Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Have you checked your gas mileage??
Did you get an extended warranty?
Thanks...
don
But once that T5 engine gets going, it is a great engine.
But again, the A3's 2.0T is better no only because it has similar power without the lag, but it gets significantly better gas mileage ratings, which is crucial today.
In regards to comments that people have posted about turbo lag----the T5 does have turbo lag, but you have to get used to the gear pattern. In my experience, most cars accelerate well in 2nd gear, but it seems like my car can't get out of its own way in 2nd. But in 3rd the thing gets going right away, no matter what the RPM's. It is a low induction turbo charger, so it is designed to provide boost at low RPM's. The upside is that it kicks in at lower RPM's, the downside being that the boost is relatively low, so it isn't supposed to really kick you in the pants ever. When I test drove the MazdaSpeed6, which has much more boost, you really felt in when it kicked in. So I have to say that turbo lag has not been much of a factor for me, now that I've gotten used to the gearing. I actually wouldn't mind a little more kick in the pants-it's pretty noticeable that this is a turbo charger not designed to knock your socks off. In the review of the T5 on Edmunds, the author commented on the gearing/turbocharger being one you have to get used to-I agree with that. I'm no car expert, however, and I'm sure some of the more technically-minded folks lurking around here could discuss turbos, gearings and such in a more educated fashion than I.
DT
Anyone know if there's going to be any major changes to the 07 S40??
Having said that, there are two schools of thought:
The automatic will emasculate the T5, but will "mask" the turbo lag somewhat, but the performance becomes somewhat less than "IMMEDIATE."
On the other hand, the stick shift may require you to learn some anticipatory driving to minimize the "rush" that can happen when you are in third gear and request more grunt -- and then the lag happens since the turbo's RPMs need to spool up to max torque range.
If you know when to downshift to minimize lag, you will be fine.
The specs on the engine, as I recall, do show torque does come on fairly low in the engine RPM range, so this may be -- for you -- a quick and short learning curve.
If you want much of the fun and performance retained, the stick is your best bet. Sticks, however, are addicting and they are more and more rare.
I caution you, if you get a stick, you will be hard pressed to ever be satisfied with an automatic again.
Each drive line has its merits -- the one that increases:
control, fuel-economy, fun, performance and safety (due to the improved control and performance) is the stick;
the one that may be somewhat less involving, lower in performance and generate poorer fuel mileage is the automatic. You do get "less work" with the auto though.
Choose the one that suits your needs.
I have an Audi A6 3.2 it has an automatic. The BMW 530xi which can be had with a stick and is AWD was not on the market when I picked my Audi up. I drove the S60 type R and found the engine backfired too much for my comfort in a car that expensive.
This is my first time posting here, so I hope this is the right spot to post.
Anyway, I am looking to purchase a pre-owned sedan in the next couple of weeks and have narrowed it down to either a 2001 Volvo S40, a 2001 Volvo S60, or a 2002 Volkswagen Passat. All three are in the same approximate price range. There is approximately the same mileage on both volvos and a little more on the Passat. Trim levels are comparable (and more or less basic)
Does anyone have an opinion (lol) on which would serve me better? I am selling my current coupe because I have a new daughter and we anticipate needing two to three car seats eventually. I like the handling of the S40 and the Passat (I haven't had a chance to drive the S60 yet).
Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.
I owned a Passat for 3 years & a Jetta for 2 more (against my better judgement) and the reliability was pretty awful. So, I would be VERY skeptical of the 02 Passat. The S40 is not very sporty and doesn't handle/drive nearly as well as the Passat and the back seat is not as big as the Passat. So, it depends on your priorities:
Drive/Handling: Passat
Reliability: S40 (or S60)
Long Term ownership cost: Even (both are pretty expensive to keep up and if you're gonna own one of these for a long time, you may wanna consider a certified pre-owned or extended warranty)
Looks: (IMHO) The Passat
Gas Mileage: Good in both, however, the Passat requires Prem Gas (not sure about the S40)
Back Seat (for your new addition): Passat (however, with a rear facing seat, it's gonna be tight in both...both will be fine when she is front facing)
Good luck and I hope this helps a little!
