The Audi is probably cross shopped by 3cic buyers as they are really prob more lux conscience than performance conscience. A super sprty sedan or coupe is compromised by the top being gone so there is an oxy moron factor there that suggests that these buyers aren't that into performance in the first place. If you want to scoot around quickly in style with some rigitidy the a-4 will work pretty well I'd think.
The A4 Cab is a beautiful car, and it is more of a cruiser, I think if I wanted something more sporty from Audi, I'd look for something called the TT
You'd end up with a 2 seat car. Again that's not competition for the 330cic and for the dough it's not nearly as nice of a car.
A super sprty sedan or coupe is compromised by the top being gone so
The compromise is slight if the engineering is solid. We're talking a marginal weight penalty and if the engineers designed it as a convertible from the start, then the chassis flex is not that much of a difference. 10-20 years ago this wasn't true. Today many sports cars are made from the ground up as convertibles - Z8, Viper, etc.
there is an oxy moron factor there that suggests that these buyers aren't that into performance in the first place. If you want to scoot around quickly in style with some rigitidy the a-4 will work pretty well I'd think.
Have you seen the times on that bloated cow? It's a 4k lbs beast with an underwhelming engine.
Nobody is seriously challenging BMW's dominance of 4 place entry lux RWD convertibles. We know buyers are grabbing up G35 coupes and sedans. So a convertible is the next sensible step in Infiniti's quest to steal BMW's thunder.
Weird, I'm the BMW owner here and you guys seem to think it's a bad idea for Infiniti to offer a RWD convertible 4 place sports coupe.
I still would call it a joke. Even with that V8 the pig will take over 6 seconds to reach 60 using a manual. Ouch. That's pretty sad for a car sporting 340 HP.
Then again, the slothlike pace of the standard S4 is nothing to sing about.
That's the kind of pig I'll take anyday. According to Edmunds both S4s (Cabrio and Sedan) can get 60 in the 5's range (C&D tested the sedan at 5 seconds flat)
ya know, there is a little company called mercedes-benz that makes 4-seat 2-door RWD convertibles. I'm not saying which is better, and that can be debated all day long, but its not like BMW is the ONLY company making these things.
And you do know that the standard S4 does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat (C&D) while providing AWD, right? The M3 tested by C&D was only 2/10ths quicker. oh, but they picked the S4 over the M3.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
ya know, there is a little company called mercedes-benz that makes 4-seat 2-door RWD convertibles. I'm not saying which is better, and that can be debated all day long, but its not like BMW is the ONLY company making these things.
What MB 4 seat rwd convertible starts at under 50k or 40k? There isn't one. 'Nuff said there. The CLK is an entirely different class of car.
Again, no entry level lux 4 seat RWD convertibles challenge the Bimmer. The A4 is trying to, good for them. Still think Infiniti would score a bullseye with a G35 convertible. Why are you all opposed to this? If infiniti releases a 40k G35 Spyder it's gonna be a serious competitor to the 3 series.
Lexus has stated they will have an IS in the next gen that's a coupe and a convertible. They know it's important.
And you do know that the standard S4 does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat (C&D) while providing AWD, right?
As tested I've seen mostly mid 5s from the S4. Even 5 seconds flat is rather unspectacular given the torque of a V8 and the power output. Typical VW, porky.
"Still think Infiniti would score a bullseye with a G35 convertible. Why are you all opposed to this? If infiniti releases a 40k G35 Spyder it's gonna be a serious competitor to the 3 series."
I think most of the board are hard toppers - I know I am. I never will ever buy a convertible. it just goes against my every fiber.
If I did live in FLA again or CA for sure I would get a jeep cj-7 and throw the doors away...thats a convertible to me anyway.
I guess if infniti can sell some convertibles they should do it but thier lineup is being revamped and the rescources may not be there with all the new products they developed. As long as they look good and they dont flex like a lebaron ragtop I'm for it..just not in my driveway.
That could be it. I've grown up with convertibles and when I bought my daily commuter I seriously considered snatching up a 99 Miata as I could get it cheap and mod it to my heart's content. I ended up going safe with my choice but as soon as February rolls around I begin to pine for the sun.
