Ah. What are the other cars that have been invited?
We're still lining up the other candidates, but you can count on a Civic, Mazda 3, Focus and Forenza. We're still working on an Elantra and a few others. Remember, we only invite cars that: A. Won the previous comparison test (in this case, Civic, but the Elantra took second by less than one percentage point, so it comes back too) or B. Have had major revisions since the last comparison test
This means no Lancer, Sentra, Corolla or Neon, among others, so please don't bother asking why they aren't included (Answer: Because they didn't win last time and we have no reason to believe they'll do any better this time). For those cars simply re-read our last test to learn what we think of them: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=100022
I'll let everyone know more when we have the candidates locked down.
Actually, Karl, might be nice to see Edmunds create a small division of itself for the explicit purpose of testing/commenting on extreme cars ("EdmundsXtreme")?
I totally agree. As we continue to ramp up the Inside Line editorial package you can expect to eventually see the exact type of content you've described. We have to take care of the more mainstream readers first (like with Economy Sedan comparison tests and great future vehicle content), but we also want to offer stories about extreme cars with extreme modifications, not to mention the cool video elements that stories like this will support.
I would suspect that the long-term and comparison tests were conducted at different altitudes and/or at different ambient temperatures. Did you perform the tests at different locations?
A great question, and your assumption is correct. We first tested the Magnum at our coastal test facility, while the second test took place about 60 miles inland, where the altitude is 1,000 feet and the ambient temperature is higher. We do correct for these conditions, but that still allows some room for variation, though half a second is more than we would expect as well. Such is the reason I continue to caution readers (especially enthusaist readers) with this mantra: Don't hang all your hopes, dreams and judgements about a vehicle on the instrumented testing numbers. They are only one aspect of vehicle performance, and a highly transient one at that.
Karl, I greatly appreciate your quick and thorough response to my question. It is this sort of "customer service" that will keep me as a regular visitor to your website.
I certainly understand the potential for variation among acceleration times. It might be worth noting that at least 2 other automotive periodicals have published quarter-mile times that matched the 14.4 clocking that you posted in the first installment of the long-term test, so it would not seem to be a chance aberation, but a reasonable expectation for Magnum RTs.
Will you also be including the new Kia Spectra? It wasn't in the 2003 Comparison Test. And how about the new Volkswagen Jetta?
The Spectra should be in the test (still locking down players), the Jetta will not. Our rule for this test is a starting price under $15,000 (the "as tested" price might be higher, but there has to be at least one version of the model available for less than $15,000).
I know the Jetta technically competes with this segment, but it's a stretch to call the car an economy sedan because of its price point (though I'll readily acknowlege it has a more "premium" feel that any other economy sedan, thus the price is not without justification).
Last weekend I drove a Cadillac Escalade ESV, and last night I drove a Lexus RX 400h.
The Cadillac was loaded with such luxury features as navigation, DVD entertainment (with two screens) and XM satellite radio. It also cost $70,000 and is EPA rated at 13/17 mpg.
The Lexus similarly had navigation and DVD entertainment (only one screen), plus a reverse camera for backing up, Mark Levinson audio and xenon headlights that swivel with the steering wheel to help "see" around corners. It costs $52,500 and is EPA rated at 31/37.
A few thoughts after driving each one back-to-back: 1. The Cadillac has far more interior room (third row plus large cargo area), but it's far more difficult to drive, especially in city environments. I had to move things around in my garage to get it to fit, which I didn't have to do with the Lexus. 2. In terms of acceleration, the RX will smoke the 'Slade. 3. How does a car like the Lexus, which is founded on the idea of advanced technology, not come with Satellite radio -- even after opting for the Mark Levinson audio system??? Hello? Lexus? Did you know a $15,000 Chevy Cobalt can be had with satellite radio? 4.We all know the EPA estimates for hybrids are unrealistic, but they could be 100 percent optimistic in this case and the Lexus will still get better mileage than the Escalade...by approximately 20 percent.
My final comment would be this: Lexus needs to figure out how to increase RX 400h production while decreasing costs. The car is like a RX 300 but better in every way...except price and availability. Oh, and maybe add satellite radio to their "high-tech" and "luxury" hybrid SUV.
GM needs to do everything Lexus is already doing, plus figure out how to cut costs and increase production of hybrids. But they do have the satellite radio thing down.
Over the last 20 years there have been several technological developments that have become almost standard equipment in the average consumer's lifestyle (electric garage door openers, VCRs, CD players, DVD players, cable/satellite TV, etc.).
I see satellite radio as another one, meaning I see it being pretty much standard equipment on all cars within three years (maybe a little longer in the economy car segment). Like those other items I mentioned above, once you have satellite radio you kind of can't live without it. With all the test cars I go through on a daily basis I can feel my enthusiasm for a vehicle noticeably shift based on whether it does or doesn't have satellite radio -- and most of my staff is the same way.
I agree with the notion that the press generally bashes OHV engines unless it is the HEMI or the Vette's small block V8. Honestly, can you provide us with any insight as to why automotive writers, including those on edmunds, are so determined to rid the world of OHV engines other than the HEMI? The normal criticisms don't even make sense. The things I usually read are: a)too noisy b)too low revving c)low specific output. If you look at the test results in magazines that use sound meters you will find little, if any difference in the noise levels of OHV and OHC powered cars. The whole "refinement" thing is just blown out of proportion. In my mind, if there is no way to prove an engine is unrefined (no measurable NVH issues) than you shouldn't call it unrefined. Besides, engines like the duratec and the Jetta's I5 prove that you can have unrefined DOHC engines that are worse that pushrods.
The idea that OHV is low revving and OHC is high revving is really BS. There are lots of OHC engines, particularly from Ford, Toyota and MB that are low revving. Some Toyota truck V8s redline under 6000rpm which is lower than GM's Vortec V8s. In fact, Honda, BMW and Ferrari and the main culprits when it comes to making super high revving engines.
Specific output is a nearly meaningless charateristic than the press has turned into a major issue. In other words, high specific output is a sign on great engineering (Honda and BMW come to mind) and lower hp/liter is a sign of poor engineering. That makes little sense because we all know smaller, high output engines need to rev high and there is very little desire for the average vehicle owner to rev their car to 7000 or 8000 rpm. There is a reason why most of the cars (Civic Si, RSX, Celica GT etc.) with sky high specific outputs cater to young male buyers. I'm sure all of the automakers could develop 2L 4 bangers with 200hp or so, but what would be the point? There is no guarantee of higher mileage, just more noise and less torque. Torque doesn't seem to count for anything these days and that's partially because most highly praised import 4 and 6 cylinder engines are short on torque. There is a trade-off when it comes to creating small, high strung engines and while it is true that no OHV engines redline at 8000rpm, you arent going to find a lot of OHV engines with torque deficiencies at around town speeds.
You seem to be anti pushrod, but I am wondering if that is due to the pereception that the technology is old, or just to the fact that only domestic automakers use pushrods in 2005.
as a side note, aren't CV auto transmissions (those that keep the engine at a constant speed while maximizing transfer characteristics) universally despised by enthusasists because they keep the engine at a relatively constant RPM?