Subaru has been making AWD for quite some time, but the 2.0 Turbo vehicles I've tried (including the Saab offshoot) had virtually no power down low and seemed to be very peaky. Ride and handling seemed good.
Has Subaru solved this turbo lag issue? I understand they have a 2.5 engine now.
Krzys
Go check one out for yourself. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Bob
1) gas - should not use premium and should have good gas mileage if not at least the norm for sedans (24/31 or so)
2) reliability - ok from what I've read, VW is havign issues with reliability but i'm interested in their 2006 pre-owned passat 2.0Ts .. of course, it is still too new for reliability but if people returned it to the dealer, is taht necessarily a bad sign?
3) luxury/styling - I'd say VW packs the most for the best price AND has done a good job on the styling. I'd go with a loaded accord or camry but their styling is bland.
I wish I could get the acura tsx or even audi/lexus/etc but they all use premium gas and that is not what i need now.. Any ideas what I should look at, based on my priorities above? thanks in advance!
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
I had minimal issues with the Passat, and really liked how luxurious it seemed. It was a great balance between comfort and sport - I had a 6 cyl manual transmission and was very happy with the torque, although HP was a bit too low. Overall, that redesigned Passat, from 2001.5-2005 is a really good, comfortable, safe car. It was consistently among consumer reports' recommended vehicles.
I agree that I think the passat gives you the most luxury for the buck.
1) certified pre-owned acura tsx (without navi) - can get one with 10K miles for $24,500. All the features for the buck, plus still gets good gas mileage. Does require premium.
2) toyota prius (yes, on the other extreme of the scale, but I have yet to check it out). Packages seem expensive, not to mention it is in high demand and is being sold at msrp, no chance of negotiation.
3) accord ex-l with/without navi - if only they could have done a better job with styling, I would have jumped on it.
4) I would check out the camry if I didn't already have a 2005 camry SE.
any others i should check out that would meet my priorities as listed in my previous post (1. gas mileage 2. reliability 3.styling/luxury) ? Thanks in advance!
I've looked at ratings from Edmunds, IIHS, Fuel economy.com, Gov. crash tests, and JDPower.com. I've narrowed my selection to:
-Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
-Hyundai Sonata
-Ford Five Hundred
-VW Passat
They all excel in one thing or another, but I wanted to get other opinions. Thanks for responses!
luvmbooty, the bottom three on your rankings don't have that great a reliability or in the case of the 500, haven't been around very long to tell. In addition to those, you might look at a Buick. They tend to have huge trunks and interior room and have good reliability records.
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
The Maxx forum here has more details.
If you don't mind a ruff ride, the Maxx SS offers a pseudo-sports approach.
Be warned that Malibu and Maxx are having suspension and brake problems. Supposedly in Mid 2006 the suspension issue will be addressed.
Lastly, the Maxx has not been IIHS crash tested (only the Mailbu, which got a silver award provided you have curtain airbags).
Passat is in its first model year. None of the first year cars are synonymous with dependability.
Krzys
1. Acura 06 TL w/Navi ($34500 OTD)
2. Acura 07 TL w/Navi ($37000 probably Fall 06)
3. Acura RDX w/Navi ($375000 probably late Summer 06)
4. Infiniti 06 G35 w/Navi Sedan ($35000 OTD)
5. Infiniti 07 G35 w/Navi Sedan ($37000 probably Fall 06)
Which car is the best buy?
1. On a scale of "not important, important, very important," how important is the luxury factor and how important is the sportiness factor?
2. Auto or manual transmission?
3. What's the RDX doing in this mix?
4. Does the '06/07 Infiniti have the same nav as the Infiniti M, or have they continued with the same nav that was in the prior year G35s?
The FWD TL's are undriveable when you hammer them, way too much torque steer.
I'm assuming that the 07 G35 price is plus TTL?
If so, the 06 is a better deal, plus interst rates are continuing to rise.
1) 2006 Accord EX-L with navi - $24K
2) 2005 Acura TSX with 8.5K miles, no navi - $24.5K
The accord is complete and a good value for the price but the TSX has the sporty/luxury feel and makes the accord feel rather boring. Besides having that extra luxury feel, my other priority is the gas mileage. What should I pick? Do the prices seem reasonable, especially the TSX?
