By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Unfortunately, station wagons now are dead. They've been replaced by the SUV. Only way wagons are coming back is if they change around the gas guzzler taxes.
Wasn't much help with the ladies. I'd say, "C'mon, do you prefer my car or your two legs?" but that line didn't get me too far.
I think my experience was fairly common and the negative stereotype associated with station wagons is going to prevent them from making a comeback in the U.S. anytime soon.
I like the looks of the FX too and was tempted to get it. However, the extra size and 3rd row seat in the MDX offered too much utility.
Frankly, IMO best bang for the buck/utility is probably a minivan, especially those new ones where they show the (reminds me of me) struggling to fold up one of those baby strollers while the mom takes advantage of all those compartments. My only complaint with those minivans is that, except for the Honda Odyssey, the engines in all of 'em kinda suck.
I like the styling of the FX a lot as well. It definitely has some French Renault influence, but in a good way. It looks different from every other Japanese SUV.
Toyota's 3.3L v6 is probably OK, but I always felt that Toyota was more into NVH than extracting more power and efficiency out of its engines. I haven't driven a Sienna, but minivans are big and heavy and I'd guess the Sienna engine, while it may be adequate, would be underpowered compared to the VQ or Honda's 3.5L.
I guess I need to brush up on Minivans LOL.
BTW, I checked your numbers and they were right. I was wondering how Toyota was able to outdo the specific output of Honda and Nisssan, which is something that generally Toyota doesn't do.
The only thing I can think of is this: "Is the Sienna engine high compression using premium fuel?"
Because I can't see any other way to explain how the 3.3L engine used in the Camry and the RX330 is getting more HP and torque.
If that's the case, it's a bit of an unfair comparo to the Ody and Quest since I believe both engines run on regular.
"BTW, I checked your numbers and they were right. I was wondering how Toyota was able to outdo the specific output of Honda and Nisssan, which is something that generally Toyota doesn't do.
The only thing I can think of is this: "Is the Sienna engine high compression using premium fuel?"
Because I can't see any other way to explain how the 3.3L engine used in the Camry and the RX330 is getting more HP and torque."
The specific output for the Sienna (and RX330) version of the Toyota 3.3L is 230, which is 10 less than the Ody version of the Honda 3.5L, and the Quest version of the Nissan VQ. All 3 vehicles produce 242 foot pounds, though the Sienna's peak is slight more usable than the others, occuring at 3600 RPM.
Now, Id agree with you that the Sienna's ratings are using Premium fuel, and you'll see a slight (perhaps not even noticeable) drop in performance on regular, which the engine will run perfectly fine on, from my understanding. OTOH, the Ody's figures are on regular, and you'll achieve a few added hp and twist on premium. Basically, its two different approaches to rating engines that both perform best on higher octane fuel. Im not certain about the Quest.
However, compared to other iterations of the 3.3L (read: Camry, Solara, ES330), the RX330 and Sienna, from my understanding, breathe a bit more openly, which would account for the slight hp difference (5).
Anyway, getting back to the GS- any new info?
~alpha
My understanding of regular gas engines in general is that even if you put in premium fuel, it won't lead to a performance boost b/c of the way the engine's computers are calibrated.
OTOH, a premium fuel engine will suffer a performance degradation when put on regular fuel.
As for the new GS, I am interested in what it's going to offer, especially the new v6. 245HP out of a 3.0L engine is pretty good, and if it runs on regular fuel, that's even better.
Just on another note, is there any different between horsepower (hp) and brakehorsepower(bhp)?
Alpha, according to most experts, engines spec.ed for 87 get zero benefit from expensive gas.
HP and BHP mean the same thing. There IS however a difference between the amount of horsepower "at the flywheel" and the amount that is actually hitting the pavement.
Yes, I know this. I believe there was a Car and Driver article on the issue around the Fall 2001 timeframe. My point was that Honda makes the assertion that its 3.0L in the Accord, and 3.5L in the Ody... will achieve better performance and economy on higher octane.
saugatak- Thanks for the clarification. I understand exactly what youre saying.
~alpha
I think the GS looks better out of the two. It looks more sporty.
I think the CLS looks better than either.
M
Sorry, but I have to disagree about the Lexus GS. I've seen it in person (Detroit) and it looks worse than the previous GS, imo. The Audi doesn't quite look that bad as that pic does...lol!
M
I'm finding that no car seems to hit a "home run" for my personal tastes in the looks department. There is either too much "bubble", or too much "swoop", or too big of a front grill, etc. The car that closest resembles my "ideal" looking car is the '04 LS430. I guess I'm looking for a paradox... conservative yet sporty looking, low key yet exciting.
From the pics I've seen the 06 GS has a nice front, great interior, but the butt looks like it needs to go to the gym to firm up a bit.
M
I believe I have talked my mother into trading in her 1999 GS on the new one when it comes out.
However, if you are careful where you park it should not be a problem. Besides, many cars that have side moldings get hit by SUVs that have higher doors, so the molding becomes useless.
M
That's what I say when someone else's doors get dinged.
"*!@#@!*^&" is what I say when MY doors get dinged.
Audi has been committed to AWD across virtually all of its cars for a long time. There is a [somewhat self-serving] book called 20 years of quattro (or something close to that).
The point is, and it is ephemeral, "experience" -- broad and deep experience. Racing experience, passenger car experience and an AWD "core value" that, until -- wait a moment -- NOW, has been one of Audi's differentiators. When, as is predicted, all high-performance and luxury performance cars offer AWD or are AWD, Audi will lose some of its differentiation. Dr. Piech, around the time when a VW product called "The Thing" was introduced, predicted that "to be considered a high performance autombile, AWD will become the defacto standard" [sic].
He was, for years, thought to be a little bit peculiar, shall we say, now -- if he is remembered for his vision -- he will (or should be) remembered as a visionary automotive engineer.
So, while the GS AWD may indeed be "AWD" and probably will be a fine representation of the technology -- Audi, for probably another 15 minutes [of fame] still has some experience that Lexus/Toyota lacks.
For fans of the Audi brand, like me, I do recognize that Audi's "dominance" and differentiation due to quattro are nearing the part of the book (or song) called epilog.
Audi will have to "up the ante" once "all restaurants are Taco Bell" (Demolition Man).