Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

explorerx4

I feel the same way about BMW's with 4 bangers instead of a straight six.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

For those that believe in DV on insurance claims, I hope my formula for calculating DV using the logic in my letter to USAA today becomes the industry standard moving forward (with Vroom being substitute-able by Carmax, Shift, Carvana, or any other well known used car buying service to establish post collison fair market value):

Who wants to play judge, or so far in this claim, just USAA DV Appraiser yet to put out a number (here's my letter):

Personally I would never be in direct contact with the other guys insurance company, let your insurance company or a lawyer do your talking. They will avoid the traps you will never see.

There's truth to that, though without an offer and my signature on it accepting it, it doesn't really matter what I say or write, my Insurance company is the only authorized decision maker for USAA apparently on this claim.

Have you ever heard the saying "anything you say can and will be used against you"? It also applies in this situation, you can hurt your position with the wrong word or phrase. I'd let the pros do my talking.

In other words call "the guy"

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

How fast without the sports grill?

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

Fortunately RBs M235i makes the cut by the skin of its paint job....0 to 60 in 4.4 seconds!

For $7k you can get 0 to 60 in 2.34 second ds.

https://jpmotorsports.com/Motorcycles-Suzuki-GSX-R1000-2006-Chula-Vista-CA-a38845dd-f344-4486-bcd0-ab4c01667410

stickguy

not bad for 7 grand!

not sure how much HP it has, but at only 365#s, must have one heck of a power to weight ratio.

snakeweasel

explorerx4 said:

I feel the same way about BMW's with 4 bangers instead of a straight six.

My (or to be more truthfully my wifes) BMW has a 4 banger and is more than spunky enough.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

not bad for 7 grand!

not sure how much HP it has, but at only 365#s, must have one heck of a power to weight ratio.

IIRC it was just under 150 hp so it would have each pony pushing only 2.5 pounds

abacomike

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

roadburner

ab348 said:

The problem is that once you get that 2.3 high performance package and the handling suspension package, it costs as much as a GT if not more.

Exactly- I priced one on the Ford configurator.

roadburner

My SA called and had good news and bad news. The good news was they found an oil leak that will be covered by the CPO warranty, the bad news is that I need tires- one immediately(a knot in the sidewall) the rest close behind due to tread depth. I'm just going to bite the bullet and get them installed now. If I do flip it the FSH and new tires will be two fewer things I could get dinged for on a trade.

ab348

snakeweasel said:

For $7k you can get 0 to 60 in 2.34 second ds.

https://jpmotorsports.com/Motorcycles-Suzuki-GSX-R1000-2006-Chula-Vista-CA-a38845dd-f344-4486-bcd0-ab4c01667410

Fastest known way to get into a trauma ward short of being fired out of a circus cannon.

explorerx4

The base Mustang GT doesn't have the HPP features, you have to add it there too.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

How fast without the sports grill?

lol.......Salesman said the sports grill takes .2 seconds off 0 to 60!

driver100

explorerx4 said:

The base Mustang GT doesn't have the HPP features, you have to add it there too.

This guy seemed to like the Ecoboost compared to GT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9YLXoIfj3o

driver100

abacomike said:

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

Interesting. I think times vary a bit by who is testing, and one video I watched about the Mustang said he couldn't get to 4.5 seconds because they don't have 93 octane in California.
I looked up the 0 to 60 for the E400, I didn't try it myself.
Maybe like Snake says, do you have a sports grill?

qbrozen

Oh please. Everyone knows speed holes are where the real power is.

https://youtu.be/G3ja6Hn8ps4

stickguy

This article does a good job explaining why obsessing about published 0-60 numbers is, well, mostly bunk. And consumers reports actually was ahead of the curve all along! Because pretty much no one is driving like that on the street. But driver, if you want to brake with the left foot and rev up to 6k at stoplights, go for it! Hey, maybe it was all those redline clutch dumps that trashed your Audi clutch!

