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
I don't think a Five-Hundred buyer is looking for horsepower. A Five-Hundred buyer (or Mercury Montego buyer) is looking for a quiet, refined, nicely finished and conservative automobile that has plenty of space and is priced to move.
An Altima buyer takes horsepower and performance slightly more seriously and would prefer a sportier ride compared with the Camry and Accord. So Nissan has to back up the sporty image with the 3.5L VQ Engine and a few other small details.
So Ford and Nissan, in installing the engines they installed, are simply trying to cater to the markets they want to sell their cars to.
I don't think anybody would cross-shop the Altima and Five-Hundred.
If you have time, could you describe how the DSG behaves while driving around and how quick/slow or soft/hard the shifts are? I know you mention it in the article, just curious if you delve into it a little more. I assume there is some sort of display for what gear it is in?
So, if the real price of a Chrysler 300C SRT8 is $62,000.00; how does it compare with that type of vehicle in that price range?"
My wife is looking for a new car in the near future and one of them we looked at was the new BMW 3-series. She wasn't wowed by the interior (although I thought it looked sharp) but when we we pressed on the overhead console light switch in the rear seat area (playin' with buttons) the whole unit plus the headliner moved up with it. Amazingly cheap feeling. Now this car was equipped with a sunroof, so I guess it could have been moving up into the void where the sunroof would retract into, but my goodness it felt like something you'd expect in a base model rental car.
Over all it wasn't much in the scheme of things, just a really weird oversight as you walk away going, "wow was that part cheap or what".
I have a friend who owns a 97 Grand Caravan. He has had a few problems since buying it, and he now claims that all Chrysler products are junk.
Sure, some Chrysler products are junk (the Neon comes to mind) but others aren't really all that bad. The Liberty, Grand Cherokee, PT Cruiser, and Caravan are pretty good cars.
Now that we appear to have reached Hubbard's Peak, it all goes downhill from here. Remember, the dark automotive era of the 70's followed the high-po 60's. I don't know if you can say that the car will be dead, but I think the current internal-combustion engine's days are numbered... in the thousands, mind you, but I think we'll see something (be it hydrogen or whatever) eventually supplant the gas engine as the dominant technology used for powering the vehicles of the future.
--Robert
Also agree with Hammen, it can't go on forever
However, our roads are;
1) being more and more used by trucks for shipping,
2) filling up with larger and larger vehicles,
3) not being maintained fast enough to keep from wearing out (love those thin, lowprof tires? Potholes are hungry for them!).
4) cannot be expanded in many places due to entrenched development and no monies for road repair (our friendly Bush wants to slash both Highway AND Rail spending!).
In some cities like LA, CA , parts of the city are in perpetual gridlock, with the rest to follow in 10 - 15 years thanks to another 5 - 10 million residents down here. Also our interstate 5 from LA through Sacramento now resembles one giant parking lot on any holiday or many weekends.
Don't get me wrong, I like responsive cars too. But IMHO, if this disfunctional country can't change its priorities regarding infrastructure, it's heading for a long pitstop,
Is there any time since the invention of the practical automobile that it wasn't more powerful, safer and reliable than the preceeding years? True there have been some low spots, but overall I think it's been more of a continuum, and can be expected to continue.
As for American approach, am I right that it seems heavilly Hollywood based; build the "star car and that is all that matters - people will buy it no matter how what the dealer, service, etc. is. :confuse:
Good to know. I would have figured this anyway. Fortunately for me, neither of my cars have very good steering (one doesn't even have a rack!), so this won't be a problem for me.
On the 3-series - sounds like they're dialing back in road feel. I want to say that as the chassis evolved from E30 -> E36 -> E46, steering feel (among other things, due probably to weight gain) took a dive. Personally, I value good weighting (pinky steering is a no-no) as well as actual mechanical precision (tightness). Overly slow steering ratios are also a big pet peeve with me. To me, that's good steering "feel."
In that test a 300 Limited ran a 57.2. I'm guessing a 300C might pull that speed up to around 59 or even 60, but I'd have to test one to be sure.
