceptably smooth ride.
It is quite a shock. I just got a position in my company where I get a company car. I "inherited" my bosses 2001 LS V8, Sport. I own a 2000 BMW 323i, sport, stick. I thought I was doing pretty good ending up with a rwd car as I despise front drive. I also hate slushbox trannies.
Anyway, there is no comparison. The BMW (yeah I know probably not fair to compare a 3 series but the 3 series was a lot cheaper (<30K)) inspires so much more confidence. The LS rides harsher but handles worse. The brakes have NO feel (maybe something is wrong). The steering is way too light.
On the plus side the LS is RWD, feels solid, and has a good interior. I have driven the BMW on the track and aggressively on the road and it just breathes competence and installs confidence. The LS doesn't - yet. Maybe after some time I will feel confident with it. Also, I was getting 27 MPG with the BMW and the average on the LS says 17!
Also, it is a major disgrace that you can't get a stick with the V8. The car really needs a LSD (BMW has this problem too). And if they drop the stick option in the V6 then I hate to say it but then it really will be an old mans car.
Sorry to gripe but it is painful to go from a 3-series to the LS. I guess I should be happy I didn't end up with a Buick Roadmaster.
I agree with you that if they drop the stick they loose the chance of converting any BMW owners to move into Lincoln camp. I think the other major problem is the average age of Lincoln product buyer is around 59 years and picking up younger potential buyers/audiance means more exciting product look and better advertising. The one little advantage that the LS may have over the BMW is lower cost of ownership, but with lower resale value and that may average out when you look at BMW's higher resale value and higher repair/maintenace costs. Not sure if folks that buy vehicles above the 30K line do care about long term cost of ownership anyway since most probably lease their cars.
While my 2000 LS-8 was in getting the Stoptech brakes added to it, I got to drive around in one of the Stoptech partners 1997 M3, which had 67,000 miles on it and was totally stock.
In comparison to my LS with 77,000 miles, which isn't stock, the M3 rode like a buckboard. Very stiff and non-compliant. The car had a tremendous number of squeaks, rattles and groans coming from all areas of the interior. I can see where the LS got it's instrument panel design from though since the M3 had the identical setup with the exception of the fuel and coolant gauges switched around. The LS was comfortable and roomy, seats fit well and were supportive, and there are no squeaks, rattles or creaks.
The M3 is a tiny car. While I have rather ample proportions, I could not get comfortable in the M3. The seat did not go back far enough nor could I adjust it down enough to keep my head from touching the headliner with the sunroof. And what's with the dumb manual up and down adjustment of the seat? I would have thought spending that much money on a car would have got you a power seat. The spring-loaded version didn't do anything for me.
The shifter felt sloppy and rather vague. I've also driven new M3s with the same feel of the shifter. I would expect a car like this to have a shifter that feels like a fine surgical instrument.
Handling-wise I felt more comfortable at the limit with the LS than the M3. Any little bump in the road surface threw the M3 out of line. The LS on the other hand soaked up road imperfections and stayed on track. I also found that my LS had a higher adhesion limit than the M3.
Power-wise the M3 has a lot of grunt, especially low down. I suspect that BMW definitely under-advertises their horsepower ratings, even though the engine is wonderful.
Basically I thought that the M3 had a heck of an engine but that was all.
My admittedly biased .02 cents worth. Buy German if you want to but if you were truly impartial and viewed the LS as a German car you would have to view it in the same light as a BMW.
Although I normally lurk here, I have to jump in and slow Brian down a little with the M3 comparision above. There is no question the LS is a fine sports sedan but it is not in the ballpark with an M3, unless we are discussing interior room, trunk space, etc. The M3 is a sports sedan pure and simple. "Non-compliant" and "tiny" are not words normally attributed to the M3. The LS has come along way, but the M3's purpose and engineering are apples and oranges in this LS comparision. Oh yeah, the "vague shifter" is certainly less vague than the LS-8's stick shift ;-)
How is this possible? Do they give the magazines different cars than we drive? No surprise the LS finished last out of 11 cars. It was the biggest and heaviest of the bunch but some of the comments just don't make sense. Examples:
Everyone who used the turn signal stalk managed to hit the windshield washer at least once.
Never happened to me or anybody else that I've heard.
Skidpad balance: heavy understeer
On a V6 manual?? You gotta be kidding me. It did have the Bridgestone Turanzas so maybe that contributed.
Price was 1/3 of the score and they used list. Never mind that a LS can be had for several thousand off MSRP while a G35, CTS or 330 can't. Maybe Edmunds TMV would have been a better measure.
I just wish they would do a A6, 5-series, Eclass, CTS and LS comparison where the vehicle size, weight and performance is more similar.
BTW - the X-type and Volvo S60 were also at the bottom. Not a good showing for Ford. Although in a different test the Ford Focus beat the Civic Si, Nissan Sentra SE-R and a Hyundai Tiburon GT V6 hands down.
Brian is merely pointing out ride characteristics of the M3 in comparison with the LS. I doubt anyone would dispute that these are different types of cars with different purposes, although Brian correctly points out that the M3, like the entire 3 series, and even the 5 series BMWs are small cars. I immediately ruled out the 5 series when I could not position a child seat in the back without compromising my seating position at the wheel. No other reasons than that . . . otherwise, the 530 drove and handled well. That said, there was NO WAY anyone could tell me it was a better car than the LS8, as I maintain that the LS is not only superior, but also less expensive.
As far the M3 goes, it's purpose is far more oriented to the sport minded enthusiast that demands handling and performance at all costs and doesn't mind the PUNISHING ride it provides because it handles so well. As I've already said, ride is a very personal thing and can be very arbitrary on how one describes it.
As far as the LS manual shifter is concerned (though I believe you already know this), it's the same unit (Getrag) that's used in the 5 series.
Now, about your "ballpark" comment . . . not only is the LS in the same ballpark, Mark my words, it's alot closer than you think, though admitedly not there yet! Think 2004 ;-)
Haven't read it yet, my issue hasn't shown up yet.
Akirby - "I just wish they would do a A6, 5-series, Eclass, CTS and LS comparison where the vehicle size, weight and performance is more similar."
I'm not sure how such a comparison is suppose to help. The CTS is 0.7 to 0.8 seconds faster than the LS-V6 manual. The A6-3.0Q is similarly fast to the CTS. The 530i is 1.5 to 1.6 seconds faster.
And for sports sedans, straight line acceleration is #1 followed by handling (as far as the mags are concerned). While the LS has good handling for the most part, it isn't even close in the acceleration catagory. As such, the LS rates poorly in the sport sedan catagory.
Ofcourse comparing the LS to smaller cars just makes the outcome that much worse....