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a30905608/how-0-to-60-tests-work/

Another interesting piece about rollout

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30085446/acceleration-testing-procedure-change-rollout/

Low and mid range acceleration while already moving is way more important IMO.

dino001

0-60 mph is a number reported since I remember, which means at the time it was invented it probably made sense. Vehicles were doing numbers between 10 and 20 seconds and it was actually measuring a performance for a "normal" driver. Today going in 4 seconds vs. 6 seconds vs. 8 seconds basically makes no real difference to a law-abiding citizen, unless you have judge immunity ) Some publications in Europe, report midrange usually equivalent of 40-60 mph and 50-75 mph. Those are very important numbers for highway passing situation. Often show you how inadequate small-engined base version of their "compact family" car sold overe there really is. US doesn't usually have that problem, our "base" is their midrange in terms of horsepower and performance.

snakeweasel

dino001 said:

0-60 mph is a number reported since I remember, which means at the time it was invented it probably made sense. Vehicles were doing numbers between 10 and 20 seconds and it was actually measuring a performance for a "normal" driver. Today going in 4 seconds vs. 6 seconds vs. 8 seconds basically makes no real difference to a law-abiding citizen, unless you have judge immunity ) When I was a kid and still lived in Europe, they used to report midrange set gear (for manual transmission vehicles) acceleration, for example 35-60 mph on 3rd and 50-75 mph on 4th (typically back then vehicles had five speed trannies). Those were very important numbers for compact and midsize "family" cars with small engines (typical size would be 1.4-1.6 l, 80-120 hp back then), showing whether they were any good on a highway in a passing situation. They were also reported for the upgrade versions to demonstrate better engine (say 1.6-1.8 l with 130-160 hp, whatever numbers were back then) would actually improve your safety due to real boost on a highway. Not sure if these tests are still done and reported today, as more and more vehicles have automatic transmission even over there and engines got much more horsepower. Nobody really needs those horsepower figures, so whole safety at passing argument folds at this point and goes against you.

Actually when they first started out 0 to 60 times were more like 30, 40 or more seconds. A 1930's Lincoln needed 45 seconds to get to 60. Time how fast traffic gets up to say 40 MPH and you really have to question why you really need a 4.5 second 0 to 60 time. So you can get to the next stop light faster?

dino001

So 0-60 is that old, I guess. Makes sense. Today it's all marketing and making people excited about secondary things. Similar all those off-road capabilities sold to suburban moms and dads who would cry if their tires got dirty, but they like to know they "could" climb Appalachian Trail, if "only wanted to" with their newest SUV.

stickguy

Faster, only if you are the only person on the road!

Dino, some of the car magazines do (did?) include interval times, like 30-50, 40-60. The big problem (likely impacting europe more) was they did not downshift manual trannys. I think it might have been done in top gear. An automatic would downshift. Definitely not a real world test.

ab348

qbrozen said:

Oh please. Everyone knows speed holes are where the real power is.

And for years I thought it came from yellow spark plug wires, who knew?

stickguy

Almost funny that they pitch extra power as some safety feature to avoid calamity, in a vehicle that would be lousy trying any kind of evasive maneuver.

stickguy

ab348 said:

qbrozen said:

Oh please. Everyone knows speed holes are where the real power is.

And for years I thought it came from yellow spark plug wires, who knew?

You are both wrong.

It all comes from decals.

abacomike

driver100 said:

abacomike said:

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

Interesting. I think times vary a bit by who is testing, and one video I watched about the Mustang said he couldn't get to 4.5 seconds because they don't have 93 octane in California.
I looked up the 0 to 60 for the E400, I didn't try it myself.
Maybe like Snake says, do you have a sports grill?

Yes - I do - it's standard on the E450.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

ab348 said:

qbrozen said:

Oh please. Everyone knows speed holes are where the real power is.

And for years I thought it came from yellow spark plug wires, who knew?

You are both wrong.

It all comes from decals.

Are you sure it's not by putting a VTEC badge on your non Honda car?

ab348

driver100 said:

This guy seemed to like the Ecoboost compared to GT.