For the next few years I have to settle for dropping the windows and opening the moonroof. Or borrowing my families convertibles.
BMW sold almost the exact same number of 3 series coupes as its 3 series convertibles in the cold month of January, so I would say that there definitely is a viable market for the G35 convertible.
It's not porky, it just has AWD. The AWD system does add weight and causes driveline loss. Regardless, the S4 compares well to the M3 (not going to slit hairs over fractions of seconds), even better you can get the S4 in a sedan which gives you all the convenience of 4 doors with the power of a sports car. I would get an S4 sedan over a M3 in a heartbeat. Better yet, give an RS4 which would chew a M3 and spit it out.
Noticed in the latest issue of Autoweek (2/16/04) there is a small news "Flash" article titled "Drop-top Camry". Solara convertible that comes out in March. "Designed from the ground up as a convertible". FWD 225hp 3.3L V6 with 5-speed automatic.
Toyota must see some value in 2-door convertible market. Too bad no manual transmission. Maybe there will be an IS300 convertible???
jrock65... I don't believe everything I read. I have doubts that Lexus will actually build an IS300 convertible. Rather small niche market to begin with let alone to try and recover development costs. Will be interesting to see if the Solara convertible sells well. If it does, maybe Lexus will create the IS300 convertible.
Lexus hasn't had too much luck selling convertibles/roadsters. Neither has Infiniti (anyone remember the M30 convertible?). Don't think Acura has even tried.
The majority of sales will still be sedans in this segment.
The majority of sales will still be sedans in this segment.
True but BMW's got so much of the market expressly because they're not only selling sedans. They've got a diverse 3 series line up and thw 1 is going to be the same way.
In fact I read recently that they plan to have a 200 HP + version of the 1. If it's convertible and under 40k, I have good feeling that will replace my little too thick 3 series.
BTW, someone said they'd take an S4 or some such variant. to each his own. I'll never own another VW. I actually hope that company goes out of business.
What MB 4 seat rwd convertible starts at under 50k or 40k?
Sorry. I misunderstood and didn't realize the requirements were "RWD 4-seat near-luxo under $40K". But, you're right, if you want a "luxo" car with vinyl seats and less than 200 hp, you can find a convertible BMW with a sticker a hair under $40K.
As tested I've seen mostly mid 5s from the S4. Even 5 seconds flat is rather unspectacular given the torque of a V8 and the power output. Typical VW, porky.
In their comparison test, C&D could get the M3 to 60 mph only 2-tenths of a second quicker than the S4. Personally, I'd make that sacrifice to save $1500, get 2 more doors, and add AWD.
oh, and C&D also had this to say "You must work the six-speed to stay ahead, however, as shown by the top-gear 30-to-50 and 50-to-70 bursts, where the larger-displacement Audi had a significant advantage."
and "Of this trio, the S4 is in a class by itself, scoring the full 10 points in our handling rating, two above the M3 and three above the C32."
not bad for the "porky" car.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I sense a lot of bitterness towards VW/Audi. Just because YOU had a bad experience doesn't mean that they are bad cars. I had a lot of problems with BMWs, but I don't think they BAD cars.
0-60 is the derigueur standard for performance, but is it really the stat that you need to know on how a car performs in traffic. How many people drop the clutch on there 35-40K + cars. Yea I know somme of the knuckle heads on these boards but not normal drivers. ;-)
I think the speed bursts and roll-on power stats is what is most telling. The 30-50 mph, 50-70 mph bursts, and 60-130 roll-on power is gonna tell you alot about the car.
Anyone want to show the comparable 50-70 or 60-130 stats for our favorite class? Someone must have database for all these stats by one tester.
And these are the definitive mag racer stats for sure, IMO. I would predict the TL would win a 0-60 by .2-.4 secs and then get walked by 5 seconds or so 60-130...
And for good measure (because I care)...also from C&D:
TSX - 7.2, 15.6, 7.7, 10.2, 9.7
I think the 5-60 "street start" is a good test because it eliminates different tire traction and launch techniques from the equation.
