Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Some cars react well to the rev and dump, but most owners would never do that.. By measuring 5-60 (which means you are basically idling), you get more of an idea of how the car will react in a normal situation..
It is a Car & Driver test..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 28.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.2 sec @ 101 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 154 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 172 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g
So, you can see the time differential from a standing start vs. 5 mph roll through th e 1/4 mile trap.
Regards,
OW
3-SERIES COUPE
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear- or 4-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe
Base price: $35,995-$41,295
Engines: DOHC 24-valve 3.0-liter inline-6, 230 hp, 200 lb-ft; twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve 3.0-liter inline-6, 300 hp, 300 lb-ft
Transmissions: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting, 6-speed manual
Wheelbase: 108.7 in
Length/width/height: 180.3/70.2/54.1-54.2 in
Curb weight: 3400-3600 lb
C/D test results (335i):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.1 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 105 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 144 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 160 ft
Projected fuel economy (C/D est):
EPA city driving: 20-21 mpg
EPA highway driving: 29-30 mpg
This car should take care of the mid-range advantage one might seek in the ELLPS vs. most family cars. Perhaps one can eek out some fun/satisfaction if equipped to suit ones needs and indeed, if one fits into the cockpit comfortably.
Even the Impala would be about 5 car-lengths behind the 3'er at the end of the 1/4 mile. Should also blow all DGC'c and typical S.M. entrants into the weeds!
Regards,
OW
A couple of other advantages of the A4. Quattro is better and more affordable than AWD on other ELLPs. The A4 has the best gas mileage of the group, although the 328 and the TL are close. (The G35 is awful). I am going to be ordering an Avant (an ELLPWAG?) and only the thousands more 3 series has a wagon. I am replacing a Saab 900S with its cavernous hatch and the only other similar vehicle is a Mazda6 hatch. SUVs while often having headroom, are obnosious climate changers in my view so I won't consider them.
I think that my E46 325i fits all of these, and I have carried both my road and MTB in it with the seat down. Plus, it has built-in mounting points that I can quickly attack my Thule roof rack to for carrying multiple bikes. I get 25mpg around town and 30 on the highway, and the other "requirements" go without saying (including #7!!).
Regards,
OW
This, by the way, is why the 3 is at the top of my list. I gave the TL a shot because #7, even though it's last, is certainly nice to have. How many miles does your car have on it? Did you buy it new?
If you're leasing, #7 becomes almost irrelevant. The only factor then is the PITA involved with dropping off & picking up the vehicle as it endures repeated warranty maintenance "issues." Oh, and whether the dealer supplies loaner vehicles.
I also spend 99.5% of the time in my car solo, and vastly prefer a vehicle that recognizes that preference.
Sadly, many people evaluate rear-seat room with the front seat moved as far back as possible, regardless of whether anyone in the family would actually put it there. I currently drive a car that I would defy anyone to fit into with the front seat moved all the way forward. It doesn't go so far back as I would prefer, but when it is all the way back (that would be 100% of the time), the nonexistant person behind me has plenty of leg room.
I developed a Jones for Audi 5 or so years ago, after driving several rentals in Europe. Your post helps keep it alive. If I opt to trade RWD for other factors, Audi is right in there.
Regards,
OW
SUVs are allowed higher emissions per mile, so the pollution is not just correlated with the gas mileage. The only SUV I would consider is the Escape Hybrid but it is the four letter f word: F-O-R-D.
Regards,
OW
Car looks awesome though.
2008 Infiniti EX35
EPA City/Highway: RWD 17 mpg/23 mpg; AWD 16 mpg/21 mpg. Looks like highway mileage suffers more.
AWD in a entry lev lux perf vehicle seems like an unnecessary feature in some parts of US such as LA, Vegas, Frisco, FL, Gulf States, etc. Wonder what sales there are for AWD vs snow belt states.
But, for RWD cars, I agree.. adding AWD means less fun.. even here in the snowy Midwest..
Get some winter tires!!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That said, I agree with your point but it is not just limited to cars that offer FWD or RWD. You point applies to all SUVs in L.A. or Florida. Why do you need a 5000 lb. 4WD vehicle? Because they can... status of course.
As nearly as I can tell, the SUV craze is driven (pardon) by people who want to sit up higher in a heavy vehicle that's well thought of by others (as opposed to, say, a minivan). Nothing in there about actually using it for anything.
Are you kidding? :surprise:
The VAST majority of SUV's do not even offer a 2WD version - at least not the mid to higher end models. American made Ford Explorers Chevy Suburbans, and some of the mini-utes, maybe. But nothing that I have ever looked at seriously from Japan or Germany that was a mid to full size and mid to upscale SUV comes in a 2WD version. The closest I recall was the Honda Pilot when we were MDX shopping, but the largest dealer in the DC area claimed to have never seen a 2WD one at his dealership.