Just got my issue today. Basically the LS earned it's ranking from lack of power. Otherwise I thought that the writer's comments were somewhat positive, even flattering. Hey, it was a good start for the first edition of the LS. The 2003 will move the car up in rankings. It's our turn now that most of the other models have already upgraded. It is obvious that R&T put considerable weight on acceleration. It's my opinion that they should have used the V-8 LS in the test. But it's also obvious that the V-8 should be putting out more power for it's displacement. All the Ford products, even the trucks, seem to fall in second place in hp/lb. There's lots of talk about the 4.6 installed in the LS, maybe bored/stroked out to 5 liters. This engine may have more potential and surely millions have been made so the cost has got to be reasonable. We're talking about the DOHC, 4 cam Romeo here, not the SOHC please. In the R&T article, one editor described the Volvo as "a motor looking for a chassis". I think the LS is "a chassis looking for a motor". LM has thrown the performance side to outside tuners, and that to me is an expensive mistake. The cost is too high for the product and that cuts the volume to botique levels. LM could take product off the shelf and do this for a lot less. It just takes will. If Ford can put the Cobra engine in a Ford Victoria and a Mustang with a Tremec 6 speed, they can do it to an LS as well. Jim Wangers took a Pontiac Bonneville drivetrain and stuck it in a Tempest and created the GTO in 1964 (I had 2). What's so hard? You already have the drivetrain including the holier than thou bellhousing R&D. The Tremec may not be world class but it does work and has a real overdrive ratio unlike the over-rated Getrag six-speed. You must all read the R&T test. The article is very thorough and many pages long. I think the LS is confusing to the market and to testers because it has two engine choices. Most of the competition does not force the mags to make a choice of drivetrains. While the LS would have scored somewhat better at a lower price point, the lack of torque was it's singular weakness. Too bad that next year, the VVT Manual won't be a contender.
I do not call the BMW 5 series "small". Yes it is small compared to a TC or Crown Vic, but this must be a rather "large" group if the 5 series is called small and the 3 series "tiny". What is a VW bug or a Festiva then?
Agreed on your comments regarding the M3's purpose, however the current E46 M3 cannot be called punishing (except to a TC driver). If anything, it has been knocked for being too soft by some.
My shifter reference was regarding the shifter in the LS-8.
As to the ballpark reference, I still think comparing the LS and the M3 is comparing apples to oranges (especially if we compare a 2002 to a 2002).
Give me a break . . . the 5 series by any measure is small car. Note my comment about not being able to put a child seat in back without compromising my driving position up front. Both the A6 and LS could easily accommodate me, and I'm 5' 10".
Exterior dimensions show the 5 series to be 5 inches shorter in length, 3 inches narrower, and 1/2 inch taller. Interior dimensions show that LS rear seat passengers enjoy 3 more inches of leg room and 2 inches more shoulder room. Each of those measurement differences is significant in terms of occupant comfort. I can no longer find the government size classification for the two cars on the Edmunds site, but IIRC, the BMW 5 series is classified in a smaller category than either the A6 or LS. So there you have it, just the facts. The LS is, in fact, more similar in size to the 7 series.
Having gotten into my LS from my previous 1990 300ZX, and '84 RX7, I find the LS ride to be on the softer side, but still performance minded, well damped and sufficiently compliant (maybe a tad too compliant, if I were to make any critical assessment of the LS). However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the M3s ride, as its much "harsher" than my previous Z-car and it was no "softy".
Me senses a set-up here. Maybe we should go over to the "B" and encite them. The "beauty" of anonymity, anyone can "say" anything. The first premis would have to be believed here. I, personally, don't.
Brian, Although I belive that BMW's are over rated and over priced, comparing a 1997 M3 to your 2000 LS is not really fair as the 1997 3 Series is the previous generation. Although still small to me the current 3 series is significantly bigger than the 97 you drove. Also M3 ride quality it not all that relevent as it is a low volume specialty model. A regular 3 series sport would be a better comparison.
With that said before I leased my LS I did test drive several BMW's. The 2 door, 2000. 328i sport I drove felt real skittish to me. It wanted to follow every imperfection in the road. I felt that on rough and irregular roads I really had to stay on top of the steering to keep it pointed in the right direction. It was also just too small a car for me, it felt tiny and this was the up sized current 3 series.
Now on to the 5 series. It is also a small car, significantly smaller than the LS. The LS is about the size of a regular wheelbase 7 series:
------------ LS --- BMW 5 Wheelbase 114.5 - 107.3 Length ---- 194 --- 188 Trunk cu ft 14 ---- 11 Front cu ft 57 ---- 51 Rear cu ft 47 ---- 41
The LS actually does a pretty good job in the packaging department. The LS is 3% longer than a 5 series but has 27% more trunk room, 12% more front interior space and 15% more rear seat space.
cb44 and slunar: Agreed but that's also why I specifically pointed out that it was a 1997 M3 and that I was comparing the driving experience (my personal observations, not anything scientific) of this model M3 to my model LS, over the same roads that I drive every day.
I stand by my assertion that this particular model M3 does not have the same ride and handling characteristics that I would consider either enthusiast or comparable to MY LS. This comparison that I did was not intended or advertised as a fair and objective comparison test.
I love driving cars of all makes and models. I liked driving the M3. It's driving dynamics are very different than my LS but I can still tell you that over my normal drive I could make my LS go faster and feel more comfortable doing it than the M3.
If I had the chance to drive a Viper or a Vette I would probably still try to draw a comparison because for me that's half the fun of being an enthusiast. Being able to drive other cars and realizing that the choice I made is still the right one for me.
Points taken and I respoect your choice. If you have an opportunity however, drive the curent E46 model..it is an evolution from the E36 model you drove.
ezaricon4jc:
Is the set-up comment related to my posts? If so, your senses are off and you need to chill out and not assume anyone who chimes in to an open public board is out to encite. My comments are related to the overly reaching comments regarding the M3 vs. the LS (IMHO). I did not come from the "B" board and you should check your paranoia before logging in.
I actually own one, an imola red six-speed convertible I got in late March. I had an '97 4-dr M3 years ago and this model is a vast improvement in power, finish and overall quality. I did not order the SMG as I wanted a six-speed manual, although the SMG has a loyal and very vocal following. There is something to be said for rowing through the gears yourself especially with the wide and linear power band in the current model.
I have found the current M3 to be closest thing to a leather lined, stereo equipped go-cart.
Sorry if I misinterrepted your intent. We are loyal and rabid LS fans. There have also been posters before who wanted nothing more than to ruffle feathers. They weren't interested in objective conversation. Living in So Cal I would not consider a BMW just because it seems everyone else has one. That and the $10K price difference. At my facility, there are maybe 450 employees. There are 2 LSes and over a dozen BMW's in the parking lot. The other LS owner rarely gets to drive his to work. I like the "underdog" status of the LS. Maybe someday the LS will get a true objective look by reviewers, but I doubt it.