I think the 1/4 mile is a good test because it mitigates the different gear ratios which distort the 0-60 test (the TSX needs 3rd gear to reach 60 MPH), and lets both HP and TQ come into play.
I don't like the "top gear" tests because 5-speed cars have a 1.00 ratio while the 6-speed cars have a much taller ratio (the Saab has .62 in 6th gear, and .75 in 5th).
Overall though, I guess it's a good picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each car.
I sense a lot of bitterness towards VW/Audi. Just because YOU had a bad experience doesn't mean that they are bad cars. I had a lot of problems with BMWs, but I don't think they BAD cars.
I needn't carry the burden alone. The stats speak loudly on the quality of VW/Audi products.
Fed, nice post. although I question the usefulness of tests that do top gear 50-70. What sort of a person with a performance car would want to do something like that? Honestly, if I'm doing 50, I'm not going to be in anything higher than 4th and most likely in 3rd. If you've got a six speed manual G35 or TL it's expressly because you like to row your own gears.
I think a test that shows 50-70 and 30-50 (isn't this just second gear?) from the optimum gear would tell us more about the cars. Owners quickly figure out how to squeeze the fun from their engines.
Can't even imagine touching 6th gear on my car before 80 mph and then it's only if I'm going to go to cruise and basically sleep...
fedlawman... You wrote, "I don't like the "top gear" tests because 5-speed cars have a 1.00 ratio while the 6-speed cars have a much taller ratio (the Saab has .62 in 6th gear, and .75 in 5th)."
Most 5-speed manuals are also overdrive. The IS300 is overdrive. The IS300's overdrive just isn't very deep (believe it is around .85). There are some exceptions. BMW tends to use a non-overdrive 5th gear in their close ratio boxes, but has also used an overdrive in their wide ratio boxes.
You also have to factor in the differential's final drive ratio. The higher the number the quicker the acceleration (but the lower the top speed).
The wonders of engine torque multiplication!
The value of the "top gear" data is in regard to showing whether you'll have to downshift in order to pass. The cars with the real deep overdrives (say .70 or lower numerically) normally will have to downshift to 5th or even 4th.
"Top gear" test also is somewhat indicative of how much torque the engine produces in its power band.
You might also compare C&D's observed and EPA estimated fuel economy numbers. Holding all other factors constant, the cars with the deepest overdrives will (normally) get the best fuel economy and turn over the lowest engine revs at high speeds for relaxed high speed cruising.
The former Acura TL Type-S a great example. Believe it used a 4.11 final drive and a .47 5th gear overdrive. Great initial acceleration and great fuel economy.
Without 6th gear, the "30-50" and "50-70" numbers for the sub-3.0L cars would all be within a couple 1/10ths of each other (hence the similar 1/4 mile times).
The value of the "top gear" data is in regard to showing whether you'll have to downshift in order to pass.
Need to? need? I don't want to take 7 or even 5 seconds to go from 50 to 70. I want to change gears. I want to use the power of my car. I bought a six speed manual for a reason - to exploit the power of the car.
If I'm stuck behind some tool doing 50 I look forward to dropping to third and rocketing by the guy. there's nothing troublesome about that as that's why I bought a car with this much power and a manual.
The cars with the real deep overdrives (say .70 or lower numerically) normally will have to downshift to 5th or even 4th.
I'll take third thanks. I can pull to almost 100 in 3rd so at 60 the car rockets.
"Top gear" test also is somewhat indicative of how much torque the engine produces in its power band.
At 50 mph in 6th I'd be turning somewhere near 2k RPM. Who drives a car sporting a 7k redline with the engine down there?
TSX runs better than the saab. I'd rather have it and the IS300 looks better in top gear stats as it's a 5 speed i believe.
That's part of the reason the test is bogus. I've driven both cars and the TSX's 6 speed is like butter. Moving to 3rd from 6th is a pleasure and allows the driver to exploit the TSX's spritely little 4. Superb engine and tranny.
TSX to me is a better deal than TL for sure! If only I were younger, smaller and not in traffic. If they had one in 1993 I would have jumped on it.