Preference depends on whether you're a handling guy or a sound/straight-line performance guy. Important to remember too that most reviewers are always positive about the latest bright shiny object product introduction unless it is from one of a few manufacturers it is automotively incorrect to be positive about. Plus those GT badges on the fenders are worth at least a 1-second improvement in street cred time.

graphicguy

Reminds me of a test drive trip I made a few years ago. This was when Ford re-did the Mustang to it’s current platform. Tough to find a GT with a manual transmission (which is the ONLY way I’d buy one), but I did find one at a dealership in Dayton, OH (about 45 mins from me).

I call. Talk to a very nice sales person and ask about the GT. He checks and says it’s still available, but I better hurry as they’re hot sellers, blah, blah, blah. I told him I’d be there after work (about 6:30-ish).

Got to the dealership. Got to the sales person. Intros pleasantries aside, he said the car was in their back lot. I told him I would have put it in the showroom given its popularity.

We get to it. It’s filthy. Inside is fine, but it looked like it had been sitting in the back lot for a while. He hands me the keys and says go ahead and get into the driver’s seat. Usually, they prefer the dealership employees bring it out. But, I oblige and drive it out front for him to get a tag. I’m waiting while he goes inside to get the tag.

A couple of sales guys are standing outside, awaiting an “up”. I get out to look at the exterior and start to make small talk with them.

Cut to the chase, the reason the car was buried in the back lot was because the only 2 people who could drive a manual transmission were mechanics, and both had quit within days of each other. So, no one could get it to the front lot so people could see they had it.

My sales guy comes out, puts the tag in the back, we get to the driveway. I thought I’d have some fun with him. I get the car a little sideways coming out of the driveway, and then proceed to lay a couple of patches down the road of the test drive. He smiled at the end, but it was a nervous smile. Got back to the dealership and I pulled it back to the exact spot I found it in the back lot.

We walk back to his desk inside the dealership. He pulls out the 4-square (you know this is going to be a grind session at that point).

As I’m want to do, I throw a one time, all in number at him. He took it to his sales manager and was immediately rejected with the disclosure....”hot car...can’t sell it for that”. I laughed and wished the sales guy good luck. I just got up, offered a handshake and told him I made my offer. As I was getting back to my car (I think it was the CTS) he and his sales manager come to the door and stop to ask me to counter offer. Got in my car and told them they have my offer. Call if they want to make the deal.

Sales guy called 2 or 3 times, urging me to come back in with the “if we, will you” pitch. I told him again, he had my figures and not to bother if they weren’t interested.

I often wondered how long it took them to either hire someone who could drive it, or to even sell it.

roadburner

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

snakeweasel

roadburner said:

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

You cant downshift a manual?

dino001

stickguy said:

Faster, only if you are the only person on the road!

Dino, some of the car magazines do (did?) include interval times, like 30-50, 40-60. The big problem (likely impacting europe more) was they did not downshift manual trannys. I think it might have been done in top gear. An automatic would downshift. Definitely not a real world test.

Typically it was done 30-50 on third or fourth and 40-60 on fourth or fifth (when trannies were five speed), I think. It was to measure real-world low-end torque, sometimes called flexibility of engine. Basically how quickly you can hop from cruising to higher speed without downshifting. But that's only applicable to manual transmissions, which is relevant to that market. Autos downshift, so it's not same thing.

roadburner

snakeweasel said:

roadburner said:

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

You cant downshift a manual?

I guess you have never read a road test that included in-gear acceleration times. It measures flexibility of the power train. In the test a manual is left in the selected gear for the test.

dino001

snakeweasel said:

roadburner said:

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

You cant downshift a manual?

Those tests were originally designed to measure acceleration on a set gear in manual transmission, from low end revs (cruising), basically real life low end torque effects. Most engines were then naturally aspirated, so it was also showing if the engine had enough oomph to get to overcome wind and friction on its own at high gear.

dino001

roadburner said:

snakeweasel said:

roadburner said:

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

You cant downshift a manual?

I guess you have never read a road test that included in-gear acceleration times. It measures flexibility of the power train. In the test a manual is left in the selected gear for the test.