Enjoy your BMW and I for one will keep enjoying my LS. Gotta go find some reason to drive and show off the new coat of Z5
No harm done. As to the underdog status, I know it well, as I worked for Apple for about ten years, starting in 1984 as the Mac was first introduced.
How do you like Zaino products. I recently tried Klasse (AIO & Sealant) and found it very easy to apply and produced an excellent shine. It is also a polymer-based application that will last about 9 months and can have wax applied over it for more shine as needed. Enjoy your drive....
Couldn't agree with you more about using a manual transmission the way it's supposed to be used. Part of the charm of a manual transmission equipped car was that it was always harder to learn how to drive one smoothly than an automatic.
Whenever I drive a manual I always try to figure out the right combination of revs vs. clutch engagement in the various gears to get the smoothest shift. I also used to enjoy finding out what revs matched the gears so that I could shift without using the clutch or grinding the gears. Not that I did that frequently of course!
Gear shifting, I'm afraid, is getting to be a lost art form. Sigh.... Too bad the LS-8 didn't come with a manual because I would have gotten it. Maybe with the..... Oops, never mind.
Your views on manual cars (which I agree with) would play well in the 6 speed vs. SMG wars on some of the BMW boards.
The SMG option is actually the same exact getrag 6 speed manual transmssion but with no torque converter as in most "shifting" automatics. Computers actually actuate a clutch and downshift and double clutch, blippin gthe throttle. It is as close to a true manual (with paddles) but with some auto modes available. Clearly, this type of transmission is the future, but that third pedal on the left will be missed by many. Worth a try if you can find a demo car on a lot.
I actually like the Zaino. It seems to last longer than the other polishes/waxes I've tried and makes even silver look good. It goes on very easy. The "problem" is you must apply it in a very thin coat (which is very hard to do on silver) or removal can be a bear. I have been reading the "B" board and the Klasse stuff looks good. I may give that a try next.
I was talking about comparing the LS V8 (preferably the 2003) with the still higher priced competition's V6 (ov V8 - but the price gap widens considerably) models. It would have to be an automatic only test but let's face it - 95% of these cars shift themselves anyway. I think the LS would fare much better in that competition (just as good if not better for a lot less $$) and not suffer from being compared to smaller, lighter cars. They never even mention how much more room you get in the LS. At least give us that much!
And i still say they should use TMV or some other real world pricing instead of MSRP.
You are comparing MSRP to resale price. MSRP is meaninless as almost no one pays MSRP.
You have to compare actual new selling price, verses resale price.
Of course depreciation is only one component of total cost of ownership. When comparing the LS to a higher priced car you better include the higher insurance costs, taxes and the cost of having the extra $$ of the more expensive car tied up (or paying a higher monthly payment).
Of course if you are looking to roll over your car in 1, 2, 3 or 4 years a lease is a better option unless you put on high milage and / or tend to trash your cars while you have them.
>> I also used to enjoy finding out what revs matched the gears so that I could shift without using the clutch or grinding the gears. Not that I did that frequently of course! <<
In a previous life I owned a 1984 Mustang SVO. There was a short (2") cable in the clutch linkage that used to break with regularity. I learned to shift without clutching because I had to...
Actually, I wanted to break them in just a bit so they don't complain later. But on a small test where the Stones used to scream before letting go, the S0-3's didn't bark at all at the same speed (55 on a 25mph offramp). I will give the Stones a lot of credit. For an OEM, all-season tire, they never let me down and always told me their limits. Never sudden break-away - great linear feel. And 27,000 miles of everyday abuse plus two Manias. Great tires for the money. I doubt I'll get the same mileage out of the Pole Positions. They are more of a gumball Summer only tire with softer rubber and without getting out my depth guage, I think that we're playing with only 8 or 9/32 instead of the Stones 11/32. So I expect a lot out of these $.25 a mile tires. Right after a little break-in (HA!).
I just looked at the comparison charts. No wonder the testers questioned the value/performance ratio of the Manual LS. Price as tested was $39,545. The 330i was less expensive by a few bucks at $39,515. But the "street price" of the LS Manual is far below this figure. At list, it was more expensive than 8 of the other cars. That may be the LS's biggest value perception problem, at least to the enthusiast buyer. The champ in this test was price as tested $31,820 with every option except fiberglass gingerbread, a Nav system and Xenon headlights. One can get cloth upholstery and bag it for under 30k. That's 0-60 in 6.2 and .86g. with an automatic. The six-speed manual should break 6 seconds easily. In comparison, the Manual LS was 7.8 and .83. The solution here is the 2003 3.9 with the Tremec. And then a little more massage to the engine or some dieting. But I don't know where the weight is that one could cut. For sure, the LS has got to be a great bet in a head-on collision. As long as it's not with an Expedition or Excursion.
You also need to figure that a base V-6 LS is going to depreciate more than a sport model V-8. Also 10% purchase profit is way more than most Lincoln dealers get. Third, the LS is under-rated by just about every single auto rag out there so the public perception of the car is not what is realistic so trade-in value is affected. Fourth, there are very few LS owners who trade the car in after one year so I think the depreciation factor is unrealistic. Fifth, BMW 5-series has traditionally had a higher resale value because the new models keep increasing their cost and the folks that can't afford a new one then go and buy a used one. Additionally, German makes typically have higher resale values than unproven American makes. Remember the 5-series has been around for a long time while the LS has had no changes since it's introduction in 2000.
If the R&T article is any indication, the retail (MSRP) of the Manual LS has risen substantially since it's first introduction. If the as tested price of the Manual in R&T's road test is $39,545 for an example that was not loaded with every option, I can only suggest that the 2003 V-8 that's got much of the new and improved equipment will list in the mid to high 40's. At this price point, it is really a good question of how competitive the 2003 model is going to be. It also means that I should seriously think about converting my lease to a purchase so I can drive a car that will probably be perceived in the near future as a relatively expensive luxury car, whether or not this perception will match its real value to most segment buyers. It should be interesting to see how the automotive press handles this as the substantial leaks about the 2003 become snipits in Autoweek and other mags (I take almost all of them except Hot Rod). Gee, to think I leased a classic LS for only $32,800! It looks like cars are going up like houses. They already cost as much as houses I sold in the 70's!
You can get a 2002 for $10,000 off. See Kansas City Star at local Barnes & Noble. Wondering if that would be better than waiting for a 2003? Also BMWs are being discounted. Any idea which hold up better on a 2 yr ownership? Thanks
That's going to be a tough question to objectively answer. The 2002's are getting great deals right now. Lincoln wants to move the cars out and dealers are dealing on their inventory. You can't go wrong with a 2002. Yes the 2003 will be improved but you're the only one who can decide if the difference in price will be worth it. Will the 2003 enhancements make you unhappy that you bought a 2002? Probably not. The 2003 is not a radical redesign as much as it is an evolutionary enhancement.