Although I have not had much luck with acura/honda cars and tranny's as I am way too demanding on their little motors ancd beat the tar out of them, I get the sense the TSX would be up to the task and is a little more than the RSX in capability and fun factor.
blueguydotcom... Is more of a European thing. BMWs, MBs, etc. often used close-ratio (non-overdrive) 4th or 5th gears to ensure adequate response in all gears.
I don't mind downshifting to pass. And I'd rather have better highway fuel economy.
But I will admit it is nice to be driving my '04 IS300 manual in 5th gear and come upon a slower car. I can immediately pass without having to shift. Did same with my former '98 540i6 (believe it had only a .82 6th overdrive).
I have no issues passing a doof going 40 in a 70 in top gear in the G, but like Blueguy me thinks its funner downshifting to 3rd.
My philosophy is why not hammer the motor - its the one thing that prob will last the longest and you can have more fun too. If when I pass I can get down another gear - WHY NOT. I have a hard time not enjoying all the acceleration this baby's got. If there is any reason to downshift I cant help it - I am addicted to feeling the thrust.
Amen. Yeah, we can all press the pedal and build up but we bought performance sports sedans so we could get that giddy jump from 50-80 or even 80-100 in a flash.
Someone mentioned Germany and gear ratios for 5th. Ah those are for autobahn speeds. I'm sure 5th and 6th pull like monsters in my ZHP. Of course I've never been travelling at 120 to prove that.
Anyone see the scathing Edmunds article on the BMW 530i full test. 55K and no nav for a idrive underpowered unimproved bangle mobile. The 545 will be way too much when the CTS-V takes the world over. 400hp and the dealer is only half mile from my house....51K I hear...hmmmmm
Funny thing about BMW cars; I've been hearing about the new/soon to be released fill in the blank, and how it was a sure thing to put the hurt on BMW. Hmmm, so far anyway, it's all been noise. Speaking strictly for myself; the new 5-Series is one of the ugliest cars on the road. Note I said, "One of the ugliest", not "the ugliest". From my perspective, the CTS is even further down that road, and as such there is no way I would own either of them, even if they had 1000 hp and cost $15K.
Looked at another way; if I were to have opted for the E39 540i instead of my 530i, which really is fast enough, I would be quite happy with the wonderful performance and driving dynamics, regardless of how many folks were out there driving CTS-Vs. Their drivers might well be laughing at me because of my slow 540i; however, I would be laughing right back at folks driving such hideous looking cars. So, who's right? Neither and both, whatever floats your boat. In the end, I seriously doubt that Cadillac is going to do much to BMW sales, besides, with the new Banglized cars; they are doing more to hurt themselves than the rest of the competition combined. :-/
The 545 will be way too much when the CTS-V takes the world over. 400hp and the dealer is only half mile from my house....51K I hear...hmmmmm
CTS-V made by whom? Oh Caddy. Have you driven a CTS? It drives like a Caddy. The manual was a laugh. The front end plow on corners would have been funny had it not been scary with that softly sprung suspension.
I was in one for about 10 minutes when i bought a sedan and was not impressed with the 3.2. It was obviously not my first choice. But a corvette motor and handling better than anything else for 50K including M3 - I'm making the appointment now to see if it's worth it....lets be clear I am not a buyer of any car at the moment. Just want see if its worth it.
BAsed on reports of those whove driven the V it's a bad mutha. I doubt it will steal much thunder from BMW as well but the 55k should get you a v-8 - that BMW premium is not worth it IMO for weak performance.
Its all subjective..its not that much different than the G35 - in fact it looks tighter sometimes. It will sell and some will like it alot. Most toyotas are ugly but they sell like mad. Maybe they are only ugly to me!
And then of course the F-22 is coming soon and it has vector directional nozzles that change the shape and direction of the exhaust nozzle to make it turn so hard a man cant even fly it to it's envelope without passing out.
I'll wait till they put up a Harrier jump-jet on Ebay. I can take off from my backyard and cruise to work at around 600 mph and land in my office parking lot. No more rush hour for me. Name the price, I'll pay it.