Whoa, if 1.4mph is "huge," what is 5.5+mph?? Hard to believe that's even the same car.
Wow, based on slalom numbers alone, it sounds like the new E90 3-series is playing where the E46 M3 used to.
I wonder how a new S4 would do.
I bet the SRT-8 could pull close to 0.9g if not 0.9. Those tires are pretty sticky. A Z06 wearing them will pull like 0.98 to 1.
Damn, I really need to drive this car! So far all I can do is talk about it...
My problem with many auto reviews that I read is that many of the "experts" obviously have built in biases and your post proves that. When the reviewer has such a negative opinion of certain cars and companies you cannot be giving the consumer the objectivity they deserve. Your post has many statements that seem to be replacing facts with your opinions. I don't know about you but I have never seen any proof that European cars have ever been as reliable as Japanese cars or that they were ever reliable period. To assume that European cars used to be reliable and suddenly fell off the map in terms of reliability is a bit of stretch because all manufacturers are moving forward, not backward in quality. I think the truth of the matter is that as cars in general got more reliable people became less likely to tolerate the less than stellar reliability of European cars. You also state that domestic cars in general are poorly viewed due their somewhat frequent (or much more frequent than imports) mechanical problems. On what data or surveys are you basing that? I read as many long term tests as I can in various magazines and I have to say that rarely have I read about significant mechanical problems in any domestic or Japanese product. Naturally, the Europeans seem to be bringing up the rear based on my readings and what I see in various quality surveys. Some of the problems I have read about on long term tests are unacceptable considering the high price of the cars in question and yet most of the time the magazine ends the article with a glowing conclusiion that all but dismissed the issues. Put more succinctly, problems that would be outrageous on a $25K Malibu are just minor annoyances on a $50K BMW. I'm pretty sure Edmuds has done this in the past with the & series and some other vehicles.
"In the end, for a lot of people, a superb ride quality, exceptional handling and plush interior materials count for a lot. Even enough to overlook reliability issues. At least the Europeans had three out of four going for them...even when they were at their worst."
You seem to be putting the Euro brands on a pedestal that they may not have earned. Have you ever looked at the interior of an early to mid 90's VW, BMW or MB product? While the build quality may have been laudable, the designs and some cases materials were nothing to write home about. With the exception of BMW, handling has only recently become a focus of the other European brands and some would argue VW and Audi are just starting to get it right. Granted I am younger than you, but my understanding of previous generation European cars was that they were usually solid and stable at high speeds, but nimble handling wasn't necessarily a focal point. MBs have been critized until recently for having numb steering and modest handling limits.
"For me, it's the poor interior quality...plus the often archaic engine designs (Ford 500), the high NVH (almost every domestic midsize and compact sedan), and the preponderance of recall notices and mechanical failures (and the resultant low residual values) that hurts so many domestic models in my mind."
I'm not going to argue interior quality but your other points are questionable. I don't know if Edmunds used a soundmeter to measure noise levels but in the magazines that do use such tests the difference in noise levels between comparable cars in minimal. This is almost a non issue in most modern cars, regardless of manufacturer. As a matter of fact I just took a ride in a relative's Ion with the Ecotec four cylinder with my brother (who has a Mazda3) and we both agreed that the Ecotec was very quiet and refined even near redline. There was no discernable difference between the "refined" Mazda engine and the often bashed GM four. As for engine technology, only GM (and now Chrysler) uses "old" pushrod engines in cars so I assume your comment is largely aimed at those two companies. I find it funny that journalists (and others) continue to harp about low tech engines while praising the low tech, low revving, gas guzzling Hemi. And yes I know it has the MDS system, but the mileage isn't anything to right home about. Low engine tech is more than valvetrain complexity, it also use of materials, VVT, engine management and other things. There are quite a few German cars that still use iron blocks instead of lighter aluminum blocks and most of them are made by VW/Audi. Until MB came out with it's new DOHC V6, its engines did not employ VVT, instead they resorted to displacment to generate horses. On top of that they were using a 3 valve per cylinder layout that restricted specific output compared to modern 4 valve engines of similar size. Lexus was using an iron block on the GS until this year and they are still using it on the IS300. These are just a few examples, but there are more. I have never read criticisms of any of those vehicles for falling behind in engine technology, in fact I wonder if the press even knows some of these things. When you aren't looking for any faults it's hard to find any.