The BMW vs LS total cost of ownership is going to be skewed toward the BMW if you figure in resale value. Outside of that I believe the BMW is more expensive for normal maintenance than the LS. Don't know if BMW considers brake pads part of their included free maintenance but if they don't plan on paying about $700 for a brake job after 30,000 miles. Insurance for the BMW may also be higher but don't quote me on that since there are too many variables to figure that nightmare out.
Both cars are extremely capable vehicles. In my opinion you can't go wrong with either one. It depends on what floats your boat. If you want the perceived and real benefits of owning a BMW then you won't be happy with an LS. If you want relative exclusivity and a cheaper deal than the BMW for an under-rated and over-achieving American car go with the LS. Either way take both of them on an extended test drive and see which fits you and your driving style better, then get it.
If the depreciation was really that bad then lease rates would be sky high. I'm sure the BMW depreciates less for the reasons Brian stated but not that much less. One thing to remember about used BMWs is that a lot of people buy CPO BMWs which adds to the sales price inflating the perceived resale value. Comparing the same term lease rates is a better indication of depreciation. I can lease a V8 LS for $469/month for 36 months with $0 down. I doubt you could get a 530 for less than $500.
ezaircon4jc, You are quibbling about a little over $1k, which would make the depreciation ~22% vs. 20%. You are never going to able to get the cars 100% equal. The idea is to look at the bigger picture overall trend.
ls1bmw0, If you use the same mat with the V8, it is better by 1%. $35,096 - $22,812 = $12,284 (35%). In addition, you did not thoroughly read my post, as I included tax, tags and dealer profit in the 10%. However, thanks for including some reasons why. I do need to challenge you on a few of your statements, though.
3. Are you calling the LS buying public ignorant and ignoring fundamental free market factors? 4. I know most people don't trade in after one year, but I still find it shocking, it lose over 1/3 of its value after one year. It does not improve as the car gets older, either. They only other luxury car with significantly high depreciation is MB, but this is directly attributable to its maintenance cost. The LS is probably the cheapest to repair out of all of luxury cars (USA). 5. The BMW 525i only increased by ~$500 from 2001 to 2002, but they also included several additional standard features with the increase.
3. Yes they are. Most people in this market segment are swayed by their friends and neighbors having the "in thing". Marketing helps significantly in contributing to the snob factor that helps sell this market segment. To buy a Lincoln LS is to be enough of an independent thinker and have a high enough value of self that you can ignore the snickering of people you work with and live next to, while you blow their doors off in the next turn. Or better yet, keep getting asked what kind of car is that, the new Continental?
BMW has built it's marketing presence to the point where perceived value is markedly greater than actual value. My opinion, you won't like it, I don't care so don't bother arguing with me on that point. Granted it is a fine car. Does it continue to qualify as the Ultimate Driving Machine? Doubtful. Look at the Infiniti G35. It kept up and beat the 330 that R&T was testing against it. And at a significantly cheaper price point. What does that say for BMW? Do you think that once other manufacturers come up to speed that BMW will continue to maintain it's cache? Again, highly doubtful.
Cars lose the most of their value in the first year of ownership. That's a known fact. Again it isn't the actual value of the car as it is the perceived value of the car. Watch what happens is Lincoln stops producing a V-6 manual. Do you think the used car (sorry, pre-owned) values will continue to drop? As it is, on ebay, the savvy dealers are marketing the V-6 manuals as a future collectible car.
I agree with akirby. If the depreciation were as bad as your numbers the lease rates would be significantly higher. I know that the car companies fund the leasing side of the business so it's more attractive for consumers but the way Ford is bleeding red ink right now I sincerely doubt that they could subside lease rates as much as they used to.
It still comes down to "who cares?". I don't buy a car thinking how much I can get for it after a year or two or three. If you do, then that's what twirls your turnip. And if there are people out there that do that and that is their main reason for buying a car, then they shouldn't buy an LS or even a BMW, because they're not ever going to enjoy the real reasons for owning these cars, which is driving the living daylights out of them.
This discussion is going to be similar to asking why is the sky blue instead of green, or better yet, the I-6 versus the V-6 debate. There is no right or wrong answer. It is in the whims of the marketplace. If dealers discount new cars pretty good it affects used car sales. If there is a glut of used cars on the market it depresses sales values.
Other than the point of arguing, what's your point in bringing this up? According to your profile you own a BMW. Were you planning on switching?
One1, I have neither the time nor the ambition to go through the numbers you present, but something does not add up in the BMW actual selling price #'s. All Lincolns seem to take a big hit in the first year resale, but then they seem to linger with very slow drop in succeeding years.
I carefully shopped both a new 2000 BMW 528, 1999 528 "executive car" that is a BMW company car driven by someone in the NJ BMW office and 2000 LS-8. Comprably aequipped with leather etc. here are the prices I got: ---------- MSPR =-- Selling 2000 LS-8 $36,305 -- $33,150 1999 528i $44,650 -- $38,500 23K miles on it 2000 528i $45,530 -- $43,500 New
Lease costs @ 15K miles a year, no money down, no taxes, LS-8 3 years, BMW 39 months.
2000 LS-8 $512 1999 528i $585 used car 2000 528i $675
The BMW #'s are approximate from memory. The LS #'s are exact as that is what I leased. I found that the very attractive advertised BMW lease rates were based upon a lot of $$ down (cap reduction) and were based on 10K miles / year. Bumping the mileage up to 15K /year added quite a bit to the lease as did wanting a $0 down lease. I also found that it was a lot easier to get some real $$ off of the MSRP with the LS. There are a lot fewer BMW dealers out there and both that I went too acted as if I was getting the deal of the century to get $1,000 off of MRSP. They both tried to act completely insulted that I had the audacity to even ask for a nickel off of MSRP as BMW's were such great cars in such high demand.
Bottom line was that no matter how I looked at it the BMW was going to cost a lot more to drive than the LS, especially when property taxes were added in as I live in a state with them on motor vehicles. Also, insurance was going to be about $400 higher a year on the 528i. Yes the LS resale #'s can be disconcerting when you first look at them but they are far less of a factor in overall ownership cost than you portray them.
Alternately, if your're looking to save money, get a 1 year old LS which will be make for a cost of ownership that will be hard to beat.
You may have missed it, but I posted recently that I was looking at 2002 LS's as my 2000 LS-8 lease will be up soon.
The MSRP on a 2002 equipped exactly as my 2000 is $2,560 more. This is a lot of extra for free oil changes.
However with the current incentives, I could actually purchase a 2002 for about the same price as my 2000 and it looks like I could lease the 2002 for about $50 / month less than my current lease.
Lincoln is probably up to its old trick of inflating the MSPR to make sure that the cars fall into the Luxury catagory when sales are counted but using incentives and discounts to put the price at what the market will bear.