F18 acceleration on the deck is OK, but on a catapult - yee haw! Standard shot is around 4-4.5 g's, max load test shots are 5.5 g. NOTHING at ANY weight, never mind 18 TONS, hooks up that fast in straight line acceleration. Best 2.3 second ride in the world... On the downside, you can **almost** get 1 mpg in cruise if you are very light at 39,000'. Sea level cruise is 1/3 mile per gallon. Even a F1 guy was impressed... from http://www.ralphfirman.com/ "I thoroughly enjoyed a trip in a Pilatus PC9 trainer aircraft with the Royal Australian Air Force and then had a ball in an F18 with the US Navy at Patuxent River base, near Washington, in June. "
"Quality problems are still dogging VW vehicles and putting off customers who were attracted to VW in the late 1990s, costing VW big on warranty repairs and marketing costs to keep old customers and lure new ones. Last year, for example, VW began offering costly lease-pull-ahead deals to owners in order to keep them from defecting. In Europe, the company is offering deals like free air conditioning to move a large inventory of Golfs, and similar measures are anticipated in North America. VW stock initially rose 2.7 percent Wednesday, but then gave ground and closed at 39.33 euros ($50.49) or less than one percent in Frankfurt. Shares are down 11 percent since early January. VW is offering discounted finance rates and leases in North America, but has stayed away from big rebates. Most models have rebates of just $500. And it is facing pressure from dealers to be more generous on discounts to move aging models like the New Beetle (five years old), Golf and Jetta (six years old), and Passat (five years old). VW's discounts are more in line with Japanese and European imports than with U.S. automakers. But it doesn't have the premium image of its European mates, nor the high-reliability image of its Asian rivals."
There's an article in Business Week about Infiniti. They say BMW has an enviable reputation of style, performance & youthful vitality. Susan Jacobs, a well known auto analyst, says that of all the other premium brands, Infiniti is in the best position to match BMW reputation.
And lexus - ?? They may exceed them from a customer service PLUS reliability standpoint...notwithstanding the actual lexus dynamics, they have had it right since day 1. How else can they command a premium like that! Infiniti has alot going for it with upgraded G's GTR's and M45's coming...meanwhile the 5 series got worse and costs more...that repuation will only last so long...mercedes found out!
I said BMW's rep rests on style, performance, and ability to attract young buyers. Pardon me, but I don't think Lexus is well known for any of those things.
...notwithstanding the actual lexus dynamics, they have had it right since day 1.
Other than the IS300, I cannot think of a single Lexus model that isn't, ummm, well, un-dynamic. Oh, wait! I liked the Giorgetto Giugiaro/ItalDesign Studio incarnation of the 1993-1997 GS300 as well.
Comments
What are a-4 cabrio sales?
You'd end up with a 2 seat car. Again that's not competition for the 330cic and for the dough it's not nearly as nice of a car.
A super sprty sedan or coupe is compromised by the top being gone so
The compromise is slight if the engineering is solid. We're talking a marginal weight penalty and if the engineers designed it as a convertible from the start, then the chassis flex is not that much of a difference. 10-20 years ago this wasn't true. Today many sports cars are made from the ground up as convertibles - Z8, Viper, etc.
there is an oxy moron factor there that suggests that these buyers aren't that into performance in the first place. If you want to scoot around quickly in style with some rigitidy the a-4 will work pretty well I'd think.
Have you seen the times on that bloated cow? It's a 4k lbs beast with an underwhelming engine.
Nobody is seriously challenging BMW's dominance of 4 place entry lux RWD convertibles. We know buyers are grabbing up G35 coupes and sedans. So a convertible is the next sensible step in Infiniti's quest to steal BMW's thunder.
Weird, I'm the BMW owner here and you guys seem to think it's a bad idea for Infiniti to offer a RWD convertible 4 place sports coupe.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshows/articles/100537/page021.htm- l
Then again, the slothlike pace of the standard S4 is nothing to sing about.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=33&article- _id=7574
I hardly call that a pig!. The M3 hits 60 in about 5 secs and it has a weight advantage. Who's oinking?
And you do know that the standard S4 does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat (C&D) while providing AWD, right? The M3 tested by C&D was only 2/10ths quicker. oh, but they picked the S4 over the M3.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
What MB 4 seat rwd convertible starts at under 50k or 40k? There isn't one. 'Nuff said there. The CLK is an entirely different class of car.