Just my thoughts.
and value is a key element that a 525i lacks when it goes up agasint a Chrysler 300C SRT8 which has forged aluminum wheels (heck, even the new M5 doesn't even come with forged aluminum wheels)
too bad the taillights look like a Nissan Primera
10 years ago the Accord V6 was a 2.7L and had pathetic output and mileage. Best not to talk about it. The Camry did have an available V6, a 3.0L, and if my memory serves, it was somewhere around 185hp. Also for 1995, you could get a Maxima 5-speed, with 190hp. With only 3014lbs to haul around, that car runs the same low 15-second 1/4 mile and 6.7 second 0-60 that many of these newer, heavier cars are starting to run. GM also introduced the 3800 Series-II for mid-1995, with varying outputs between 195 and 205hp. Cars with that engine could get upwards of 30mpg (more in some cases) on the highway.
Haven't read this board for a while but better late than never; I felt I had to comment on the Ford 3.0 Duratech.
Quite a while ago, before Five hundred hit the showrooms, I posted this in the Five Hundred discussion, comparing the Duratech in my Taurus with 4-speed automatic to the variable valve timing version in the Mazda 6 with 5 speed automatic:
"Just for kicks I went back and looked at CR's acceleration data for the 3.0 Duratec in Taurus vs 3.0 Duratec modified and with 5 speed automatic in Mazda 6.
Taurus 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. 45-65 in 4.9 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.4 seconds. Curb weight 3325 lbs. CR mileage test: 15 city, 31 highway, 22 overall. (by the way I have never gotten below 20MPG in my personal city driving, but your mileage may vary)
Mazda 6: 0-60 in 8.1 seconds. 45-65 in 5.3 seconds. 1/4 mile in 16.5 seconds. Curb weight 3355 lbs. Cr mileage test: 14 city, 30 highway, 20 overall.
Seems all that tweaking Mazda did with variable valve timing and a 5 speed automatic did nearly nothing but allow Mazda to publish a 10% higher horsepower rating, but with worse mileage, and in only one acceleration test did it beat the Taurus.
Variable valve timing with the 3.0 Duratech does not seem to buy you much, at least the Mazda version."
Mazda tweaked the Duratech quite a bit and really didn't gain much over Ford's "low tech" version in the Taurus. What did it gain Mazda except the ability to publicize a bit more HP and torque and higher tech VVT and 5 speed automatic and a more expensive drive train to build, but apparently little or even a bit worse in most measures of acceleration and fuel efficiency?
As far as the 3.0 Duratech in the 500, yes it may be a bit marginal to the enthusiast crowd, however to the market it is intended, it likely will suffice for most drivers, and a 3.5 duratech is coming in a year or so.
Shouldn't Ford be credited in the same breath with introduction of new technology transmissions, either a 6 speed or CVT, along with world class structural design, an AWD option and a very reasonable price range, starting in the low $20K range?
This was going on as Ford was also introducing a complete new line of F150 trucks, Mustang, Freestyle, hybrid version of Escape, and fixing the Nasser miscues. I'd say they have done quite a bit in the last several years, with more coming.
Karl, care to comment?
Besides, who is cross shopping the H3 and a Camry XLE V6? They couldn't cater to a more different audience. Where is the off road ability or image, or even 4WD? Besides, I would be surprised if the H3 was any slower than the H2 (which, btw, has an engine of nearly twice the displacement). And since when does the H3 claim to offer superior on-road performance, especially acceleration? I don't think it gives up anything in off road capability and it's smaller, easier to maneuver in the urban environments it's most likely destined for, gets better mileage and is cheaper. Of course there's the H1...slowest, most expensive but most capable of them all.
GM seems to have a habit of rushing models out with weak engines, then "fixing" the problem with options a few years down the road.