I'd be willing to bet in my neighborhood of DC, you would find 100 4/AWD SUV's before you'd find a single 2WD one.
A4 wagon, in my eyes is more expensive, but then I wouldn't buy a BMW off the lot - save for the M3. I prefer Audi's FWD to their intrusive and easy-to-bind AWD system. Like BMW's xDrive, I think Quattro makes driving a chore.
Uh, no. When we bought our Pathfinder a few years ago (2004, the last year it was made in Japan), the Nissan stores here in AZ (where there are lots of off-roading opportunities that surely demand 4WD) were full of 2WD versions -- I'd say there were maybe 20-30% of the Xterras & Pathfinders with 4WD.
In snow country I'm sure 4WD is more common, but the all-up old-school (shift the transfer case yourself into 4WD hi or lo range) SUVs I see around here (as well as most pickup trucks) are RWD. BTW, I'm not talking full-time AWD here (with a center differential), but 4WD that's used only when you ask for it (that shouldn't be used on dry roads).
I disagree. This car is just a blast! I might not know half as much as others with formal track experience and driving acumen, but the xi is is no chore from my perspective.
Regards,
OW
Understanding the need/rationale for an AWD in snow regions of US, seems like AWD would be a hinderance in warm climates. Extra weight to lug around, potentially more complications and repairs, marginally less gas mileage (still should be important for entry lev lux). If AWD were so great on dry pavement, then why don't we see it on F1 and IRL cars. These cars have evolved from front engine RWD to mid-engine RWD over last 4 decades. Ultimate lux "cars" such as Mercedes and RR don't even offer AWD.
Porche does and so does Bentley and Audi.
The xi is not a hinderance, IMHO.
Also, the RS4 and RS8 are pretty good examples of the way this technology is finding it's way into the more exotic pure breds.
By the way, my car is awesome in the wet summer days when fresh rain raises the oil from the pavement.
Regards,
OW
Really? http://www.mbusa.com/byo/frameset.jsp?trackingApplication=mainsite&trackingModel- =S550V4
Hmmm, could'a fooled me.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Lamborghini's seem to perform OK with AWD...
The C4S offers all the plus factors of the more expensive Turbo but without the added hassles of the auspuffer. The 3.6 liter's power output of 320 ponies is more than sufficient to merge in any kind of traffic, and three-digit cruising on the right roads is where a thoroughbred like the C4S feels most at home. The main selling point of the C4S comes down to one simple point: The handling characteristics are nothing short of phenomenal. For a car the size and weight of the C4S to perform in the manner of a Lotus 7, and do it in comfort, is a huge achievement. After all, we live in a world where all-wheel drive is more of a catchy sales slogan and falls empty with what it promises. Not the C4S. The all-wheel drive makes a strong case that all 911 variants should send power through all four wheels.
Probably not the purest, but OK for a daily driver.
Regards,
OW
What competitors, besides the 328i, are you referring to?
I had an Audi A4 3.0 Quatro for a loaner car last summer and the gas mileage was terrible. On a mostly highway 250 mile roundtrip that I was doing at the time, I only managed 24 mpg with the Audi. My Acura TL 6-speed averages 28-29 and my 911S Cab averages 25-26 on the same route / conditions.
BTW, I think the TL is a great car - fast, reliable, great tech. This conversation was related to Bluedotcom and xrunner's contention that Quattro makes a car more expensive and my response is, well not than other ELLPS it doesn't.
It adds expense and weight, while removing power and fun...that to me makes it an expense I will not tolerate.
You may be a member of the lighter is always better church and that is understandable - my 1973 Capri was more tossable than today's cars. But if you go out and do a long test drive with both, if you are like most driving aficionados, you will certainly like the quattro more than the FWD.
No, it's more expensive than a FWD A4. That's how it's more expensive. I don't give a hoot what the IS, G or BMW cost with AWD...
The quattro is only $800 more than a FWD but that is countered by higher resale/residual.
That's the same ludicrous argument people use for adding any option to a car. You add $1400 for leather, you're lucky to get back $800. Automatic is about the only option that holds its value well. Even then, like Quattro, AT detracts from the enjoyment of the car.
As confirmed by people on this forum that have driven the two cars, the Quattro handles better due to: 1) its grip - even on dry pavement, and 2) its elimination of torque steer.
Driven both of them too. I loathe Audi's AWD system; ditto BMW's horrific xDrive; one more time for Subaru's nasty system. I've not touched a Lexus/Infiniti with AWD, so I won't comment on those. But the Audi/BMW/Scooby systems bind and interfere with the performance of the car in a way I don't enjoy. They make driving a chore.