Again, no entry level lux 4 seat RWD convertibles challenge the Bimmer. The A4 is trying to, good for them. Still think Infiniti would score a bullseye with a G35 convertible. Why are you all opposed to this? If infiniti releases a 40k G35 Spyder it's gonna be a serious competitor to the 3 series.
Lexus has stated they will have an IS in the next gen that's a coupe and a convertible. They know it's important.
And you do know that the standard S4 does 0-60 in 5 seconds flat (C&D) while providing AWD, right?
As tested I've seen mostly mid 5s from the S4. Even 5 seconds flat is rather unspectacular given the torque of a V8 and the power output. Typical VW, porky.
I think most of the board are hard toppers - I know I am. I never will ever buy a convertible. it just goes against my every fiber.
If I did live in FLA again or CA for sure I would get a jeep cj-7 and throw the doors away...thats a convertible to me anyway.
I guess if infniti can sell some convertibles they should do it but thier lineup is being revamped and the rescources may not be there with all the new products they developed. As long as they look good and they dont flex like a lebaron ragtop I'm for it..just not in my driveway.
For the next few years I have to settle for dropping the windows and opening the moonroof.
I for one wouldn't mind seeing a G35 convertible.
Toyota must see some value in 2-door convertible market. Too bad no manual transmission. Maybe there will be an IS300 convertible???
Lexus hasn't had too much luck selling convertibles/roadsters. Neither has Infiniti (anyone remember the M30 convertible?). Don't think Acura has even tried.
The majority of sales will still be sedans in this segment.
True but BMW's got so much of the market expressly because they're not only selling sedans. They've got a diverse 3 series line up and thw 1 is going to be the same way.
In fact I read recently that they plan to have a 200 HP + version of the 1. If it's convertible and under 40k, I have good feeling that will replace my little too thick 3 series.
BTW, someone said they'd take an S4 or some such variant. to each his own. I'll never own another VW. I actually hope that company goes out of business.
Ouch!
M
Sorry. I misunderstood and didn't realize the requirements were "RWD 4-seat near-luxo under $40K". But, you're right, if you want a "luxo" car with vinyl seats and less than 200 hp, you can find a convertible BMW with a sticker a hair under $40K.
As tested I've seen mostly mid 5s from the S4. Even 5 seconds flat is rather unspectacular given the torque of a V8 and the power output. Typical VW, porky.
In their comparison test, C&D could get the M3 to 60 mph only 2-tenths of a second quicker than the S4. Personally, I'd make that sacrifice to save $1500, get 2 more doors, and add AWD.
oh, and C&D also had this to say
"You must work the six-speed to stay ahead, however, as shown by the top-gear 30-to-50 and 50-to-70 bursts, where the larger-displacement Audi had a significant advantage."
and
"Of this trio, the S4 is in a class by itself, scoring the full 10 points in our handling rating, two above the M3 and three above the C32."
not bad for the "porky" car.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think the speed bursts and roll-on power stats is what is most telling. The 30-50 mph, 50-70 mph bursts, and 60-130 roll-on power is gonna tell you alot about the car.
And these are the definitive mag racer stats for sure, IMO. I would predict the TL would win a 0-60 by .2-.4 secs and then get walked by 5 seconds or so 60-130...
Here are the stats in order; 0-60, 1/4 mile, 5-60, top gear 30-50, top gear 50-70
TL - 5.8, 14.5, 6.5, 11.4, 11.1
A4 (3L) - 7.5, 15.8, 7.5, 10.1, 9.2
325i - 7.0, 15.4, 8.0, 8.7, 9.1
G35 - 6.3, 14.6, 7.0, 9.3, 8.8
IS300 - 7.3, 15.5, 7.8, 8.6, 8.3
9-3 Arc - 7.2, 15.4, 7.8, 15.3, 9.5
And for good measure (because I care)...also from C&D:
TSX - 7.2, 15.6, 7.7, 10.2, 9.7
I think the 5-60 "street start" is a good test because it eliminates different tire traction and launch techniques from the equation.