It seems one of the big thrills of driving a manual is the huge dynamic range a good engine gives you, and the heady rush as your motor spins up as high as it can possibly go before one jumps to the next gear. Kinda like Steve Vai's guitar playing
1. Honestly, can you provide us with any insight as to why automotive writers, including those on edmunds, are so determined to rid the world of OHV engines other than the HEMI? I'm not anti pushrod, but I am anti-inefficiency and anti-refinement. I own a 1970 Plymouth muscle car with a 440, and I'm a major torque fan, so I fully appreciate pushrods. And I'm certainly not out to "rid the world of OHV engines." 2. If you look at the test results in magazines that use sound meters you will find little, if any difference in the noise levels of OHV and OHC powered cars. The "noise" in NVH is only one-third of that acronym, and in my opinion it's the least important part. Please don't read magazine spec sheets, look at the interior noise decibel recordings, and say, "Oh, those two cars are basically the same." It's the "vibration" and "harshness" of NVH that really separates the players from the pretenders in the world of automotive refinement. And you can't accurately measure that without sitting in the car and taking it from idle to redline yourself. 3. There are lots of OHC engines, particularly from Ford, Toyota and MB that are low revving. Some Toyota truck V8s redline under 6000rpm which is lower than GM's Vortec V8s. You can always go out and find a version of one type of engine (OHV or OHC) that will have a lower redline and/or more specific output than the other type. One exception doesn't make a rule. In general, OHC engines are more refined, can rev higher and have greater specific output. Sorry if you don't like it, but those be the facts. 4. That makes little sense because we all know smaller, high output engines need to rev high and there is very little desire for the average vehicle owner to rev their car to 7000 or 8000 rpm. Actually, we used to know that. Then came variable valves, variable intake, variable exhaust, and direct injection. These all allow an OHC engine to be far more powerful, torquey and efficient than previously possible. 5. There is a trade-off when it comes to creating small, high strung engines and while it is true that no OHV engines redline at 8000rpm, you aren't going to find a lot of OHV engines with torque deficiencies at around town speeds. Go drive around town in a Toyota Camry or Nissan Altima with the V6 engine (the OHC V6 engine) and tell me they don't have enough torque. Go ahead, I dare you. Remember, these are the same cars that pull 0-60 and 1/4-mile times in the same range as 1980's Mustang GTs -- 0-60 in mid 7s and 1/4-mile in mid 15s, as evidenced here: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=101056/pageId=57516
Hi Karl. I'm not gone yet, but after coming back from a really nice vacation I've noticed that this is the only ongoing thread that actually changes as time goes on. So I'm back.
(Incidentally, Taiwan's really interesting, automotively. I saw every brand I could think of, even old Ladas and modern Rovers. Plus there's the one Taiwanese-designed car on an improved Sentra chassis, the '86-'91 Yue Loong "Feeling." Much cooler than my '92 Sentra.)
Anyway I've always wondered why some cars are said to have character, and some aren't. It's hard for me to comment on because I haven't driven a lot of cars... it's not like the other really subjective thing - looks - which everyone can have an opinion on. So when comparing a lot of cars that we're not going to be able to drive within a reasonable amount of time, "character" is one of those things that we have to take your word for. (So do be careful when you write about it in a review.)
The current Civic Si, for example, is universally said to not have any character. It has quirky things to it (the looks, the shifter), so I guess quirkyness isn't an index of character. It's steering isn't so great, but some past Civics have gotten characterful reviews and their steering wasn't great either. Was the engine by itself enough?
Then there's the 5-series and the Lexus GS. Is the difference that obvious to the driver? If you blindfolded the test drivers (good use for interns), what would they feel that told them the difference? What role do expectations based on brand play? If BMW made an appliance, would testers notice? If an appliance gives feedback, is it no longer an appliance?
I realize it's hard to explain feelings, but any thoughts you could give (or anyone else who's driven a lot of cars) would be welcome. Thanks.
(And I loved your Carmudgeon editorial, except I can't find it as I try to find out if I spelled that right. In the same way, I think I was among the last batch of kids to play tag and swing on monkey bars, and I missed my chance to street race without fear of impoundment by just a few years.)
I only drove the Bullitt 1,900 miles in one year, and about 800 of those were put on in the first two weeks of ownership during a trip to San Francisco (yes, I was reliving a silly Steve McQueen fantasy; no, I didn't launch it off of any steep hills :P ). It mostly sat in my garage under a cover, and I eventually decided that if I'm going to put a car in my garage under a cover, it has to be cooler than a Mustang (though the Bullitt Mustang was the coolest one from that generation, in my biased opinion).
No, what I had to move to fit the Escalade in my garage was the Triumph Hurricane...which also spends most of its time under a cover. But because it's a motorcycle it takes up less room than the Bullitt, and because it's a really cool motorcycle, I don't mind that it sits around most of the time -- but I have put another 170 miles on it since the purchase in April, and considering that it had only 2,311 miles when I got it, that's saying a lot.
Dodge is expected to resurrect the name "Challenger," which graced its famous 1970s muscle car.
DETROIT -- Watch out, Ford Mustang. Dodge is preparing a challenger.
In fact, it's likely to be called Challenger.
Chrysler plans to resurrect a respected name from the pony car era for a rear-wheel-drive Mustang fighter, industry sources say. The car is expected in 2009 on the LX platform, the basis of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum and Charger.
"It is a two-door, essentially a competitor for the Mustang," says Catherine Madden, a production analyst for industry research group Global Insight. "They are really excited about it."
Madden says the sport coupe is planned to debut in 2009, when the next-generation LX vehicles are scheduled to be re-engineered and restyled.
"They would be able to make some additional investment in the platform, make some adjustments for that product" at that time, she says.
"The enthusiasm for that product," Madden says, is "very big."
Chrysler hopes to sell 60,000 to 70,000 of the cars a year, she says. An assembly site was not identified. Production of the 300, Magnum and recently introduced Charger is expected to fill Chrysler's Brampton, Ontario, assembly plant.
Chrysler officials are not talking about the car, but industry analysts say they are familiar with the plans.
Jim Hall, vice president of industry analysis at AutoPacific Inc., says he isn't sure Chrysler can pull it off. "They have a lot of stuff that has to be cleared off the table before they start playing around with that car," he says.
The redesigned 2005 Mustang has exceeded initial sales estimates. Ford expects to build 192,000 Mustangs this year, and most retail units are selling at a price near the sticker.
The 1970-74 Challenger was Dodge's answer to the original Mustang, as well as the Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac Firebird, Mercury Cougar and AMC Javelin.
d-c doesn't seem to be too afraid of taking chances, so maybe it will happen. if gm couldn't keep the camaro and firebird alive, but it's not a slam dunk. speaking of the magnum and charger, i've only seen a couple of magnums and 1 charger at the local dealer under a tent. are they selling these cars yet? i do see some 300's and mustangs.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
...they said they couldn't make the Charger a coupe because there wasn't any demands for coupes, but now they're doing it but calling it a Challenger? Methinks they saw the success of the Mustang and are trying to pursue a trend that will be well played-out by 2009. Bad idea.
Yeah, I agree... I think they were right in the first place about the market being soft for coupes. The Mustang is making somewhat of a splash right now, but I doubt it will be selling that many 2 or 3 years from now. Sales will die down. By 2009, the whole fad might be over.