Thanks
Krzys
The FWD TL's are undriveable when you hammer them, way too much torque steer.
I have a manual '04 TL and the torque steer isn't really bad, especially since I got new tires. I do wish it was on a rear wheel drive platform, but if performance isn't a top criteria, this probably will not affect you.
The handling was poor (crummy in the corners) - the ride was harsh (bumpy / could feel every expansion joint) - both cars we drove had a buzzing sound coming out of the dash.
We were also considering a different car for my daughter - so we drove a 2006 Civic the same day - the Civic and the TSX have about the same handling capabilities - the Civic has a better ride quality. The TSX does have more power than the Civic.
The TSX is an old design - it is based on the 2002 European Accord - so if you want a 2002 Accord with leather that requires premium gas - buy the TSX.
We took it off our shopping list - I can't understand why this car sells at all - there must be some car buyers that think that the Acura badge has some value and really don't care that it is really just a rebadged Accord.
I would take the Accord over the TSX - but make mine a coupe.
The Civic is not a performance car, with the exception of the Si. I'm sure its ride is tuned more for comfort than the TSX's. The Civic's tires do not have as low a profile, and therefore absorb the bumps much better, and the springs are softer too.
I'm sure if you were to test two Mercedes E350s, one with the optional sport suspension and one without, you would find the same thing. The one with sport suspention and ultra-low profile tires would ride much harsher than the one with the standard suspension.
Bob
Some how Acura was able to make the TSX ride like a car that should handle very well but does not - and handle like a car that has a soft ride - but doesn't.
I think its the 2002 technology.
In the sporty / near luxury car segment (whatever name you want to use) the car should have a firm ride but that does not mean you should feel every expansion joint in the road - thump - thump - thump - and it should handle 1000 times better than a $15K Civic. The TSX just plain falls short.
You could be right about the tires - maybe Acura just kept the same suspension tuning as the 2002 European Accord and stuck for low profile tires on it. That could explain the ride and handling.
the accord ex-l is pretty much loaded with all the goodies (dual heated seats, power driver seat, automatic dual climate control, 6 disc cd changer, led brake lights, etc), which u probably already know. You also mentioned the dvd navigation system which put the icing on the cake. The accord styling is attractive, but the tsx is much better looking, and for $500 more i would go with the tsx.
I know u mentioned gas, and the tsx does use premium fuel which seems weird for a 4 cyl car. U do get more hp (34) with tsx, but i guess with it being a luxury car u just have to use premium.
the tsx is fully loaded, only missing the dvd navigation system which is nice, but with standard features like, heated power driver and passenger seats, auto rear view mirror, 6 disc cd changer with a 320 watt 8 speaker surround sound system(compared to accords 120 watt 6 speaker system) xenon headlights, (which is a plus on value)and the cool looking turn signals on the mirrors makes this car worth getting for $24500. :shades:
I will settle for an accord ex-l with navi and trade it in later when the tsx is redesigned
here are my choices:
1) 06 accord EX-L with navi (4cyl auto) - $23,950 out the door
2) 06 acura tsx (without navi, auto) - $26,300 out the door
3) 05 acura tsx w/o navi with 5.3K miles, auto - $24,500 out the door.
I'd recommend the Audi A3 over both the Accord and the TSX.
but between Accord and TSX, it all comes down to.... do you want power or gas mileage with regular fuel? Do you want luxurious interior, or just a nice interior?
Acura has better warranty, but its not like you'll ever need to use the warranty with either vehicle.
But, rather than "prove" that an engine designed for premium fuel is generally both more effective and more efficient, I will simply hit the money justification first in some detail.
If you believe that Regular will be at least $2.50 per gallon and you also believe that plus ten cents per grade is generally the norm, let's look at this financially.
Gas tank = 20 gallons, for instance.
Fillup of regular = $50
Fillup of premium = $54
If you use one tank per week the annual cost would be $208 higher for the car that required premium. As the price of regular rises -- and unless the difference in price between premium and regular changes -- the cost actually goes down as a percentage of the total cost for 52 fillups.