There are three basic elements to engine performance:
1. Power/Torque
2. Fuel Mileage
3. Refinement
The problem with the Duratec in the Five-Hundred is that is doesn't offer an advantage in any of these areas. It's got weak horsepower for the mid-$20,000 sedan segment, but if it had excellent fuel mileage or superb refinement, than I'd certainly call that out in my comments. But instead the Camry and Accord are better in every way, and the Altima (which isn't great in terms of NVH) is MUCH better in horsepower (yup, it's also much bigger -- whatever -- it gets the same mileage, has the same NVH levels, and is MUCH BETTER in power).
The same problem exists with the Hummer H3. I don't care about cylinder numbers, I just know that you can buy other SUVs for the same money with better acceleration, less NVH and with better fuel mileage. I know the H3 is very capable off road, but so is a Grand Cherokee, 4Runner and Xterra (the base, V6 Grand Cherokee actually only has two valves per cylinder and makes 10 less peak horsepower...but it makes 10 more peak lb-ft of torque and weighs 1,000 pounds less!).
By the way, NVH stands for Noise, Vibration and Harshness. Noise is only one element of this measurement, and honestly it's the one I probably care the least about. What I can't stand is when and engine feels like it's about to shake itself (and the car, and me and my passengers) apart when it goes past 4,000 rpm. The Duratec isn't horrible in this area...but it's worse than the competition by a noticeable margin, and it's certainly not "platinum" caliber (see below for explanation).
What do the Five-Hundred and H3 have in common? They are both "all-new" designs with very old engine designs. And it's not because of perceived use or target buyer or any other corporate spin, it's because both Ford and GM cheaped out on one of the most crucial elements in modern vehicle design (the ENGINE!). They both wanted to amoritize out their R&D costs by stretching the lifecycle of those engines. That's fine, they can do that. But as an automotive reviewer I'm going to call it out to my readers. Chrysler has done it recently, too (can you say Pacifica?).
That "Golden Age of Automobiles" being discussed is actually an understatement. We are living in the "Platinum Age of Automobiles" as far as I'm concerned. The level of competition between automakers has forced all of them to seriously crank up the quality, refinement and value of new products. And those who don't? Those who let the bean counters decide how much to invest in a new model? Those who leave major elements of a "new" product out during a "total redesign," turning to the existing parts bin instead? They will reap empty showrooms and crowded dealership back lots in this "Platinum" age.
Of course, I could be overstating the importance of power, refinement and fuel mileage in today's market. Let's check back in a year on Five-Hundred and H3 sales and see how things look. Here is my public statement for God and the world to witness: I don't think either will do very well.
If you leave the tranny in full auto mode the upshifts can be a little slushy. Still much better than the equivelant mode in BMW's SMG or Ferrari's F1 (no head toss), but there is a slight hesitation between gears. If put in "Sport" auto mode it's quicker and feels almost like a traditional automatic in terms of crispness. In full manual mode it feels just like the fastest upshifts you get from SMG or F1, maybe even a little faster. Of course the downshifts are the real treat, because it matches revs and is also super fast.
The only bummer with the tranny is that it will upshift if you get into redline, even when in full "manual" mode. The BMW and Ferrari systems just let you bounce off the rev limiter indefinitely, which is how a full "auto" mode should work.
"They are both "all-new" designs with very old engine designs"
That is not true. The I5 is based on the Vortec I6 that has only been in existence for three years. The I5 itself has only been around since the Colorado/Canyon came out last year. The I5 has VVT and I'm pretty sure it's all aluminum. The problem with the I5 isnt the engine, it's the heavy vehicles GM put it in. The H3 and midsize pickups weigh too much for a 220hp engine. That said, the I5 isn't old by any means. The Duratec is a different story. I don't think its a good idea to assume you can lump all domestics together without regard to the facts. It's obvious you don't like the 500 or the H3 and that is fine, but the I5 is modern.
For the record I think the H3 will do fine based on its price and styling. In case you didn't know the H2 is very slow and it sold well for about three years before gas prices and it's lack of freshness slowed it down.