Interesting to note that in the issue of R&T that immediately proceeded this month's 11 Car Super Sedan Comparo, the editors tried out 8 cars for the title of "Best Handling Car for Road and Track". The M3 was 7th place beating out only the FWD Mazda MP3, a car that costs only $18,500 as tested. The MP3 beat the M3 in lateral acceleration out of apex, apex speed, apex #2 speed, maximum lateral acceleration in segment, slolom mph, skidpad g's, and handling/value ratio.
Comments
I saw a blue LS driving to work yesterday. Whose is it?? He looked to be following a Galant. I was being cautious and going only 75. Well, I just HAD to fall in line. At one point we were doing a rather brisk 90. I didn't even get the LS look. He seemed to be oblivious to another LS. Oh well....
kemo: One thing to think about. MB and Lexus weren't treading new ground with the C-class and SC430, respectively. The "C" seems to be a smaller "S" and Lexus had a previous SC. Lincoln is in, for them, uncharted territory and needs to let the buying public know that they also have an entry in the sport/luxury class. You wouldn't believe the response I get when I tell people I have a Lincoln! The responses at the various autocrosses are priceless! And as was said earlier, the geriatric crowd thinks the LS is a baby Town Car. They will never appreciate the F1 inspired suspension, or the fact that the suspension components are aluminum! And, reading Jonathon's smile, the future of the LS is so bright, I need TWO pairs of shades!!
Brad
I would say that the number of any of the BMW, Audi, Mercedes or Jag owners that are auto enthusiasts doesn't even make 10%.
80% of those Luxo car owners are looking for luxury, style, prestige and a means to display their status.
Unfortunately, neither Lincoln nor Cadillac carry much of any prestige or status these days. The LS was a start in making Lincoln more desirable.
Some other comments:
The S-type V-6 / 5 speed manual has been available in the rest of the world since the S-type intro. It is just now being made available in the US. Since Lincoln is now supposed more focused on Cadillac I assume that Jag has to be made a bit more sporty in order to compete with BMW, which is where Ford marketing is aligning Jag.
Now don't get me started on the logic of focusing Lincoln on a dying US competitor, I guess Caddy is dying more slowly than Lincoln, but it sure doesn't make any sense to me to go after a dying market. With BMW sales up 14% YTD in 02 vs 01 and Lexus up 11%, and those 2 brands are now #1 & #2 in the US luxo car market it seems so me that it would make a lot more sense to focus on competing with the #1 & #2 luxo brands, or even #3 Mercedes than distant #4 Caddy. Oh well I'm just a stupid customer not an auto marketing genius so what would I know.
For us northeners who drive on bumpy frost heaved roads the LS has too harsh a ride. The BMW's and Audi's that I have driven seem to have just as much in the handling department as my LS but with a lot less harshess, but of course they both cost a lot more than a LS.
I just don't see how BMW, with their McPherson struts can be perceived to have a more compliant ride over frost heaved roads. Admittedly, I haven't driven a BMW or Audi up north, so this is mere speculation on my part, but my take is that the marketing folks and press have snowed alot of people. The Germans don't necessarily design their cars for this condition, as their roads are far better designed and maintained than northern US roads are. Please don't mis-understand, I'm not claiming that the LS is better, but I have serious doubts that its significantly worse than the German sedans . . . certainly not enough to justify ANY cost differential. From my perspective here in the Arizona desert, there's no way I'd ever characterize my 2 1/2 year old LS8 sport as being "harsh" in the ride department nor significantly different from a comparable year BMW5 series. YMMV.
I “complained” about the ride / handling harshness on the LS early on – but it was the best compromise available for me at the time. Specifically, the low speed compliance over RR X-ings and such was not all I had hoped for, given the overall sophistication of the LS suspension. I did like the highway speed (60+ mph) ride compromise – a lot. And yes, I did test drive a Sport vs. Non before ordering my LS.
As I approached the 40,000 mile mark, I noticed a further, significant degradation in the ride under such circumstances. If Bilstein or Koni had a replacement shock (damper, actually) for the front and rear of the LS I would have been tempted to replace the OEM shocks. I replaced the car instead. And I did drive a 2002 LS Sport a couple of times (thanks to my understanding, local LM dealer!) – to check and compare the ride, among other things.
Anyway – my current car is a German import. (Passat W8 - No struts in front or rear, like the BMW 3 and 5, however – SLA F&R.) My personal opinion is that the W8’s ride compromise better suits me. The high speed ride shows no noticeable ‘float’, but the harshness and low speed compliance is better – handles the RR X-ings ‘test’ (for instance, 2 I happen to hit at least a couple of times a day) significantly better.
Just my $.03.
Cheers,
- Ray
Who has finally completed the ‘break-in’ 1,000 miles on the new car – YE-HA!
I guess slacks would be ok with the earrings but please don't put your makeup on while driving. :-)
I will say that I did cross railroad tracks during my critical assessment of each vehicle back in the summer of 1999. I did not notice a significant difference between the BMW528, A6 2.7T or 3.0Q, and the LS8 sport. I too cross railroad tracks on a daily basis, and my LS handles them with aplomb (I cross these tracks at speeds ranging from as low as 10 mph to as high as 55 mph, depending on traffic).
I have no problem with people that decide for themselves that they have a preference for the ride quality of one vehicle over another, but I do take issue with people that merely parrot back someone else's commentary from a car magazine. There's no substitute for DRIVING the cars and deciding for yourself. I also take issue with folks that characterize the LS sport as having a "harsh" ride, as it just doesn't wash with me. If people characterize the LS ride as harsh, IMO, they made a mistake in buying it because the LS simply is not harsh for a sport sedan. For me, the LS was (and still is) the best sport sedan under $40K and I find no "flaws" in its character.
You guys will want to hang me from a cross for saying this, but my friend's Focus gives a smoother ride on the back roads around here and still handles like a go cart. (Yes I A - B tested them on the same roads). Another friend's S-type is unbelievably smoother than my LS (& the Focus) on the same roads again A - B tests.
As far as when I test drove BMW's, 3 coupe, 3 sedan and 5 sedan they plain have better rebound control. Yes with the BMW's (& Focus) you feel the bumps as does my LS, but all of the other cars I've listed have better rebound control and damping. Again I'm not complaining about feeling the bump, I'm complaining about the lack of, or what could be improperly timed rebound damping that gives my LS a bumpy, bouncy sort of feeling.
My LS feels considerably better at higher speeds on the same roads, 50 - 60 MPH. However driving a back road at >2 times the posted 25, 30 or 35 MPH speed limits when it has deer and small wild animals that like to run across the road, blind corners and on coming traffic, not to mention the local law enforcement keeping watch, just doesn't seem like the best way to improve the ride.
Maybe $600 of aftermarket shocks would help out, but hey my LS is leased and in my mind you shouldn't have to dump any money into a $35K luxury car to get an acceptably smooth ride.
Anyway, there is no comparison. The BMW (yeah I know probably not fair to compare a 3 series but the 3 series was a lot cheaper (<30K)) inspires so much more confidence. The LS rides harsher but handles worse. The brakes have NO feel (maybe something is wrong). The steering is way too light.