Assuming the consumption doesn't change, the difference will remain $4.00 per tankful, of course.
=====
There is and will continue to be a push for cars that require ever higher octane numbers. Indeed one of the advantages, for example, of E85 is that it can offer higher octane which is a good thing for a car engine's overall performance (performance being a deliberately broad term meaning to include effectivity and efficiency.)
I am somewhat suspect of cars that claim to run on regular for I feel that a more efficient engine could be constructed but at the cost of requiring premium fuel.
We all seem to want higher power (horses and twist) and better fuel economy. One of the ways that this can be accomplished is by raising the compression ratio (hence the need for higher octane fuel) of the engine.
Broadly, generally and typically, I would, therefore, EXCLUDE the car in the class that used regular figuring that it might be less powerful, more thirsty and dirtier than a like volume engine (typically smaller in absolute terms, however) that has a higher compression ratio.
I started out driving a 1963 V8 Chrysler Newport with a Firecracker 265 engine. It had a two bbl carb and produced 265 HP and it drank gas (which at the time was as low as 24.9 cents per gallon -- I am old, don't you know?)
My current 3.2 (3.1L) V6 Audi engine has 255HP and it sips gas and feels every bit as powerful (this is a memory issue obviously since I do not have both cars side by side to test) if not moreso than that big ol' V8.
This is a stark contrast, but the underlying concepts can be demonstrated today.
There can be some pretty unimpressive engines in the "performance" regard who can claim "yea, but at least we burn regular. . . ."
I find such engines to typically suck gas and spew pollution -- both in quantities that exceed a higher compression engine that requires premium juice to run at its best.
Power and gas mileage improvements often go hand in hand as manufacturers keep pushing their engine's compression ratios ever higher.
Ignore the regular gas arguments, since there is plenty of evidence that can be shown to "prove" that many of the "regular fuel is ok" engines require more fuel and produce less power and more dirt than their premium sucking counterparts.
Please remember that although I believe what I have just written that the statements are generalizations -- there are regular burning engines that run just fine and do not conform to my rather broad statements.
Probably a good source for more info would be Popular Mechanics and a web site that can be googled "how stuff works."
:shades:
Nothing I have written suggests that using Premium in a car that is NOT designed to benefit from it will improve mileage or power. Conversely, nothing I have written should suggest that using Regular in a car designed for Premium is anything but a false economy and is indeed more wasteful.
:surprise:
One station near me (major brand) charges 3.31 for regular and 3.57 for premium. They dropped the regular price before they dropped the premium price.
Having fun with figures: for a 1400 mile trip;
CAR A: 24 mpg at 3.31 a gallon = $193
CAR B: 18 mpg at 3.59 a gallon = $280
CAR C: 30 mpg at 3.31 a gallon = $155
CAR
So for the 1400 mile trip, Cars B and D (both the Audi 3 at its reported mpg's) will cost roughly $90 to $70 more for the trip than Cars A and C (brand X, which I know gets mileages listed).
Having said that, does the extra fuel cost really matter to the Audi driver? IMHO, no sir-ree.
High octane fuel avoids knocking in high compression engines. That's the reason they are used in high performance cars allowing the engine to squeeze out the maximum from the combustion. Also, they burn cleaner than regular gas with respect to high compression engines. For engines that are tuned to deliver superior fuel economy & moderate power, regular 87 octane gas is good enough.
Do people understand that if you have an engine that produces "a lot" of low end torque it also produces "a lot" of low end HP? You can't increase torque - at any RPM level - without also increasing HP.
Torque and HP are two different ways to measure engine power - if you give a value for either torque or HP and the RPM of the engine - you can calculate the other (torque or HP) value.
Torque = (HP * 5252)/RPM
HP = (torque * RPM)/5252
Its (almost) like saying - that weight sure feels heavy - you know its the kilos that are important not the pounds.
HP - 166 @ 5900 rpm
Torque - 160 @ 4000 rpm
Those are the max HP & torque available. Substituting the nos. in your equation
@5800 rpm, torque = (166 * 5252)/5800 = 150.31
@4000 rpm, HP = (160 * 4000)/5252 = 121.86
Max torque of 160 lb-ft is achieved at 4000 rpm for which the HP is 121.86. This means that that the max torque of 160 lb-ft is achieved at a relatively lower HP (less than 166). This was my point.