I think it's still competitive (that's why it will cost that much in the free market). It's like the Ford GT. Why are they going for $200,000 plus? Because it takes that much to get a vehicle with similar performance (Gallardo, 360, etc).
I think at $62,000 the SRT-8 has equal or better performance than other $62,000 sedans, which is why the market will likely support that number...at least initially. Don't expect it to last, however...
As for American approach, am I right that it seems heavilly Hollywood based; build the "star car and that is all that matters - people will buy it no matter how what the dealer, service, etc. is.
The Europeans try to focus on design and premium materials (and, recently, technology for luxury's sake). The Japanese focus on refinement, ergonomics and build quality (Mitsubishi and Nissan are semi exceptions to that last one). The Japanese also focus on technology, but relatively recently in "luxury" technology like the Europeans. They tend to focus the bulk of their technology R&D on engineering/drivetrain issues (variable valves, additional gears in automatics, and lately hybrids).
The Americans do indeed depend on exterior styling and/or marketing hype to a greater level than the Europeans and Japanese, at least in my opinion. Sometimes it works (PT Cruiser) sometimes it doesn't (Chevrolet SSR), but neither of those models could be described as being super advanced, super refined, super luxurious, or possessing super interior control design or stellar build quality.
And before anyone says anything about the SSR's retracting hardtop, know that I wrote the road test on that vehicle last year: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=101836
The retracting hardtop was cool, the amount of grinding and creaking noises it made while opening/shutting was not (I've never heard an SLK or SC430 sound like that...).
Yup, standard domestic policy. Intro the new model with an old engine and expect the "hype" to sell them for the first year, then introduce the engine the car should have had all along and figure it will keep the sales going. Chrysler did it with the PT, even Nissan did it with the first Xterra in 2000 (I think that was the last model Nissan tried that technique on). It's makes a viable business case from the accountant's point of view. From the automotive journalists point of view, I have to tell my readers, "Don't buy the Five-Hundred with the old-world engine. Wait until they finally put a 21st century version in." If Ford wants to further amortize the 3.0 Duratec's costs over the first year or two of Five-Hundred sales that fine...but I won't be helping them by not telling my readers what they are doing.
Shouldn't Ford be credited in the same breath with introduction of new technology transmissions, either a 6 speed or CVT, along with world class structural design, an AWD option and a very reasonable price range, starting in the low $20K range?
They should indeed. If I didn't have to call out all those great developments -- and then follow it up with "but the engine is still weak and archaic," imagine how good the review would sound to potential customers...
This was going on as Ford was also introducing a completely new line of F150 trucks, Mustang, Freestyle, hybrid version of Escape, and fixing the Nasser miscues. I'd say they have done quite a bit in the last several years, with more coming.
They've done a lot. But since 2002 Nissan has unleashed a string of new/redesigned product (Altima, Titan, 350Z, Quest, Xterra, Pathfinder, Murano, Frontier, Maxima -- and we haven't even gotten into Infiniti yet). With the exception of the Quest I think all of these products have met or exceeded sales expectations. I know I just saw my umpteenth press release in a row about Nissan's sales continuing to outpace the previous month's/quarter's/years's (I think they are up by 17 percent so far this year).
Both Nissan and Ford were under the gun in 2001. If Ford deserves credit for what it's done since losing Nasser, what does Nissan deserve for what it's done since getting Ghosn?
I probably should have said it was "outdated" as in "You're going to put a five cylinder engine in a 2006 model vehicle when every competitor comes with at least a V6? Doesn't that seem outdated?"
Of course I felt that way in 2004, when the Canyon and Colorado came out with that engine.
For the record I think the H3 will do fine based on its price and styling. In case you didn't know the H2 is very slow and it sold well for about three years before gas prices and it's lack of freshness slowed it down.
My recollection is that H2 sales took a serious nose dive one year after it was introduced, and I don't think fuel prices were the only reason. I do remember a lot of money being invested in upgrading Hummer dealerships, and I remember production being ramped up to meet the swelling demand...and I then remember production being almost shut down and dealerships having trouble justifying their expensive upgrades because H2s suddenly weren't selling at all, and they've never again approached the initial "gotta have it" frenzy that was relatively short lived.