On the plus side the LS is RWD, feels solid, and has a good interior. I have driven the BMW on the track and aggressively on the road and it just breathes competence and installs confidence. The LS doesn't - yet. Maybe after some time I will feel confident with it. Also, I was getting 27 MPG with the BMW and the average on the LS says 17!
Also, it is a major disgrace that you can't get a stick with the V8. The car really needs a LSD (BMW has this problem too). And if they drop the stick option in the V6 then I hate to say it but then it really will be an old mans car.
Sorry to gripe but it is painful to go from a 3-series to the LS. I guess I should be happy I didn't end up with a Buick Roadmaster.
In comparison to my LS with 77,000 miles, which isn't stock, the M3 rode like a buckboard. Very stiff and non-compliant. The car had a tremendous number of squeaks, rattles and groans coming from all areas of the interior. I can see where the LS got it's instrument panel design from though since the M3 had the identical setup with the exception of the fuel and coolant gauges switched around. The LS was comfortable and roomy, seats fit well and were supportive, and there are no squeaks, rattles or creaks.
The M3 is a tiny car. While I have rather ample proportions, I could not get comfortable in the M3. The seat did not go back far enough nor could I adjust it down enough to keep my head from touching the headliner with the sunroof. And what's with the dumb manual up and down adjustment of the seat? I would have thought spending that much money on a car would have got you a power seat. The spring-loaded version didn't do anything for me.
The shifter felt sloppy and rather vague. I've also driven new M3s with the same feel of the shifter. I would expect a car like this to have a shifter that feels like a fine surgical instrument.
Handling-wise I felt more comfortable at the limit with the LS than the M3. Any little bump in the road surface threw the M3 out of line. The LS on the other hand soaked up road imperfections and stayed on track. I also found that my LS had a higher adhesion limit than the M3.
Power-wise the M3 has a lot of grunt, especially low down. I suspect that BMW definitely under-advertises their horsepower ratings, even though the engine is wonderful.
Basically I thought that the M3 had a heck of an engine but that was all.
My admittedly biased .02 cents worth. Buy German if you want to but if you were truly impartial and viewed the LS as a German car you would have to view it in the same light as a BMW.
Brian
Everyone who used the turn signal stalk managed to hit the windshield washer at least once.
Never happened to me or anybody else that I've heard.
Skidpad balance: heavy understeer
On a V6 manual?? You gotta be kidding me. It did have the Bridgestone Turanzas so maybe that contributed.
Price was 1/3 of the score and they used list. Never mind that a LS can be had for several thousand off MSRP while a G35, CTS or 330 can't. Maybe Edmunds TMV would have been a better measure.
I just wish they would do a A6, 5-series, Eclass, CTS and LS comparison where the vehicle size, weight and performance is more similar.
BTW - the X-type and Volvo S60 were also at the bottom. Not a good showing for Ford. Although in a different test the Ford Focus beat the Civic Si, Nissan Sentra SE-R and a Hyundai Tiburon GT V6 hands down.
As far the M3 goes, it's purpose is far more oriented to the sport minded enthusiast that demands handling and performance at all costs and doesn't mind the PUNISHING ride it provides because it handles so well. As I've already said, ride is a very personal thing and can be very arbitrary on how one describes it.
As far as the LS manual shifter is concerned (though I believe you already know this), it's the same unit (Getrag) that's used in the 5 series.
Now, about your "ballpark" comment . . . not only is the LS in the same ballpark, Mark my words, it's alot closer than you think, though admitedly not there yet! Think 2004 ;-)
Akirby -
"I just wish they would do a A6, 5-series, Eclass, CTS and LS comparison where the vehicle size, weight and performance is more similar."
I'm not sure how such a comparison is suppose to help. The CTS is 0.7 to 0.8 seconds faster than the LS-V6 manual. The A6-3.0Q is similarly fast to the CTS. The 530i is 1.5 to 1.6 seconds faster.
And for sports sedans, straight line acceleration is #1 followed by handling (as far as the mags are concerned). While the LS has good handling for the most part, it isn't even close in the acceleration catagory. As such, the LS rates poorly in the sport sedan catagory.
Ofcourse comparing the LS to smaller cars just makes the outcome that much worse....
Hey, it was a good start for the first edition of the LS.
The 2003 will move the car up in rankings. It's our turn now that most of the other models have already upgraded.
It is obvious that R&T put considerable weight on acceleration.
It's my opinion that they should have used the V-8 LS in the test. But it's also obvious that the V-8 should be putting out more power for it's displacement. All the Ford products, even the trucks, seem to fall in second place in hp/lb.
There's lots of talk about the 4.6 installed in the LS, maybe bored/stroked out to 5 liters. This engine may have more potential and surely millions have been made so the cost has got to be reasonable. We're talking about the DOHC, 4 cam Romeo here, not the SOHC please.
In the R&T article, one editor described the Volvo as "a motor looking for a chassis". I think the LS is "a chassis looking for a motor".
LM has thrown the performance side to outside tuners, and that to me is an expensive mistake.
The cost is too high for the product and that cuts the volume to botique levels.
LM could take product off the shelf and do this for a lot less. It just takes will.
If Ford can put the Cobra engine in a Ford Victoria and a Mustang with a Tremec 6 speed, they can do it to an LS as well. Jim Wangers took a Pontiac Bonneville drivetrain and stuck it in a Tempest and created the GTO in 1964 (I had 2). What's so hard? You already have the drivetrain including the holier than thou bellhousing R&D.
The Tremec may not be world class but it does work and has a real overdrive ratio unlike the over-rated Getrag six-speed.
You must all read the R&T test. The article is very thorough and many pages long.
I think the LS is confusing to the market and to testers because it has two engine choices. Most of the competition does not force the mags to make a choice of drivetrains.
While the LS would have scored somewhat better at a lower price point, the lack of torque was it's singular weakness.
Too bad that next year, the VVT Manual won't be a contender.
A couple of clarifications:
I do not call the BMW 5 series "small". Yes it is small compared to a TC or Crown Vic, but this must be a rather "large" group if the 5 series is called small and the 3 series "tiny". What is a VW bug or a Festiva then?
Agreed on your comments regarding the M3's purpose, however the current E46 M3 cannot be called punishing (except to a TC driver). If anything, it has been knocked for being too soft by some.
My shifter reference was regarding the shifter in the LS-8.
As to the ballpark reference, I still think comparing the LS and the M3 is comparing apples to oranges (especially if we compare a 2002 to a 2002).
Exterior dimensions show the 5 series to be 5 inches shorter in length, 3 inches narrower, and 1/2 inch taller. Interior dimensions show that LS rear seat passengers enjoy 3 more inches of leg room and 2 inches more shoulder room. Each of those measurement differences is significant in terms of occupant comfort. I can no longer find the government size classification for the two cars on the Edmunds site, but IIRC, the BMW 5 series is classified in a smaller category than either the A6 or LS. So there you have it, just the facts. The LS is, in fact, more similar in size to the 7 series.