I think the 1/4 mile is a good test because it mitigates the different gear ratios which distort the 0-60 test (the TSX needs 3rd gear to reach 60 MPH), and lets both HP and TQ come into play.
I don't like the "top gear" tests because 5-speed cars have a 1.00 ratio while the 6-speed cars have a much taller ratio (the Saab has .62 in 6th gear, and .75 in 5th).
Overall though, I guess it's a good picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each car.
I needn't carry the burden alone. The stats speak loudly on the quality of VW/Audi products.
Fed, nice post. although I question the usefulness of tests that do top gear 50-70. What sort of a person with a performance car would want to do something like that? Honestly, if I'm doing 50, I'm not going to be in anything higher than 4th and most likely in 3rd. If you've got a six speed manual G35 or TL it's expressly because you like to row your own gears.
I think a test that shows 50-70 and 30-50 (isn't this just second gear?) from the optimum gear would tell us more about the cars. Owners quickly figure out how to squeeze the fun from their engines.
Can't even imagine touching 6th gear on my car before 80 mph and then it's only if I'm going to go to cruise and basically sleep...
Most 5-speed manuals are also overdrive. The IS300 is overdrive. The IS300's overdrive just isn't very deep (believe it is around .85). There are some exceptions. BMW tends to use a non-overdrive 5th gear in their close ratio boxes, but has also used an overdrive in their wide ratio boxes.
You also have to factor in the differential's final drive ratio. The higher the number the quicker the acceleration (but the lower the top speed).
The wonders of engine torque multiplication!
The value of the "top gear" data is in regard to showing whether you'll have to downshift in order to pass. The cars with the real deep overdrives (say .70 or lower numerically) normally will have to downshift to 5th or even 4th.
"Top gear" test also is somewhat indicative of how much torque the engine produces in its power band.
You might also compare C&D's observed and EPA estimated fuel economy numbers. Holding all other factors constant, the cars with the deepest overdrives will (normally) get the best fuel economy and turn over the lowest engine revs at high speeds for relaxed high speed cruising.
The former Acura TL Type-S a great example. Believe it used a 4.11 final drive and a .47 5th gear overdrive. Great initial acceleration and great fuel economy.
TL - 3.93, 2.48, 1.70, 1.25, 0.98, 0.77, 3.29
A4 - 3.50, 1.89, 1.32, 1.03, 0.86, 0.73, 4.11
325 - 4.23, 2.52, 1.66, 1.22, 1.00, n/a, 3.15
G35 - 3.79, 2.32, 1.62, 1.27, 1.00, 0.79, 3.54
IS - 3.57, 2.06, 1.38, 1.00, 0.85, n/a, 3.73
9-3 - 3.77, 2.04, 1.32, 0.95, 0.75, 0.62, 3.91
TSX - 3.27, 1.88, 1.36, 1.03, 0.83, 0.66, 4.76 (from Acura brochure)
Without 6th gear, the "30-50" and "50-70" numbers for the sub-3.0L cars would all be within a couple 1/10ths of each other (hence the similar 1/4 mile times).
Need to? need? I don't want to take 7 or even 5 seconds to go from 50 to 70. I want to change gears. I want to use the power of my car. I bought a six speed manual for a reason - to exploit the power of the car.
If I'm stuck behind some tool doing 50 I look forward to dropping to third and rocketing by the guy. there's nothing troublesome about that as that's why I bought a car with this much power and a manual.
The cars with the real deep overdrives (say .70 or lower numerically) normally will have to downshift to 5th or even 4th.
I'll take third thanks. I can pull to almost 100 in 3rd so at 60 the car rockets.
"Top gear" test also is somewhat indicative of how much torque the engine produces in its power band.
At 50 mph in 6th I'd be turning somewhere near 2k RPM. Who drives a car sporting a 7k redline with the engine down there?
That's part of the reason the test is bogus. I've driven both cars and the TSX's 6 speed is like butter. Moving to 3rd from 6th is a pleasure and allows the driver to exploit the TSX's spritely little 4. Superb engine and tranny.