Much like the GTO...and SSR, but maybe the H3 will be different...
most of us posters are owners, so i think we are more tolerant of what you perceive as deficiencies. i'm willing to put up a little less ' ultimate' than less 'everyday'. i think domestic vehicles have more smaller practical features than 'foreign' vehicles. when i see an acura mdx, i have to chuckle, the back glass doesn't even open. a highlander has 3 rows of seats, but my 10 year old gave me laser beam eyes when i asked them to sit back there.
Umm, the H3's uses an I-5 that has roots in the 4.2 liter DOHC variable valve timing 275 hp I-6 found in the Trailblazer.
The Vortec 4200 I-6 has been one of Ward's ten best engines since 2002.
see link
GM 4.2 liter I-6
The GMC Canyon and Chevy Colorado need this 4.2 liter 275 hp DOHC I-6 as does the H3 which shares 10 % of its parts with the Colorado according to autoweek.com.
Karl –
Why is this how you’d prefer it to work?
My current car and 2 previous cars have a manumatic feature. (Not DSG, obviously.) 2 have worked this way. 1 (TipTronic) upshifted at redline even in ‘full manual’ mode.
I find the “bounce off the rev limiter” behavior slightly annoying. This appears to be an artifact of the “let’s try to make the automatic behave as close to a manual as possible” school of thought in implementing a manumatic function. If I have my right foot buried and hit max rpm in a gear, it seems to me that I probably do NOT want to stop accelerating. I have likely just been a fraction of a second slow in whacking the lever. Does holding WOT indicate that I would really want to suddenly hang at that speed on the rev limiter? I think not. The rather abrupt transition from rapid acceleration to NO acceleration can certainly upset the dynamic balance. More so, it seems to me, than an upshift would.
- Ray
Just curious . . .
He just wants a choice.. If you want the car to shift automatically at redline, put it in Sport or Full-auto.. If you want to shift manually, then have the car act like a true manual transmission.... Which would mean, no auto shifting at redline..
For a true manual shift afficionado to accept a DSG or SMG transmission, they need a mode where it will actually act like a manual transmission.. That means no automatic shifting.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
If they brought it out with a V8, the first line of every article about it would be about poor fuel economy, rising gas prices, poor timing to market, SUV sales are down, etc.....
When they bring it out with the I-5, then you get complaints about it being underpowered, slow, etc...
Regarding Manumatic mode behaviors (and many other similar electronically controlled functions), I would really like to see something like:
[for driver #1, ID by remote / key] Car asks initially??
Mr. / Ms. Driver #1: Do you want the trans. to upshift when shift lever is moved forward? [default behavior] - press 1.
Prefer the trans. to upshift when the shift lever if moved to the rear? (I believe BMW and others have selected this) – press 2.
(We are really only talking about interpretation of various electronic signals here – why not allow us choice?)
Mr. Driver #1, Do you want the trans. to allow the engine to bump off the rev limiter and not upshift? – if so, press 1.
If you want the trans. to upshift at redline instead – press 2.
Etc.
Etc.
Let us select. Let us make the choice and tailor the vehicle behavior to us – not the reverse . . .
But I digress.
And that’s my opinion.
- Ray
Preferring the option of additional vehicle control . . .
Perhaps, as a consolation to folks who absolutely want to live on the edge, Audi could program the engine black box to allow users to ride their engine above the red line for as long as they want, but - IF the engine blows - there would be __NO__ engine warranty?
for that matter, is any car maker doing that now? :confuse:
Civic 24,765
Cobalt 23,649
Corolla 23,227
Almost the number one seller in class (maybe soon). These sales figures are from Automotive News.
That's exactly what I was thinking. That's ok though - I may very well live my entire life without purchasing an SUV.
for that matter, is any car maker doing that now?
Ask BMW about M3 engine failures. Their computers will tattle tale on the owner if the RPMs exceed certain thresholds during break-in.