Having gotten into my LS from my previous 1990 300ZX, and '84 RX7, I find the LS ride to be on the softer side, but still performance minded, well damped and sufficiently compliant (maybe a tad too compliant, if I were to make any critical assessment of the LS). However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the M3s ride, as its much "harsher" than my previous Z-car and it was no "softy".
With that said before I leased my LS I did test drive several BMW's. The 2 door, 2000. 328i sport I drove felt real skittish to me. It wanted to follow every imperfection in the road. I felt that on rough and irregular roads I really had to stay on top of the steering to keep it pointed in the right direction. It was also just too small a car for me, it felt tiny and this was the up sized current 3 series.
Now on to the 5 series. It is also a small car, significantly smaller than the LS. The LS is about the size of a regular wheelbase 7 series:
------------ LS --- BMW 5
Wheelbase 114.5 - 107.3
Length ---- 194 --- 188
Trunk cu ft 14 ---- 11
Front cu ft 57 ---- 51
Rear cu ft 47 ---- 41
The LS actually does a pretty good job in the packaging department. The LS is 3% longer than a 5 series but has 27% more trunk room, 12% more front interior space and 15% more rear seat space.
I stand by my assertion that this particular model M3 does not have the same ride and handling characteristics that I would consider either enthusiast or comparable to MY LS. This comparison that I did was not intended or advertised as a fair and objective comparison test.
I love driving cars of all makes and models. I liked driving the M3. It's driving dynamics are very different than my LS but I can still tell you that over my normal drive I could make my LS go faster and feel more comfortable doing it than the M3.
If I had the chance to drive a Viper or a Vette I would probably still try to draw a comparison because for me that's half the fun of being an enthusiast. Being able to drive other cars and realizing that the choice I made is still the right one for me.
Points taken and I respoect your choice. If you have an opportunity however, drive the curent E46 model..it is an evolution from the E36 model you drove.
ezaricon4jc:
Is the set-up comment related to my posts? If so, your senses are off and you need to chill out and not assume anyone who chimes in to an open public board is out to encite. My comments are related to the overly reaching comments regarding the M3 vs. the LS (IMHO). I did not come from the "B" board and you should check your paranoia before logging in.
I actually own one, an imola red six-speed convertible I got in late March. I had an '97 4-dr M3 years ago and this model is a vast improvement in power, finish and overall quality. I did not order the SMG as I wanted a six-speed manual, although the SMG has a loyal and very vocal following. There is something to be said for rowing through the gears yourself especially with the wide and linear power band in the current model.
I have found the current M3 to be closest thing to a leather lined, stereo equipped go-cart.
Enjoy your BMW and I for one will keep enjoying my LS. Gotta go find some reason to drive and show off the new coat of Z5
Mike
LLSOC Charter Member
How do you like Zaino products. I recently tried Klasse (AIO & Sealant) and found it very easy to apply and produced an excellent shine. It is also a polymer-based application that will last about 9 months and can have wax applied over it for more shine as needed. Enjoy your drive....
Whenever I drive a manual I always try to figure out the right combination of revs vs. clutch engagement in the various gears to get the smoothest shift. I also used to enjoy finding out what revs matched the gears so that I could shift without using the clutch or grinding the gears. Not that I did that frequently of course!
Gear shifting, I'm afraid, is getting to be a lost art form. Sigh.... Too bad the LS-8 didn't come with a manual because I would have gotten it. Maybe with the..... Oops, never mind.
Brian
Your views on manual cars (which I agree with) would play well in the 6 speed vs. SMG wars on some of the BMW boards.
The SMG option is actually the same exact getrag 6 speed manual transmssion but with no torque converter as in most "shifting" automatics. Computers actually actuate a clutch and downshift and double clutch, blippin gthe throttle. It is as close to a true manual (with paddles) but with some auto modes available. Clearly, this type of transmission is the future, but that third pedal on the left will be missed by many. Worth a try if you can find a demo car on a lot.
And i still say they should use TMV or some other real world pricing instead of MSRP.
EDMUNDS 2001 525i
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/bmw/5series/4dr525isedan/prices.html
EDMUNDS 2001 GS300
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/lexus/gs300/4drgs300sedan/prices.html
EDMUNDS 2001 LS V8 Prices:
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/lincoln/ls/4drv8sedan/prices.html
Have you tried them on your favorite off-ramp yet?
You have to compare actual new selling price, verses resale price.
Of course depreciation is only one component of total cost of ownership. When comparing the LS to a higher priced car you better include the higher insurance costs, taxes and the cost of having the extra $$ of the more expensive car tied up (or paying a higher monthly payment).
Of course if you are looking to roll over your car in 1, 2, 3 or 4 years a lease is a better option unless you put on high milage and / or tend to trash your cars while you have them.
In a previous life I owned a 1984 Mustang SVO. There was a short (2") cable in the clutch linkage that used to break with regularity. I learned to shift without clutching because I had to...
2002 BMW 525i:
$33,520 + 10% = $36,872 - $29,600 = $7,272 (20%)
5 Year total to own = $43,759 ($0.58/mile)
2002 Base LS V6:
$31,338 + 10% = $34,471.80 - $21,959 = $12,512.80 (36%)
5 Year total to own = $45,827 ($0.61/mile)
Lexus GS300:
$34,547 + 10% = $38,001.70 - $31,621 = $6,380.70 (16.8%)
5 Year total to own = $49,181 ($0.66)
Why does an LS depreciate 13k(36%) after one year?
5 Year total to own
I will give the Stones a lot of credit. For an OEM, all-season tire, they never let me down and always told me their limits. Never sudden break-away - great linear feel. And 27,000 miles of everyday abuse plus two Manias. Great tires for the money.
I doubt I'll get the same mileage out of the Pole Positions. They are more of a gumball Summer only tire with softer rubber and without getting out my depth guage, I think that we're playing with only 8 or 9/32 instead of the Stones 11/32.
So I expect a lot out of these $.25 a mile tires.
Right after a little break-in (HA!).
But the "street price" of the LS Manual is far below this figure. At list, it was more expensive than 8 of the other cars.
That may be the LS's biggest value perception problem, at least to the enthusiast buyer.
The champ in this test was price as tested $31,820 with every option except fiberglass gingerbread, a Nav system and Xenon headlights.
One can get cloth upholstery and bag it for under 30k. That's 0-60 in 6.2 and .86g. with an automatic. The six-speed manual should break 6 seconds easily.
In comparison, the Manual LS was 7.8 and .83. The solution here is the 2003 3.9 with the Tremec. And then a little more massage to the engine or some dieting. But I don't know where the weight is that one could cut.