Depends on how much investment they put into it - if they just make a coupe version of the Charger and call it the Challenger, don't put a whole lot of investment into it, it might be Ok from a business perspective. Basically, more of a GTO competitor than a Mustang competitor.
However, if they substantially modify the Charger platform and basically end up with a unique car (smaller, shorter wheelbase, narrower, etc..) then it probably doesn't make a lot of business sense.
I don't think the "pony" car market is really big enough for DCX and GM to jump in and all 3 make money. Ford is doing real well with the Mustang right now because they have that market cornered. But, I don't think the pony car "pie" is big enough to split 2 or 3 ways.
I think announcing a MY2009 Challenger has more to do with the stock price than ANYTHING else. I don't think it'll sell as well as the Mustang or even the Charger. But the LX is a good platform.
I essentially agree with everyone's points, which seem to be: A. The coupe market is relatively small B. The "hot" selling period for any coupe is relatively short C. A Dodge Challenger model wouldn't sell as well as the Mustang
I wouldn't deny any of those points, but I would suggest that coupes are sort of like a smaller version of a supercar in that they are about more than profit margins.
Ford isn't expecting to put the company into the black by selling either the Mustang or the Ford GT. BMW doesn't make much on its M Division product, nor Mercedes on its AMGs. Scion could have had higher long-term sales with something other than the tC as the company's third model.
But in all of these cases the companies felt like a sporty coupe added to their overall image as a strong player in the industry. I can tell you this: A well done, hemi-powed Challenger would be MUCH cooler than the Crossfire, a vehicle they did go ahead and produce -- despite also meeting the points I listed above.
On the other hand, by the time the Challenger hits the streets, the V8 coupe market could very well be "dead" again. Particularly given the inexplicable rise in the oil market (OPEC pumping as fast as they can, in an oversupply situation and the price still hovering around $55/bbl).
Speaking of oil prices, anyone want to take a bet how quickly the oil price colapses with oversupply as it continues?
Obviously yesterday's pushrod engines would be smoked by 2005 OHC engines from Toyota and Honda. I really don't see your point there. You say you are against inefficiency but most pushrod engines get comparable or superior gas mileage than OHC counterparts of similar hp. The Malibu gets 22 and 32 which is better than the Camry V6. Now the current camry V6 has more power than the 3.5L in the Malibu, but even when the camry had 192hp it wasnt getting 22city and 32 hwy. Again, I don't understand your point. Are you implying that OHV engines should be phased out because they are inefficient? The data doesn't really back that up, you might want to look at the mileage of the vette for further proof. The Malibu's 3.5L gets almost the same mileage as GM's own DOHC Ecotec 4 banger even though it's 1.1L smaller. I know you said to ignore test data when it comes to evaluating cars, but I think EPA mileage ratings have to count for something.
I'm not saying that most OHC V6s are lacking torque for around the town driving, but the bottom line is there is no way to create lots of torque without displacement. Since you are such a fan of muscle cars you should understand that better than most. Most OHC engines are smaller (Nissan is excluded) and even with VVT they typically generate less torque than an OHV engine in the same class vehicle. People compare specific outputs with regards to HP but never talk about torque. The engine in the Mazda 6 would be called superior the engine in the Malibu because it generates 220hp from 3L but that same engine only has 192 lb-ft of torque compared to 220 in the Malibu. Like I said there are still trade offs and OHV does offer the consumer some advantages. Sorry, but that is fact rather you like it or not.
You say noise is the least important out of NVH but I think most consumers would beg to differ. In fact engine noise is probably one of the charateristics that separate more expensive cars from cheaper cars. In terms of vibration, that is more or less a thing of the past. I have a '02 model car with a low tech pushrod (design debuted in '99) and no vibration or harshness comes through the wheel. With the exception of the cheapest econoboxes on the market, this is a non issue in today's cars regardless of engine type. If you are suggesting that OHV engines shake, rattle and roll in 2005 than I have trouble believing you are being objective.
In regards to your comment about there being exceptions the "high rev" rule, let me clarify. There are lots of OHC engines from Toyota, Ford and MB that have relatively low redlines. This is not some anomaly that is uncommon among OHC engines. In fact, most OHC V8s in trucks redline lower than GM's OHV V8s and that includes the iForce V8 and the Triton V8. Trust me on that one. There are few truck V8s on the market that can rev to 6000rpm. Most MB 3 valve V8s redline at 6000 or 6200 rpm which is lower than the LS2. Again, these are regarded as some of the best OHC V8 engines in the world and they can't even outrev a pushrod engine with roots in the 1950s.
"In general, OHC engines are more refined, can rev higher and have greater specific output. Sorry if you don't like it, but those be the facts"
I am still waiting for you, or anyone, to explain to me what greater specifc output has to do with anything. In terms of the average consumer who knows little about cars, I don't see any point in glorifying specific output. It doesnt have a direct correlation with increased mileage and it doesn't mean an engine is physically smaller or lighter. So what is the point of making this a significant issue when evaluating a car? If you really want to have great specific output you should go get a turbocharged vehicle. I never even argued that OHC engines don't have more hp/l, in fact this is common knowledge amongst car buffs.
Basically, it seems to me that automotive writers have decided that with or without the facts they are going to deem OHV engines inferior. The only facts that we have here are that OHV engines need more displacement to create the hp of a comparable OHC engine. Beyond that, none of your other assertions can be backed up as far as I know. You keep mentioning VVT in the "Advantage OHC" column, but even that feature is appearing in OHV engines. We also need to acknowledge that DOD or MDS can be applied to OHV engines much easier than it can be applied to OHC engines. In fact, only Honda offers a mult-displacement system on OHC engines. MB debuted such a system several years ago and than mysteriously dropped it.
One other thing, I take you are a fan of the HEMI but it really falls short on all of your critical criteria. It's low tech ( OHV, iron block, low specific output), low revving and barely efficient. Are you telling me the 300C wouldn't be better with a VQ or Acura V6?
it may well be that there isn't a lot of upside to the coupe market but I think there might be for a couple of reasons:
-The population is getting older (fewer kids per household) -More vehicles per household.
As multi-car households grow in number isn't it reasonable to think that one of the vehicles might be something less than "practical", a roadster, convertible or stylish coupe?
Remember it wasn't so long ago that the roadster, the muscle car and the convertible were left for dead.
We've got a backlog of great content to push live (a cool problem to have).
It's always a challenge between pushing stuff live ASAP and giving each story its "due" in terms of exposure. We hate the idea of producing a great story and then rotating it off the home page before our readers can see it.
The 9-7x should go early next week. Sorry for the delay, but glad you liked the A4 vs 3 Series story (two amazing vehicles, so it's hard to call either a "loser" in that shoot out).
I've already seen the whining about the A4 2.0 v. the 330i. People think it's a conspiracy or that you're trying to pass one over on them.
BTW, the 2.0, I actually prefer to my e46's 3.0. I know, from a BMW loyalist's point of view, what I wrote is heresy but I stand by it. I love the 2.0...lighter and more responsive engine in my experience. That torque is always there...something I can't say for the e46's peaky Honda-ish engines. Compared to the new e90 3.0? I dunno, I'd need more seat time in one.
Looking at the Graphs for these 2 motors (the LS4 5.3L V8, the newest version of the Northstar 4.6L DOHC motor), I find the following numbers of interest:
Note: The Northstar rev limit is approx. 6,600 rpm The LS4 is 6,000. This in itself may matter to some.
[these numbers are approximate, interpolating from these dyno curves – and trying to line this data up as a chart . . .]
Point being, compared to the Northstar (I have driven the new STS with this version of the motor – it is technically sophisticated, expensive to produce and I certainly respect it), this new 5.3L V8 quoted output is quite impressive. And not just on paper. With both aluminum block and heads, this V8 is actually 40 pounds lighter than the S/C 3800 V6.
In my car (new GP GXP), it is even more impressive (to me) than suggested by the numbers. And the DoD transitions are imperceptible – in 425 miles, I have not heard or felt anything that I would attribute to mode change. Good job, GM.
I end up spending a LOT of my drive time with the motor turning between 2000 and 4000 rpm. The torque available in this range is more important to me (most of the time) than peak horsepower.
The 5.3L LS4 generates both more torque and more horsepower at every point from 2000 to 4000 rpm (and even on up to 5000 rpm, though TQ becomes pretty close) than the Northstar. On the road, although the exhaust is tuned quite a bit louder on the GXP, otherwise the LS4 is not only flexible and torquey (?) but I find it to be very refined in the delivery of that torque. And it runs to 6000 with no evident stress or strain.
Looking at all aspects of the latest and greatest DOHC V8 from GM, compared to the latest 5.3L pushrod V8 from GM, suggests to me that pushrods are not in danger of extinction – at least in the next few months . .
Ford isn't expecting to put the company into the black by selling either the Mustang or the Ford GT.
Well, there a little bit of a difference between selling, say, 10K Pontiac GTO's as a "halo" coupe, and selling 190K Mustangs. That may not carry the company, but that's a pretty good chunk of black ink.
"Ford isn't expecting to put the company into the black by selling either the Mustang or the Ford GT.
Well, there a little bit of a difference between selling, say, 10K Pontiac GTO's as a "halo" coupe, and selling 190K Mustangs. That may not carry the company, but that's a pretty good chunk of black ink. "
Particularly when all those Mustangs require NO rebates, etc. - Ray Impressed with new Mustang's sales success . . .
I agree with your post 100%. There is no rational basis for saying OHV engines aren't competitive with OHC engines. The facts are that OHC engines make more hp from smaller displacement and rev higher in general. Beyond that you can't make any absolute statements about the superiority of OHC engines. They aren't lighter, they don't generate superior torque, they don't necessarily get better mileage, etc. Considering modern OHV (not every engine has these all features) engines are quiet, fuel efficient, have DOD, aluminum construction, VVT, oil life monitoring systems, electronic throttle control, etc., it's hard to say that they are outdated just because of they use a less complex method of opening and closing the valves.
In a truck you want low rpm torque. Nissan's 5.6 is by far the best 1/2 ton engine out there. I test drove an Armada and it makes the 5.3 in my suburban feel like a 4 cylinder, more power at all rpm levels. Part of this is do to GMs poor gearing. Every mainstream GM vehicle I've driven suffers from being over geared, thus they get better fuel economy, but performance suffers. I hate the fact that my Suburban struggles to accelerate in o/d even with 3.73 rear end. It desperately needs a 5 speed auto because the 5.3 needs to rev for power.
When I'm towing my boat the ratio change from 2-3 is to great and I basically loose the ability to accelerate in 3rd unless I run 2nd gear to 5000rpm. That gets old after a while.
Nissan seems to know how to get torque from its engines. Their 3.5 just shames any v6 I've driven as far has power delivery. Honda and Toyota 3.5s maybe a bit smoother, but they don't deliver low rpm torque like Nissan's.
That said, I've like every OHC motor vs. a similar OHV motor that I've compared. I like the smoother operation. I've been unimpressed with the 5.3 in my Suburban, it just doesn't have enough power for towing. Ford's 5.4 and Nissan's 5.6 put out more torque at lower rpm.
Hmm, looks to me the OHC engines above are better for towing than their OHV counterparts. They all are developing peak torque at a lower rpm than the OHV engines which is essential for towing.
I would say in instrumented testing the RWD version would probably be quicker due to less weight and the ability to get some wheelspin at launch. In the real world, outside a drag strip, the difference between the two probably wouldn't be noticeable.
I don't want to be annoying by asking for a comparo of "sporty versions of economy cars," but I do have something to say about the new car reviews (not the Inside Line ones... or are those the only ones you deal with? If so, sorry.)
If I'm trying to research, say, the Civic Si, and I go to the Civic's review, I will only find a couple of sentences on the Si. It's more of a problem with the Civic (since the Si is so different from the rest of the line), but basically anyone looking for reviews of the Sentra SE-R, Corolla XRS, etc. are better served by other websites. I totally understand if you don't have time to get to these low-volume cars, but I know from other articles that some of them have been tested at edmunds.com.
So I ask that they be given reviews that can be accessed by someone who doesn't know this website well, and is starting from the front page where it says "Research New Cars." (The front page itself isn't easy to navigate through, actually. The Inside Line is better organized, but I bet most people who are new to edmunds don't think there's anything worth checking out there... and it basically means there are two sections you have to check when researching a new car.)
You put a 4 banger up against a six shooter and called it a comparison test. For your next trick, I suppose you could be pit the 3 series against my cuisenart, since that is a manual six speed as well. "Savvy readers" know that both Audi and BMW automatics have steering wheel mounted paddles, the same gearshift mechanism used in f-1 racing, which makes a traditional stick shift obsolete. If you are genuinely interested in the success of Inside Line, then may I suggest providing your readers with the legitimate article they deserve and that Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend will all publish sooner or later.
The Edmunds policy is to only include vehicles that are new or significantly revised. Since the last minivan test, we have seen a new Honda Odyssey, new GM minivans, and an upcoming Kia Sportage, and a Hyundai counterpart. In 2007 or 2008 Ford is discontinuing or redesigning the Freestar/Monterrey, and Toyota will probably redesign its Sienna soon. As for Chrysler, its minivans havent seen any major changes since 2001 except for Stow n Go, and maybe a few other things. There's no word on changes to he Nissan Quest. .
The engine in the Mazda 6 would be called superior the engine in the Malibu because it generates 220hp from 3L but that same engine only has 192 lb-ft of torque compared to 220 in the Malibu
And the Malibu engine drives WAY better than the Mazda, with snappy low end torque, smooth power delivery and still a decent rush to redline. Not a bad engine there, that new 3500.
I don't see any point in glorifying specific output. It doesnt have a direct correlation with increased mileage and it doesn't mean an engine is physically smaller or lighter.
This is ABSOLUTELY true and can't be emphasized enough. Specific output ALONE does NOT imply anything about the horsepower, torque, mileage, or anything else. Actually, high specific output generally correlates to high engine cost.
The only facts that we have here are that OHV engines need more displacement to create the hp of a comparable OHC engine.
This is true, but here's an interesting piece of info that people don't notice: the OHV engine with equivalent HP to the smaller displacement OHC engine will be SMALLER and LIGHTER than the OHC engine. And cheaper.
Which brings me to my final point: car snobs basically prefer more expensive technology to inexpensive technology. To me (an engineer), meeting all design objectives while being cheaper is actually more impressive than, say, a 20 thousand dollar M5 engine...
I'm not going to take sides in the engine debate... just want to say something about torque and horsepower that I think a lot of people don't understand. (Maybe it's me that doesn't understand, in which case I want to be corrected.)
Imagine two cars, a hypothetical Chevy and Honda, that are identical except for the engines and transmissions. For this example, both engines have perfectly flat torque curves (just play pretend).
The Chevy makes 150 ft-lbs of torque, up to 6000rpm.
The Honda makes 100 ft-lbs of torque, up to 9000rpm.
That means both make 171hp. But which one will feel faster?
Well... most cars are set up so the shift points are at similar speeds, like first gear redlining at 30mph and second gear at 60mph. Because the Honda has more rpm, its gearing will be a lot tighter than the Chevy's... one and a half times as tight. I keep forgetting if that's tall or short gearing.
But gearing basically multiplies torque, so in any given gear the Honda will multiply its torque by 1.5 times whatever the Chevy's gearing is. They'll feel the same if they shift at the same speeds.
This does mean the Honda will be louder, because it's shifting at higher rpm. But my point is torque numbers alone don't tell you how fast a car will feel. I think.
Comments
We're still lining up the other candidates, but you can count on a Civic, Mazda 3, Focus and Forenza. We're still working on an Elantra and a few others. Remember, we only invite cars that:
A. Won the previous comparison test (in this case, Civic, but the Elantra took second by less than one percentage point, so it comes back too)
or
B. Have had major revisions since the last comparison test
This means no Lancer, Sentra, Corolla or Neon, among others, so please don't bother asking why they aren't included (Answer: Because they didn't win last time and we have no reason to believe they'll do any better this time). For those cars simply re-read our last test to learn what we think of them:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=100022
I'll let everyone know more when we have the candidates locked down.
I totally agree. As we continue to ramp up the Inside Line editorial package you can expect to eventually see the exact type of content you've described. We have to take care of the more mainstream readers first (like with Economy Sedan comparison tests and great future vehicle content), but we also want to offer stories about extreme cars with extreme modifications, not to mention the cool video elements that stories like this will support.
A great question, and your assumption is correct. We first tested the Magnum at our coastal test facility, while the second test took place about 60 miles inland, where the altitude is 1,000 feet and the ambient temperature is higher. We do correct for these conditions, but that still allows some room for variation, though half a second is more than we would expect as well. Such is the reason I continue to caution readers (especially enthusaist readers) with this mantra:
Don't hang all your hopes, dreams and judgements about a vehicle on the instrumented testing numbers. They are only one aspect of vehicle performance, and a highly transient one at that.
I certainly understand the potential for variation among acceleration times. It might be worth noting that at least 2 other automotive periodicals have published quarter-mile times that matched the 14.4 clocking that you posted in the first installment of the long-term test, so it would not seem to be a chance aberation, but a reasonable expectation for Magnum RTs.
Thanks again---
The Spectra should be in the test (still locking down players), the Jetta will not. Our rule for this test is a starting price under $15,000 (the "as tested" price might be higher, but there has to be at least one version of the model available for less than $15,000).
I know the Jetta technically competes with this segment, but it's a stretch to call the car an economy sedan because of its price point (though I'll readily acknowlege it has a more "premium" feel that any other economy sedan, thus the price is not without justification).
Yes, it should go up this week in fact.
The Cadillac was loaded with such luxury features as navigation, DVD entertainment (with two screens) and XM satellite radio. It also cost $70,000 and is EPA rated at 13/17 mpg.
The Lexus similarly had navigation and DVD entertainment (only one screen), plus a reverse camera for backing up, Mark Levinson audio and xenon headlights that swivel with the steering wheel to help "see" around corners. It costs $52,500 and is EPA rated at 31/37.
A few thoughts after driving each one back-to-back:
1. The Cadillac has far more interior room (third row plus large cargo area), but it's far more difficult to drive, especially in city environments. I had to move things around in my garage to get it to fit, which I didn't have to do with the Lexus.
2. In terms of acceleration, the RX will smoke the 'Slade.
3. How does a car like the Lexus, which is founded on the idea of advanced technology, not come with Satellite radio -- even after opting for the Mark Levinson audio system??? Hello? Lexus? Did you know a $15,000 Chevy Cobalt can be had with satellite radio?
4.We all know the EPA estimates for hybrids are unrealistic, but they could be 100 percent optimistic in this case and the Lexus will still get better mileage than the Escalade...by approximately 20 percent.
My final comment would be this: Lexus needs to figure out how to increase RX 400h production while decreasing costs. The car is like a RX 300 but better in every way...except price and availability. Oh, and maybe add satellite radio to their "high-tech" and "luxury" hybrid SUV.
GM needs to do everything Lexus is already doing, plus figure out how to cut costs and increase production of hybrids. But they do have the satellite radio thing down.
I see satellite radio as another one, meaning I see it being pretty much standard equipment on all cars within three years (maybe a little longer in the economy car segment). Like those other items I mentioned above, once you have satellite radio you kind of can't live without it. With all the test cars I go through on a daily basis I can feel my enthusiasm for a vehicle noticeably shift based on whether it does or doesn't have satellite radio -- and most of my staff is the same way.
I agree with the notion that the press generally bashes OHV engines unless it is the HEMI or the Vette's small block V8. Honestly, can you provide us with any insight as to why automotive writers, including those on edmunds, are so determined to rid the world of OHV engines other than the HEMI? The normal criticisms don't even make sense. The things I usually read are: a)too noisy b)too low revving c)low specific output. If you look at the test results in magazines that use sound meters you will find little, if any difference in the noise levels of OHV and OHC powered cars. The whole "refinement" thing is just blown out of proportion. In my mind, if there is no way to prove an engine is unrefined (no measurable NVH issues) than you shouldn't call it unrefined. Besides, engines like the duratec and the Jetta's I5 prove that you can have unrefined DOHC engines that are worse that pushrods.
The idea that OHV is low revving and OHC is high revving is really BS. There are lots of OHC engines, particularly from Ford, Toyota and MB that are low revving. Some Toyota truck V8s redline under 6000rpm which is lower than GM's Vortec V8s. In fact, Honda, BMW and Ferrari and the main culprits when it comes to making super high revving engines.
Specific output is a nearly meaningless charateristic than the press has turned into a major issue. In other words, high specific output is a sign on great engineering (Honda and BMW come to mind) and lower hp/liter is a sign of poor engineering. That makes little sense because we all know smaller, high output engines need to rev high and there is very little desire for the average vehicle owner to rev their car to 7000 or 8000 rpm. There is a reason why most of the cars (Civic Si, RSX, Celica GT etc.) with sky high specific outputs cater to young male buyers. I'm sure all of the automakers could develop 2L 4 bangers with 200hp or so, but what would be the point? There is no guarantee of higher mileage, just more noise and less torque. Torque doesn't seem to count for anything these days and that's partially because most highly praised import 4 and 6 cylinder engines are short on torque. There is a trade-off when it comes to creating small, high strung engines and while it is true that no OHV engines redline at 8000rpm, you arent going to find a lot of OHV engines with torque deficiencies at around town speeds.
You seem to be anti pushrod, but I am wondering if that is due to the pereception that the technology is old, or just to the fact that only domestic automakers use pushrods in 2005.
Is that a "fair" price for this top grade Corvette? Or are we seeing dealer mark-ups built in at the factory now?
It seems one of the big thrills of driving a manual is the huge dynamic range a good engine gives you, and the heady rush as your motor spins up as high as it can possibly go before one jumps to the next gear. Kinda like Steve Vai's guitar playing
1. Honestly, can you provide us with any insight as to why automotive writers, including those on edmunds, are so determined to rid the world of OHV engines other than the HEMI? I'm not anti pushrod, but I am anti-inefficiency and anti-refinement. I own a 1970 Plymouth muscle car with a 440, and I'm a major torque fan, so I fully appreciate pushrods. And I'm certainly not out to "rid the world of OHV engines."
2. If you look at the test results in magazines that use sound meters you will find little, if any difference in the noise levels of OHV and OHC powered cars. The "noise" in NVH is only one-third of that acronym, and in my opinion it's the least important part. Please don't read magazine spec sheets, look at the interior noise decibel recordings, and say, "Oh, those two cars are basically the same." It's the "vibration" and "harshness" of NVH that really separates the players from the pretenders in the world of automotive refinement. And you can't accurately measure that without sitting in the car and taking it from idle to redline yourself.
3. There are lots of OHC engines, particularly from Ford, Toyota and MB that are low revving. Some Toyota truck V8s redline under 6000rpm which is lower than GM's Vortec V8s. You can always go out and find a version of one type of engine (OHV or OHC) that will have a lower redline and/or more specific output than the other type. One exception doesn't make a rule. In general, OHC engines are more refined, can rev higher and have greater specific output. Sorry if you don't like it, but those be the facts.
4. That makes little sense because we all know smaller, high output engines need to rev high and there is very little desire for the average vehicle owner to rev their car to 7000 or 8000 rpm. Actually, we used to know that. Then came variable valves, variable intake, variable exhaust, and direct injection. These all allow an OHC engine to be far more powerful, torquey and efficient than previously possible.
5. There is a trade-off when it comes to creating small, high strung engines and while it is true that no OHV engines redline at 8000rpm, you aren't going to find a lot of OHV engines with torque deficiencies at around town speeds. Go drive around town in a Toyota Camry or Nissan Altima with the V6 engine (the OHC V6 engine) and tell me they don't have enough torque. Go ahead, I dare you. Remember, these are the same cars that pull 0-60 and 1/4-mile times in the same range as 1980's Mustang GTs -- 0-60 in mid 7s and 1/4-mile in mid 15s, as evidenced here: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=101056/pageId=57516
(Incidentally, Taiwan's really interesting, automotively. I saw every brand I could think of, even old Ladas and modern Rovers. Plus there's the one Taiwanese-designed car on an improved Sentra chassis, the '86-'91 Yue Loong "Feeling." Much cooler than my '92 Sentra.)
Anyway I've always wondered why some cars are said to have character, and some aren't. It's hard for me to comment on because I haven't driven a lot of cars... it's not like the other really subjective thing - looks - which everyone can have an opinion on. So when comparing a lot of cars that we're not going to be able to drive within a reasonable amount of time, "character" is one of those things that we have to take your word for. (So do be careful when you write about it in a review.)
The current Civic Si, for example, is universally said to not have any character. It has quirky things to it (the looks, the shifter), so I guess quirkyness isn't an index of character. It's steering isn't so great, but some past Civics have gotten characterful reviews and their steering wasn't great either. Was the engine by itself enough?
Then there's the 5-series and the Lexus GS. Is the difference that obvious to the driver? If you blindfolded the test drivers (good use for interns), what would they feel that told them the difference? What role do expectations based on brand play? If BMW made an appliance, would testers notice? If an appliance gives feedback, is it no longer an appliance?
I realize it's hard to explain feelings, but any thoughts you could give (or anyone else who's driven a lot of cars) would be welcome. Thanks.
(And I loved your Carmudgeon editorial, except I can't find it as I try to find out if I spelled that right. In the same way, I think I was among the last batch of kids to play tag and swing on monkey bars, and I missed my chance to street race without fear of impoundment by just a few years.)
Steve, Host
I had to sell the Bullitt Mustang in April of 2002. Here's a link about my Bullitt Buying experience from a past Carmudgeon, one that also talks about the dying GM F-Body: http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/46556/article.html
I only drove the Bullitt 1,900 miles in one year, and about 800 of those were put on in the first two weeks of ownership during a trip to San Francisco (yes, I was reliving a silly Steve McQueen fantasy; no, I didn't launch it off of any steep hills :P ). It mostly sat in my garage under a cover, and I eventually decided that if I'm going to put a car in my garage under a cover, it has to be cooler than a Mustang (though the Bullitt Mustang was the coolest one from that generation, in my biased opinion).
No, what I had to move to fit the Escalade in my garage was the Triumph Hurricane...which also spends most of its time under a cover. But because it's a motorcycle it takes up less room than the Bullitt, and because it's a really cool motorcycle, I don't mind that it sits around most of the time -- but I have put another 170 miles on it since the purchase in April, and considering that it had only 2,311 miles when I got it, that's saying a lot.
Not to let my past as a Mopar maniac shine through, but this would be sooo cool!
http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=53470
Dodge plans a challenger for hot Mustang
By Rick Kranz
Automotive News / June 13, 2005
Dodge is expected to resurrect the name "Challenger," which graced its famous 1970s muscle car.
DETROIT -- Watch out, Ford Mustang. Dodge is preparing a challenger.
In fact, it's likely to be called Challenger.
Chrysler plans to resurrect a respected name from the pony car era for a rear-wheel-drive Mustang fighter, industry sources say. The car is expected in 2009 on the LX platform, the basis of the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum and Charger.
"It is a two-door, essentially a competitor for the Mustang," says Catherine Madden, a production analyst for industry research group Global Insight. "They are really excited about it."
Madden says the sport coupe is planned to debut in 2009, when the next-generation LX vehicles are scheduled to be re-engineered and restyled.
"They would be able to make some additional investment in the platform, make some adjustments for that product" at that time, she says.
"The enthusiasm for that product," Madden says, is "very big."
Chrysler hopes to sell 60,000 to 70,000 of the cars a year, she says. An assembly site was not identified. Production of the 300, Magnum and recently introduced Charger is expected to fill Chrysler's Brampton, Ontario, assembly plant.
Chrysler officials are not talking about the car, but industry analysts say they are familiar with the plans.
Jim Hall, vice president of industry analysis at AutoPacific Inc., says he isn't sure Chrysler can pull it off. "They have a lot of stuff that has to be cleared off the table before they start playing around with that car," he says.
The redesigned 2005 Mustang has exceeded initial sales estimates. Ford expects to build 192,000 Mustangs this year, and most retail units are selling at a price near the sticker.
The 1970-74 Challenger was Dodge's answer to the original Mustang, as well as the Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac Firebird, Mercury Cougar and AMC Javelin.
And, yes, the original Challenger had a Hemi V-8.
speaking of the magnum and charger, i've only seen a couple of magnums and 1 charger at the local dealer under a tent. are they selling these cars yet? i do see some 300's and mustangs.
However, if they substantially modify the Charger platform and basically end up with a unique car (smaller, shorter wheelbase, narrower, etc..) then it probably doesn't make a lot of business sense.
I don't think the "pony" car market is really big enough for DCX and GM to jump in and all 3 make money. Ford is doing real well with the Mustang right now because they have that market cornered. But, I don't think the pony car "pie" is big enough to split 2 or 3 ways.
A. The coupe market is relatively small
B. The "hot" selling period for any coupe is relatively short
C. A Dodge Challenger model wouldn't sell as well as the Mustang
I wouldn't deny any of those points, but I would suggest that coupes are sort of like a smaller version of a supercar in that they are about more than profit margins.
Ford isn't expecting to put the company into the black by selling either the Mustang or the Ford GT. BMW doesn't make much on its M Division product, nor Mercedes on its AMGs. Scion could have had higher long-term sales with something other than the tC as the company's third model.
But in all of these cases the companies felt like a sporty coupe added to their overall image as a strong player in the industry. I can tell you this: A well done, hemi-powed Challenger would be MUCH cooler than the Crossfire, a vehicle they did go ahead and produce -- despite also meeting the points I listed above.
Speaking of oil prices, anyone want to take a bet how quickly the oil price colapses with oversupply as it continues?
Obviously yesterday's pushrod engines would be smoked by 2005 OHC engines from Toyota and Honda. I really don't see your point there. You say you are against inefficiency but most pushrod engines get comparable or superior gas mileage than OHC counterparts of similar hp. The Malibu gets 22 and 32 which is better than the Camry V6. Now the current camry V6 has more power than the 3.5L in the Malibu, but even when the camry had 192hp it wasnt getting 22city and 32 hwy. Again, I don't understand your point. Are you implying that OHV engines should be phased out because they are inefficient? The data doesn't really back that up, you might want to look at the mileage of the vette for further proof. The Malibu's 3.5L gets almost the same mileage as GM's own DOHC Ecotec 4 banger even though it's 1.1L smaller. I know you said to ignore test data when it comes to evaluating cars, but I think EPA mileage ratings have to count for something.
I'm not saying that most OHC V6s are lacking torque for around the town driving, but the bottom line is there is no way to create lots of torque without displacement. Since you are such a fan of muscle cars you should understand that better than most. Most OHC engines are smaller (Nissan is excluded) and even with VVT they typically generate less torque than an OHV engine in the same class vehicle. People compare specific outputs with regards to HP but never talk about torque. The engine in the Mazda 6 would be called superior the engine in the Malibu because it generates 220hp from 3L but that same engine only has 192 lb-ft of torque compared to 220 in the Malibu. Like I said there are still trade offs and OHV does offer the consumer some advantages. Sorry, but that is fact rather you like it or not.
You say noise is the least important out of NVH but I think most consumers would beg to differ. In fact engine noise is probably one of the charateristics that separate more expensive cars from cheaper cars. In terms of vibration, that is more or less a thing of the past. I have a '02 model car with a low tech pushrod (design debuted in '99) and no vibration or harshness comes through the wheel. With the exception of the cheapest econoboxes on the market, this is a non issue in today's cars regardless of engine type. If you are suggesting that OHV engines shake, rattle and roll in 2005 than I have trouble believing you are being objective.
In regards to your comment about there being exceptions the "high rev" rule, let me clarify. There are lots of OHC engines from Toyota, Ford and MB that have relatively low redlines. This is not some anomaly that is uncommon among OHC engines. In fact, most OHC V8s in trucks redline lower than GM's OHV V8s and that includes the iForce V8 and the Triton V8. Trust me on that one. There are few truck V8s on the market that can rev to 6000rpm. Most MB 3 valve V8s redline at 6000 or 6200 rpm which is lower than the LS2. Again, these are regarded as some of the best OHC V8 engines in the world and they can't even outrev a pushrod engine with roots in the 1950s.
"In general, OHC engines are more refined, can rev higher and have greater specific output. Sorry if you don't like it, but those be the facts"
I am still waiting for you, or anyone, to explain to me what greater specifc output has to do with anything. In terms of the average consumer who knows little about cars, I don't see any point in glorifying specific output. It doesnt have a direct correlation with increased mileage and it doesn't mean an engine is physically smaller or lighter. So what is the point of making this a significant issue when evaluating a car? If you really want to have great specific output you should go get a turbocharged vehicle. I never even argued that OHC engines don't have more hp/l, in fact this is common knowledge amongst car buffs.
Basically, it seems to me that automotive writers have decided that with or without the facts they are going to deem OHV engines inferior. The only facts that we have here are that OHV engines need more displacement to create the hp of a comparable OHC engine. Beyond that, none of your other assertions can be backed up as far as I know. You keep mentioning VVT in the "Advantage OHC" column, but even that feature is appearing in OHV engines. We also need to acknowledge that DOD or MDS can be applied to OHV engines much easier than it can be applied to OHC engines. In fact, only Honda offers a mult-displacement system on OHC engines. MB debuted such a system several years ago and than mysteriously dropped it.
One other thing, I take you are a fan of the HEMI but it really falls short on all of your critical criteria. It's low tech ( OHV, iron block, low specific output), low revving and barely efficient. Are you telling me the 300C wouldn't be better with a VQ or Acura V6?
for a couple of reasons:
-The population is getting older (fewer kids per household)
-More vehicles per household.
As multi-car households grow in number isn't it reasonable to think that one of the vehicles might be something less than "practical", a roadster, convertible or stylish coupe?
Remember it wasn't so long ago that the roadster, the muscle car and the convertible were left for dead.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Instead I see the 3 vs. A4. Oh well, a great comparison to read. I'll take a 330i with no options.
It's always a challenge between pushing stuff live ASAP and giving each story its "due" in terms of exposure. We hate the idea of producing a great story and then rotating it off the home page before our readers can see it.
The 9-7x should go early next week. Sorry for the delay, but glad you liked the A4 vs 3 Series story (two amazing vehicles, so it's hard to call either a "loser" in that shoot out).
BTW, the 2.0, I actually prefer to my e46's 3.0. I know, from a BMW loyalist's point of view, what I wrote is heresy but I stand by it. I love the 2.0...lighter and more responsive engine in my experience. That torque is always there...something I can't say for the e46's peaky Honda-ish engines. Compared to the new e90 3.0? I dunno, I'd need more seat time in one.
GM powertrain info:
http://media.gm.com/division/2005_prodinfo/powertrain/engines/05_car_engine_specs.html#ls4-
Looking at the Graphs for these 2 motors (the LS4 5.3L V8, the newest version of the Northstar 4.6L DOHC motor), I find the following numbers of interest:
= = = = = = 5.3L . . . . 4.6L
HP @ 2000 . 115 . . . . 100
TQ @ 2000 . 300 . . . . 265
HP @ 3000 . 180 . . . . 150
TQ @ 3000 . 310 . . . . 275
HP @ 4000 . 245 . . . . 225
TQ @ 4000 . 320 . . . . 295
HP @ 5000 . 295 . . . . 285
TQ @ 5000 . 310 . . . . 305
HP @ 6000 . 295 . . . . 315
TQ @ 6000 . 260 . . . . 270
Note: The Northstar rev limit is approx. 6,600 rpm The LS4 is 6,000. This in itself may matter to some.
[these numbers are approximate, interpolating from these dyno curves – and trying to line this data up as a chart . . .]
Point being, compared to the Northstar (I have driven the new STS with this version of the motor – it is technically sophisticated, expensive to produce and I certainly respect it), this new 5.3L V8 quoted output is quite impressive. And not just on paper. With both aluminum block and heads, this V8 is actually 40 pounds lighter than the S/C 3800 V6.
In my car (new GP GXP), it is even more impressive (to me) than suggested by the numbers. And the DoD transitions are imperceptible – in 425 miles, I have not heard or felt anything that I would attribute to mode change. Good job, GM.
I end up spending a LOT of my drive time with the motor turning between 2000 and 4000 rpm. The torque available in this range is more important to me (most of the time) than peak horsepower.
The 5.3L LS4 generates both more torque and more horsepower at every point from 2000 to 4000 rpm (and even on up to 5000 rpm, though TQ becomes pretty close) than the Northstar. On the road, although the exhaust is tuned quite a bit louder on the GXP, otherwise the LS4 is not only flexible and torquey (?) but I find it to be very refined in the delivery of that torque. And it runs to 6000 with no evident stress or strain.
Looking at all aspects of the latest and greatest DOHC V8 from GM, compared to the latest 5.3L pushrod V8 from GM, suggests to me that pushrods are not in danger of extinction – at least in the next few months . .
- Ray
Admitted torque addict . . .
Well, there a little bit of a difference between selling, say, 10K Pontiac GTO's as a "halo" coupe, and selling 190K Mustangs. That may not carry the company, but that's a pretty good chunk of black ink.
Well, there a little bit of a difference between selling, say, 10K Pontiac GTO's as a "halo" coupe, and selling 190K Mustangs. That may not carry the company, but that's a pretty good chunk of black ink. "
Particularly when all those Mustangs require NO rebates, etc.
- Ray
Impressed with new Mustang's sales success . . .
When I'm towing my boat the ratio change from 2-3 is to great and I basically loose the ability to accelerate in 3rd unless I run 2nd gear to 5000rpm. That gets old after a while.
Nissan seems to know how to get torque from its engines. Their 3.5 just shames any v6 I've driven as far has power delivery. Honda and Toyota 3.5s maybe a bit smoother, but they don't deliver low rpm torque like Nissan's.
That said, I've like every OHC motor vs. a similar OHV motor that I've compared. I like the smoother operation. I've been unimpressed with the 5.3 in my Suburban, it just doesn't have enough power for towing. Ford's 5.4 and Nissan's 5.6 put out more torque at lower rpm.
Look at the following torque numbers:
Toyota 4.7 325 @ 3400rpm OHC
GM 5.3 335 @ 4000rpm OHV
Ford 5.4 365 @ 3600rpm OHC
Nissan 5.6 379 @ 3600rpm OHC
Dodge 5.7 375 @ 4200rpm OHV
Hmm, looks to me the OHC engines above are better for towing than their OHV counterparts. They all are developing peak torque at a lower rpm than the OHV engines which is essential for towing.
1. Has Edmunds heard of this?
2. Any plans to test it?
3. Should AWD make the car quicker than its RWD cousin (better traction, etc.)?
If I'm trying to research, say, the Civic Si, and I go to the Civic's review, I will only find a couple of sentences on the Si. It's more of a problem with the Civic (since the Si is so different from the rest of the line), but basically anyone looking for reviews of the Sentra SE-R, Corolla XRS, etc. are better served by other websites. I totally understand if you don't have time to get to these low-volume cars, but I know from other articles that some of them have been tested at edmunds.com.
So I ask that they be given reviews that can be accessed by someone who doesn't know this website well, and is starting from the front page where it says "Research New Cars." (The front page itself isn't easy to navigate through, actually. The Inside Line is better organized, but I bet most people who are new to edmunds don't think there's anything worth checking out there... and it basically means there are two sections you have to check when researching a new car.)
Just lettin' ya know.
You put a 4 banger up against a six shooter and called it a comparison test. For your next trick, I suppose you could be pit the 3 series against my cuisenart, since that is a manual six speed as well. "Savvy readers" know that both Audi and BMW automatics have steering wheel mounted paddles, the same gearshift mechanism used in f-1 racing, which makes a traditional stick shift obsolete. If you are genuinely interested in the success of Inside Line, then may I suggest providing your readers with the legitimate article they deserve and that Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend will all publish sooner or later.
The Edmunds policy is to only include vehicles that are new or significantly revised. Since the last minivan test, we have seen a new Honda Odyssey, new GM minivans, and an upcoming Kia Sportage, and a Hyundai counterpart. In 2007 or 2008 Ford is discontinuing or redesigning the Freestar/Monterrey, and Toyota will probably redesign its Sienna soon. As for Chrysler, its minivans havent seen any major changes since 2001 except for Stow n Go, and maybe a few other things. There's no word on changes to he Nissan Quest. .
And the Malibu engine drives WAY better than the Mazda, with snappy low end torque, smooth power delivery and still a decent rush to redline. Not a bad engine there, that new 3500.
I don't see any point in glorifying specific output. It doesnt have a direct correlation with increased mileage and it doesn't mean an engine is physically smaller or lighter.
This is ABSOLUTELY true and can't be emphasized enough. Specific output ALONE does NOT imply anything about the horsepower, torque, mileage, or anything else. Actually, high specific output generally correlates to high engine cost.
The only facts that we have here are that OHV engines need more displacement to create the hp of a comparable OHC engine.
This is true, but here's an interesting piece of info that people don't notice: the OHV engine with equivalent HP to the smaller displacement OHC engine will be SMALLER and LIGHTER than the OHC engine. And cheaper.
Which brings me to my final point: car snobs basically prefer more expensive technology to inexpensive technology. To me (an engineer), meeting all design objectives while being cheaper is actually more impressive than, say, a 20 thousand dollar M5 engine...
Imagine two cars, a hypothetical Chevy and Honda, that are identical except for the engines and transmissions. For this example, both engines have perfectly flat torque curves (just play pretend).
The Chevy makes 150 ft-lbs of torque, up to 6000rpm.
The Honda makes 100 ft-lbs of torque, up to 9000rpm.
That means both make 171hp. But which one will feel faster?
Well... most cars are set up so the shift points are at similar speeds, like first gear redlining at 30mph and second gear at 60mph. Because the Honda has more rpm, its gearing will be a lot tighter than the Chevy's... one and a half times as tight. I keep forgetting if that's tall or short gearing.
But gearing basically multiplies torque, so in any given gear the Honda will multiply its torque by 1.5 times whatever the Chevy's gearing is. They'll feel the same if they shift at the same speeds.
This does mean the Honda will be louder, because it's shifting at higher rpm. But my point is torque numbers alone don't tell you how fast a car will feel. I think.