Yes, it simulates the driver in a manual transmission car basically pressing the accelerator at cruising speed in without any other action taken. Sometimes drivers get caught unprepared and need to accelerate, so they press gas and hold tight onto a steering wheel. This test measures how flexible the engine is in those situations.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

abacomike said:

driver100 said:

My E400 4matic misses by a fraction, 4.8 seconds 0 to 60, with the sports grill.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2017/2453300/mercedes-benz_e_400_4matic.html

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

Interesting. I think times vary a bit by who is testing, and one video I watched about the Mustang said he couldn't get to 4.5 seconds because they don't have 93 octane in California.
I looked up the 0 to 60 for the E400, I didn't try it myself.
Maybe like Snake says, do you have a sports grill?

You also have to consider the rear gears in the 0-60 discussion. My Mustang has a 3:31 set up so I doubt it would actually do it in 4.5 seconds. A 3:73 ratio might beat that time. I might catch up and pass such a car as it hits the rev limits if the race went on long enough but just 0-60...no way.

It’s frustrating that “they” never make that distinction when posting stats.

kyfdx

explorerx4 said:

I feel the same way about BMW's with 4 bangers instead of a straight six.

The new 4 cylinder turbo is a big step up from the last base 6 cylinder, though.

We have the same model, with the newer engine, and it is night and day improvement
2011 (230 hp 3.0 six) vs. 2017 (248 hp 2.0T four).

dino001

My 2018 430 GC is much faster then my previous 2012 328 wagon. It also has much better has mileage. But in the category of "artistic impressions of engine sound" it loses by a mile. It's not even a contest. I loved that straight six, it was silky, elegant, high class. I think only V12 sonds better, cause well, it's two straight six engines put together... That four sounds meh. But it does the job well, no doubt.

dino001

graphicguy said:

Sales guy called 2 or 3 times, urging me to come back in with the “if we, will you” pitch. I told him again, he had my figures and not to bother if they weren’t interested.

I often wondered how long it took them to either hire someone who could drive it, or to even sell it.

But your offer was clearly too low, if they didn't take it. You obviously didn't want or need that vehicle if you wouldn't raise it. by a few hundreds at least.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

For those that believe in DV on insurance claims, I hope my formula for calculating DV using the logic in my letter to USAA today becomes the industry standard moving forward (with Vroom being substitute-able by Carmax, Shift, Carvana, or any other well known used car buying service to establish post collison fair market value):

Who wants to play judge, or so far in this claim, just USAA DV Appraiser yet to put out a number (here's my letter):

Personally I would never be in direct contact with the other guys insurance company, let your insurance company or a lawyer do your talking. They will avoid the traps you will never see.

There's truth to that, though without an offer and my signature on it accepting it, it doesn't really matter what I say or write, my Insurance company is the only authorized decision maker for USAA apparently on this claim.

Have you ever heard the saying "anything you say can and will be used against you"? It also applies in this situation, you can hurt your position with the wrong word or phrase. I'd let the pros do my talking.

In other words call "the guy"

You haven't seen the insurance companies in action in Court have you? I have. Taking a page out of their playbook. Anything goes, including changing your mind about stuff that was apparently settled and agreed to a year (or more ago).

stickguy

Farmer, I’m guessing there are very few cars these days that offer optional axle ratios. I think they have to EPA certify all of the combos separately.

andres3

dino001 said:

0-60 mph is a number reported since I remember, which means at the time it was invented it probably made sense. Vehicles were doing numbers between 10 and 20 seconds and it was actually measuring a performance for a "normal" driver. Today going in 4 seconds vs. 6 seconds vs. 8 seconds basically makes no real difference to a law-abiding citizen, unless you have judge immunity ) Some publications in Europe, report midrange usually equivalent of 40-60 mph and 50-75 mph. Those are very important numbers for highway passing situation. Often show you how inadequate small-engined base version of their "compact family" car sold overe there really is. US doesn't usually have that problem, our "base" is their midrange in terms of horsepower and performance.

Acceleration is not yet construable as illegal in the Great State of CA. As long as you don't spin the tires in an exhibition of speed and noise, you are 100% legal accelerating as fast as you want to 60 MPH, assuming the speed limit is 60 MPH.

28firefighter

The 4 cylinder Turbo we had in the X1 (which is a similar powertrain to what is in other BMWs) had excellent power, but sounded like a tractor.