For sure, the LS has got to be a great bet in a head-on collision. As long as it's not with an Expedition or Excursion.
If the as tested price of the Manual in R&T's road test is $39,545 for an example that was not loaded with every option, I can only suggest that the 2003 V-8 that's got much of the new and improved equipment will list in the mid to high 40's.
At this price point, it is really a good question of how competitive the 2003 model is going to be.
It also means that I should seriously think about converting my lease to a purchase so I can drive a car that will probably be perceived in the near future as a relatively expensive luxury car, whether or not this perception will match its real value to most segment buyers.
It should be interesting to see how the automotive press handles this as the substantial leaks about the 2003 become snipits in Autoweek and other mags (I take almost all of them except Hot Rod).
Gee, to think I leased a classic LS for only $32,800! It looks like cars are going up like houses. They already cost as much as houses I sold in the 70's!
The BMW vs LS total cost of ownership is going to be skewed toward the BMW if you figure in resale value. Outside of that I believe the BMW is more expensive for normal maintenance than the LS. Don't know if BMW considers brake pads part of their included free maintenance but if they don't plan on paying about $700 for a brake job after 30,000 miles. Insurance for the BMW may also be higher but don't quote me on that since there are too many variables to figure that nightmare out.
Both cars are extremely capable vehicles. In my opinion you can't go wrong with either one. It depends on what floats your boat. If you want the perceived and real benefits of owning a BMW then you won't be happy with an LS. If you want relative exclusivity and a cheaper deal than the BMW for an under-rated and over-achieving American car go with the LS. Either way take both of them on an extended test drive and see which fits you and your driving style better, then get it.
You are quibbling about a little over $1k, which would make the depreciation ~22% vs. 20%. You are never going to able to get the cars 100% equal. The idea is to look at the bigger picture overall trend.
ls1bmw0,
If you use the same mat with the V8, it is better by 1%. $35,096 - $22,812 = $12,284 (35%). In addition, you did not thoroughly read my post, as I included tax, tags and dealer profit in the 10%. However, thanks for including some reasons why. I do need to challenge you on a few of your statements, though.
3. Are you calling the LS buying public ignorant and ignoring fundamental free market factors?
4. I know most people don't trade in after one year, but I still find it shocking, it lose over 1/3 of its value after one year. It does not improve as the car gets older, either. They only other luxury car with significantly high depreciation is MB, but this is directly attributable to its maintenance cost. The LS is probably the cheapest to repair out of all of luxury cars (USA).
5. The BMW 525i only increased by ~$500 from 2001 to 2002, but they also included several additional standard features with the increase.
BMW has built it's marketing presence to the point where perceived value is markedly greater than actual value. My opinion, you won't like it, I don't care so don't bother arguing with me on that point. Granted it is a fine car. Does it continue to qualify as the Ultimate Driving Machine? Doubtful. Look at the Infiniti G35. It kept up and beat the 330 that R&T was testing against it. And at a significantly cheaper price point. What does that say for BMW? Do you think that once other manufacturers come up to speed that BMW will continue to maintain it's cache? Again, highly doubtful.
Cars lose the most of their value in the first year of ownership. That's a known fact. Again it isn't the actual value of the car as it is the perceived value of the car. Watch what happens is Lincoln stops producing a V-6 manual. Do you think the used car (sorry, pre-owned) values will continue to drop? As it is, on ebay, the savvy dealers are marketing the V-6 manuals as a future collectible car.
I agree with akirby. If the depreciation were as bad as your numbers the lease rates would be significantly higher. I know that the car companies fund the leasing side of the business so it's more attractive for consumers but the way Ford is bleeding red ink right now I sincerely doubt that they could subside lease rates as much as they used to.
It still comes down to "who cares?". I don't buy a car thinking how much I can get for it after a year or two or three. If you do, then that's what twirls your turnip. And if there are people out there that do that and that is their main reason for buying a car, then they shouldn't buy an LS or even a BMW, because they're not ever going to enjoy the real reasons for owning these cars, which is driving the living daylights out of them.
This discussion is going to be similar to asking why is the sky blue instead of green, or better yet, the I-6 versus the V-6 debate. There is no right or wrong answer. It is in the whims of the marketplace. If dealers discount new cars pretty good it affects used car sales. If there is a glut of used cars on the market it depresses sales values.
Other than the point of arguing, what's your point in bringing this up? According to your profile you own a BMW. Were you planning on switching?
I carefully shopped both a new 2000 BMW 528, 1999 528 "executive car" that is a BMW company car driven by someone in the NJ BMW office and 2000 LS-8. Comprably aequipped with leather etc. here are the prices I got:
---------- MSPR =-- Selling
2000 LS-8 $36,305 -- $33,150
1999 528i $44,650 -- $38,500 23K miles on it
2000 528i $45,530 -- $43,500 New
Lease costs @ 15K miles a year, no money down, no taxes, LS-8 3 years, BMW 39 months.
2000 LS-8 $512
1999 528i $585 used car
2000 528i $675
The BMW #'s are approximate from memory. The LS #'s are exact as that is what I leased. I found that the very attractive advertised BMW lease rates were based upon a lot of $$ down (cap reduction) and were based on 10K miles / year. Bumping the mileage up to 15K /year added quite a bit to the lease as did wanting a $0 down lease. I also found that it was a lot easier to get some real $$ off of the MSRP with the LS. There are a lot fewer BMW dealers out there and both that I went too acted as if I was getting the deal of the century to get $1,000 off of MRSP. They both tried to act completely insulted that I had the audacity to even ask for a nickel off of MSRP as BMW's were such great cars in such high demand.
Bottom line was that no matter how I looked at it the BMW was going to cost a lot more to drive than the LS, especially when property taxes were added in as I live in a state with them on motor vehicles. Also, insurance was going to be about $400 higher a year on the 528i. Yes the LS resale #'s can be disconcerting when you first look at them but they are far less of a factor in overall ownership cost than you portray them.
Alternately, if your're looking to save money, get a 1 year old LS which will be make for a cost of ownership that will be hard to beat.
You may have missed it, but I posted recently that I was looking at 2002 LS's as my 2000 LS-8 lease will be up soon.
The MSRP on a 2002 equipped exactly as my 2000 is $2,560 more. This is a lot of extra for free oil changes.
However with the current incentives, I could actually purchase a 2002 for about the same price as my 2000 and it looks like I could lease the 2002 for about $50 / month less than my current lease.
Lincoln is probably up to its old trick of inflating the MSPR to make sure that the cars fall into the Luxury catagory when sales are counted but using incentives and discounts to put the price at what the market will bear.
The M3 was 7th place beating out only the FWD Mazda MP3, a car that costs only $18,500 as tested.
The MP3 beat the M3 in lateral acceleration out of apex, apex speed, apex #2 speed, maximum lateral acceleration in segment, slolom mph, skidpad g's, and handling/value ratio.