Although I have not had much luck with acura/honda cars and tranny's as I am way too demanding on their little motors ancd beat the tar out of them, I get the sense the TSX would be up to the task and is a little more than the RSX in capability and fun factor.
I don't mind downshifting to pass. And I'd rather have better highway fuel economy.
But I will admit it is nice to be driving my '04 IS300 manual in 5th gear and come upon a slower car. I can immediately pass without having to shift. Did same with my former '98 540i6 (believe it had only a .82 6th overdrive).
My philosophy is why not hammer the motor - its the one thing that prob will last the longest and you can have more fun too. If when I pass I can get down another gear - WHY NOT. I have a hard time not enjoying all the acceleration this baby's got. If there is any reason to downshift I cant help it - I am addicted to feeling the thrust.
Someone mentioned Germany and gear ratios for 5th. Ah those are for autobahn speeds. I'm sure 5th and 6th pull like monsters in my ZHP. Of course I've never been travelling at 120 to prove that.
Looked at another way; if I were to have opted for the E39 540i instead of my 530i, which really is fast enough, I would be quite happy with the wonderful performance and driving dynamics, regardless of how many folks were out there driving CTS-Vs. Their drivers might well be laughing at me because of my slow 540i; however, I would be laughing right back at folks driving such hideous looking cars. So, who's right? Neither and both, whatever floats your boat. In the end, I seriously doubt that Cadillac is going to do much to BMW sales, besides, with the new Banglized cars; they are doing more to hurt themselves than the rest of the competition combined. :-/
Best Regards,
Shipo
CTS-V made by whom? Oh Caddy. Have you driven a CTS? It drives like a Caddy. The manual was a laugh. The front end plow on corners would have been funny had it not been scary with that softly sprung suspension.
Caddy..lol
To each his own.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
BAsed on reports of those whove driven the V it's a bad mutha. I doubt it will steal much thunder from BMW as well but the 55k should get you a v-8 - that BMW premium is not worth it IMO for weak performance.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3079057375- - &category=4672
Now finding a parking space is another story
And then of course the F-22 is coming soon and it has vector directional nozzles that change the shape and direction of the exhaust nozzle to make it turn so hard a man cant even fly it to it's envelope without passing out.
What's the quarter mile?
http://www.geocities.com/alliedaerobiker/
On the downside, you can **almost** get 1 mpg in cruise if you are very light at 39,000'. Sea level cruise is 1/3 mile per gallon.
Even a F1 guy was impressed...
from http://www.ralphfirman.com/
"I thoroughly enjoyed a trip in a Pilatus PC9 trainer aircraft with the Royal Australian Air Force and then had a ball in an F18 with the US Navy at Patuxent River base, near Washington, in June. "
http://www.f-16.net/library/stories/twobags.html
Needless to say, I had tears rolling down my face when I got to the part about "egressing". ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
http://thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6866&sid=173&am- p;n=156
"Quality problems are still dogging VW vehicles and putting off customers who were attracted to VW in the late 1990s, costing VW big on warranty repairs and marketing costs to keep old customers and lure new ones. Last year, for example, VW began offering costly lease-pull-ahead deals to owners in order to keep them from defecting. In Europe, the company is offering deals like free air conditioning to move a large inventory of Golfs, and similar measures are anticipated in North America. VW stock initially rose 2.7 percent Wednesday, but then gave ground and closed at 39.33 euros ($50.49) or less than one percent in Frankfurt. Shares are down 11 percent since early January. VW is offering discounted finance rates and leases in North America, but has stayed away from big rebates. Most models have rebates of just $500. And it is facing pressure from dealers to be more generous on discounts to move aging models like the New Beetle (five years old), Golf and Jetta (six years old), and Passat (five years old). VW's discounts are more in line with Japanese and European imports than with U.S. automakers. But it doesn't have the premium image of its European mates, nor the high-reliability image of its Asian rivals."
Other than the IS300, I cannot think of a single Lexus model that isn't, ummm, well, un-dynamic. Oh, wait! I liked the Giorgetto Giugiaro/ItalDesign Studio incarnation of the 1993-1997 GS300 as well.
Best Regards,
Shipo