The ZHP on the other hand - well, I could drive with the windows down and listen to that all day long with no radio.

kyfdx

28firefighter said:

The 4 cylinder Turbo we had in the X1 (which is a similar powertrain to what is in other BMWs) had excellent power, but sounded like a tractor.

The ZHP on the other hand - well, I could drive with the windows down and listen to that all day long with no radio.

Yeah, the previous six cylinders were miles better. Those 230 HP models from 2008 on were not great.

fintail

I've found ~.5 second variances in 0-60 tests on these cars. I always go with the lowest I can find, as driver reaction can be a factor in differences that will be virtually imperceptible in real life.

abacomike said:

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

snakeweasel

roadburner said:

snakeweasel said:

roadburner said:

I also compare quarter mile times as well as 50-70 times. The problem with the 50-70 clocking is that automatics can’t be compared to manuals because they will downshift.

You cant downshift a manual?

I guess you have never read a road test that included in-gear acceleration times. It measures flexibility of the power train. In the test a manual is left in the selected gear for the test.

Oh I have, but if you want the acceleration you want to be in the powerband so you want to downshift.

stickguy

fintail said:

I've found ~.5 second variances in 0-60 tests on these cars. I always go with the lowest I can find, as driver reaction can be a factor in differences that will be virtually imperceptible in real life.

abacomike said:

You beat my 0-60 time - mine is 5.0 seconds. My E450 has 362 hp with 363 lb ft of torque which is significantly higher than your E400. It might be higher weight or The 9-speed transmission in mine that makes your car faster. Not sure why your car is faster. 🤓

Also depends on how willing you are to abuse the car also. Some of the magazines, are very willing!

roadburner

stickguy said:

Farmer, I’m guessing there are very few cars these days that offer optional axle ratios. I think they have to EPA certify all of the combos separately.

The Performance Package Mustang GTs get a lower(higher numerically) ratio than the base GTs.

roadburner

The nice thing about in-gear acceleration times is that they eliminate a lot of variables. For example, when I installed the Mazdaspeed(AEM) CAI on my 2007 MS3 I performed some in-gear runs as follows: Grassroots Motorsports had tested the AEM CAI for the MS3 using 3rd gear 30-70 acceleration times in their June 2009 issue, so I decided to follow suit. A nearby deserted two-lane served as the test site. My procedure was to floor the accelerator pedal at 25 mph, start the stopwatch at 30 mph, and stop it at 70. I made an equal number of runs in both directions. On both test days the ambient temperature was 88F and the relative humidity was 68%. The car had a full tank of BP 93, and the tires were inflated to the recommended pressure. After all runs were timed I threw out the highest and lowest run times in each direction and averaged the times of the remaining runs.
My results were:

30-70 mph stock filter : 5.67 seconds
30-70 mph Mazdaspeed CAI: 5.06 seconds(-0.61 seconds)

And-just for giggles-I went back and checked the Grassroots Motorsports results:

30-70 mph stock filter : 5.45 seconds
30-70 mph AEM CAI : 4.85 seconds(-0.60 seconds)

driver100

stickguy said:

This article does a good job explaining why obsessing about published 0-60 numbers is, well, mostly bunk. And consumers reports actually was ahead of the curve all along! Because pretty much no one is driving like that on the street. But driver, if you want to brake with the left foot and rev up to 6k at stoplights, go for it! Hey, maybe it was all those redline clutch dumps that trashed your Audi clutch!

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a30905608/how-0-to-60-tests-work/

Another interesting piece about rollout

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30085446/acceleration-testing-procedure-change-rollout/

Low and mid range acceleration while already moving is way more important IMO.

Great articles....basically 0 to 60 doesn't mean a lot. And I don't obsess about it, I just use it as a measure of power, because I want a car that gets me onto a highway, especially I-75, safely. So, anything below 6 seconds is good enough for me....no matter what measurement they use...it isn't that critical.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

Farmer, I’m guessing there are very few cars these days that offer optional axle ratios. I think they have to EPA certify all of the combos separately.

On the Mustang Ford offers 3:31, 3:55 and 3:73.