But if you go out and do a long test drive with both, if you are like most driving aficionados, you will certainly like the quattro more than the FWD.
I don't agree; been there, done that and I'd rather walk than drive a hamstrung AWD Audi or BMW. I'm not going to pay extra for extra weight, less involving driving and poor gas mileage. Gas mileage drops from 23/34 to 22/31 with Quattro (a difference of $160 a year in gas expenses). For me, the choice is lighter, less complex, more efficient, more fun.
Now, you did get me on point - gas costs. I am sure that you, like most other Americans, makes a decision on a $35,000 car based on $160 per year.
Given that a huge majority of the posters here and most car mags find exactly the opposite driving experience than you, one can only conclude that your strong opinions are clearly based on an opinionated philosophy - "the choice is lighter, less complex, more efficient, more fun," not driving experience. Again, I urge you to actually drive these cars or put your money where your mouth is and buy a 1969 2002.
BTW, the gas mileage is OK for me. My Lincoln LS got 19. This gets 22.
Regards,
OW
2005 A4 with FWD and 30k miles = 21116 private party
2005 A4 with Quattro and 30k miles = 21826 private party
Cost of a 2007 A4 with FWD = 28,240
Cost of a 2007 A4 with Q = 30,340
$2100 difference in price and 2 years later the Quattro car only enjoys a 700 price advantage?! Seems like $1400 out the window. Add in the worse gas mileage ($320 over two years) and now I'm down $1700. Will that remaining $400 disappear by the end of year 3? Most assuredly.
Again, I urge you to actually drive these cars or put your money where your mouth is and buy a 1969 2002.
I have driven the cars. I'm not a fan of either vehicle (A4 FT/A4 Q) but I'd take the $2100 savings and the car that's lighter, more fun and more efficient.
FWIW, the FT v. the Q = about 121 lbs weight difference (3428 v. 3549).
Priorities. This is why I won't get leather on my next 335i/M3. The cost benefit doesn't play out for my personal desires.
On no, 1972 was a better year...
Eventually, however, one would imagine that if AWD had disadvantages that overwhelmed the advantages that sales would decline.
Like those who favor 2 driven wheels, I used to favor and frankly be hard pressed to understand the rise and rise and rise of automatic transmissions.
I have come to believe -- and there is ample evidence both objective and subjective to support this -- that a good automatic is, well, "good!"
Years ago, when I got my "poor man's quattro" an American Eagle (an American Motors Concord with apparently "Jeep" underpinnings), I started to notice the obvious, "I could go when others required a tow." Then as my situation and finances changed, I noticed as I could afford AWD Audis and AWD BMW's (our first, a 1988 325ix), that I could also go in the twisties better, faster, safer and have an even bigger blast doing so than in any 2WD car I could afford.
My boss, at the time, did have a 924 turbo that was also quite fun, but so many claimed it wasn't a proper Porsche.
In any case, 5 driving schools later, 27 Audis and 2 BMW's later (virtually all AWD), countless articles read, etc etc etc -- I can simply advance the argument that almost all flavors of AWD are popular, are growing more popular, have been criticized (by those who are paid to write), have been less criticized and finally have been praised and ultimately virtually cherished in large measure by the paid automotive writers and racers alike.
Audi and BMW's renditions of this technology are different. They each have their champions. If you don't like AWD don't buy it.
AWD continues to advance, as noted, in features, function and popularity. Ultimately, I would not be shocked to find that it can cost less to insure an AWD car for its abilities to avoid "driving incidents" that would require car or human or property repair.
AWD's racing history can be googled and it is certainly possible to discover the "best" performance and luxury cars are or can be AWD.
Will there be an AWD M5? Beats me. A new generation RS6 -- IF it leaves the BMW in the dust -- could change even BMW's thought process on a go to market strategy for AWD in their highest performance cars.
A couple of years ago, BMW mocked those who chose turbo-charging as a way to increase volumetric efficiency. The mantra from them used to be "there's no replacement for displacement."
Check out the new campaigns, check out the sales figures for BMW AWD models. In some markets it has gone from nearly 0% to over 40% -- the reason, ostensibly is "go anywhere," then the reason starts to shift to "performance."
Kook-aid drinkers?
I don't think this entirely accounts for the rise and rise and rise in acceptance, endorsement and praise of "good" AWD almost univerally by the amateurs and pros alike.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I'd just like to show those who don't buy it, my tail lights.
You say it so much better than I. While the debate will continue, all I can relate is that this is my first sedan AWD and it far exceeds the performance of my previous RWD/FWD experiences.
I also remind of the fact that a non-ZHP 330i does not handle as good as the 330xi. It is MHO, but I felt it myself.
Regards,
OW
Rocky
Regards,
OW
Sorry Mark - I couldn't disagree more with this statement, but we all have our own views on the matter.