The aim is to achieve max torque at low rpm. This implies that the transmission needn't downshift to generate enough "power" at a lower rpm to drive the car. This scenario would give you better fuel economy which, was the subject of the discussion.
We are, generally, in agreement, that is.
What "often" happens is a newer engine will be introduced in a given car line -- take the BMW 3.0 and both "power" (which is "often" both HP and torque) and MPG are improved.
Literally, of course, the compression ratio of both the older engine (also 3.0) and the newer version were such that Premium Fuel is required in both.
Further, the engines in this example go from X "power" and X dirtiness to Y "power" and dirtiness. In other words the engine gets more powerful, less thirsty and cleaner.
The Audi/VW engine technology (FSI) is another advance and in this case is accompanied by ever higher compression.
In this engine's case the "power" is upped, the "frugality" is also upped and the "dirtiness" is downed.
And, to further point some deliberate word use, I said power rather than attempt to specify (overall) either HP or torque.
My "argument" was very general (but I do believe not a misrepresentation or obfuscation) and meant to suggest that someone NOT be turned off by the requirements for Premium fuel. My thesis was to suggest that sometimes cars that burn regular fuel provide their owners a false sense of economy, sometimes a VERY false sense that, were they to calculate would darn near shock them and certainly surprise them.
I am, despite this, NOT suggesting the exclusion of a car solely on the fact that it burns regular. There are plenty of examples (on both sides) that can be used to justify one's choice.
Overall, generally, typically, broadly speaking and "on average" many cars that use Premium Fuel generate a more pleasing ownership experience for they offer greater power, efficiency, economy and lower pollution.
This is not an absolute as I have painstaking attempted to convey, however.
This forum is a great place for all of us to "learn new stuff" get new, to us, ideas.
:shades:
My point is - HP and torque are just different ways to measure engine power - you can also measure engine power in watts (same watt as a light bulb!) or even BTU's
All of these values can be converted into each other - none are "better" at any given RPM level because - they would be considered equal in terms of power.
Its just like you can measure distance in feet - inches - meters - yards -
You can measure weight in tons - pounds - ounces - kilos - grams -
Temperature - C or F take your pick
They are all just different ways to measure something -
Sure I want an engine that produces good power at an RPM level that I can actually use while I drive my car in normal traffic - it would be nice to have this power available in the 1,500 to 3,500 RPM range (low end)- because - even if my engine would turn 12,000 RPM I would not spend much time driving at this level.
I think this is what most people really mean when they say low end torque is more important - could also say low end BTU's are more important than high end watts - but I better stop before the host kicks my behind - again!
BTW - I always thought that the reason higher compression engines of the same displacement could produce more power was because they could have more air/fuel in the combustion chamber - isn't this what causes the higher compression ratio? The valves close and the piston compresses the air/fuel mixture before the spark plug causes ignition.
Premium fuel (higher octane) prevents the air/fuel mixture from burning before the spark plug fires (pre ignition)
This is why burning premium in a car designed for regular does not produce any more power - and is just a waste of $$.
I remember my dad -- he would NOT buy any car that required premium (or as he called it Ethyl) period. He bought a new Chrysler in 1963, the 361 CI could use regular and some of the other two or three engine choices (383 v1 and v2 and 413 CI) had to use Ethyl, so he chose the one that used regular and then spent what seemed to be a ton of money to put in an aftermarket air conditioner since, at the time, it seemed that only the cars that used Premium had factory air.
No amount of argument would dissuade this behavior which seemed, at the time and to this day, as a kind of weird way to save a couple of pennies per gallon whilst spending hundreds and hundreds on an aftermarket accessory that essentially took the space of one passenger.
My dad bought three new cars without factory A/C that used regular gas in the 60's and performed (or had performed, better said) this add-on.
False economy then, just for somewhat of a different reason or cause.
Some of the folks I work with buy cars that require premium and run them on regular -- maybe it just makes them feel better, evidence to the contrary.
:confuse: