We usually get a new vehicle every 4 years. Here are the vehicles we have owned.
1991 Mitsubishi Lancer 1993 Ford Taurus (bought in 1994, used, sold in 2002 with 64,000 KM) 1998 Ford Windstar (bought new sold in 2002 with 85,000 KM) 2002 Toyota Camry (company car, had it for one year with 17,000 KM)
current vehicle - 2004 Toyota Camry w/ 26,000 KM. Will be replaced by company in october with either Honda Accord, Mazda 6 or Nissan Altima.
I'm not sure what you mean by "seem to walk a finer line" but I will tell you that Edmunds' editorial style has been refined over the past few years to more effectively convey our opinions, particularly with regard to higher quality writing. I've always strived to create a voice that both educates and entertains, and I think we've really "arrived" at that place in recent years.
I haven't seen any change in the forums atmosphere; it seems as free-spirited and robust as ever.
I can assure you that manufacturers not only read these forums, but participate as well -- though not always as manufacturer reps... It's a great source of market research for them.
As a follow-up to my GTO ride on Tuesday night I'm driving home in a 2005 STi tonight.
BTW, this is the other vehicle in the upcoming comparison test I mentioned -- yes, GTO vs STi. Two very different vehicles...yet their MSRP's are nearly identical. Should be an interesting read. Turbo versus cubic inches. Rear-wheel drive versus all-wheel drive, coupe versus sedan, etc.
I've haven't been in an STi for awhile, so I'm looking forward to a re-introduction!
Even with the ramping up of horsepower and performance in recent years, the STi is still a car that makes you say "wow" the first time you rev past 4,000 rpm.
During my Super Street days (1996-1998) a car like this would have been pure fantasy for American enthusiasts. In fact, during those years the only way you could drive one was by playing Gran Turismo on Playstation. I personally credit Gran Tursimo with educating American consumers (many of them under the age of 20 at the time) in the fine art of appreciating turbos and all-wheel drive.
Now those "kids" are old enough to buy $30,000 cars, and they are happy to pay for real versions of their Gran Turismo project cars.
The only element of the STi that borders on "too extreme" for me is the ride quality. I tend to be pretty forgiving when it comes to ride quality (heck, I owned a Mini Cooper for 2 years) but this one goes just beyond my tolerance level. That said, for the target audience the suspension is not an issue; neither is everything else that makes this car pretty extreme. I love the turbo rush, the metal-ball shifter and the aggressive seat bolsters (the blue inserts look great, too).
The one thing that strikes me about the STi is that the car's mechanicals, and even some of its interior materials (like the metal shifter and suede seats) seem like professional/premium grade items, but then the switchgear and other interior components (like the door panels and dash) feel economy car grade. I guess that's how Subaru can create a 300 horsepower, all-wheel drive vehicle for $33,000. The Evo suffers from this disparity to an even greater degree, with much of its interior feeling bargin-bin-like (even as it whips through corners quicker than a Porsche Boxster).
I'm still torn between the Evo and STi. The STi always strikes me as the "grown-ups" rally car while the Evo is the "pure-man's" rally car. I guess my final decision would come down to this -- both cars sacrifice comfort and practicality for performance, but the Evo does this to a greater degree. If you're going down that road in the first place, why not go all the way (especially if it costs you less money)?
I know you're looking for Karl's perspective, and he certainly gave a complete answer, but from the host side of things I can tell you that not once, EVER, have we been asked to squelch conversation or negative opinions unless they're 1) off-topic, or 2) uncivil & personal. Hosts don't even know what advertising is coming up, or exactly what relationships we have (or don't have, for all I know) with advertisers or any product/manufacturer. If that's not by design, then it sure works well enough by accident . I've never once been asked to close a topic because it's upset an advertiser or manufacturer, so the changes that you mention must have been based on other factors.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
There was a funny article about a Volvo press-junket a few years ago (link).
I know Karl does his own work because I don't see the same blurb about a car ("The winds of change") in six different places (by supposedly different authors) when I read car reviews in the paper or at other sites.
After recent stints in a GTO and STi, the X3 doesn't seem very exciting.
But I must tell you that every time I drive our long-term X3 I'm reminded just how NICE that car is. I know "nice" is a pretty lame word, but it's very accurate in this case. I get in the X3, fire it up, and within 50 feet of engaging DRIVE I find myself saying, "man, this thing is nice!"
Some people on staff think the X3 rides too harshly, and I know all about Car & Driver's position on this vehicle -- they seem to think it's the automotive equivalent of Saddam Hussein. But I think the ride quality is fine, and the handling is simply superb. I honestly love driving it, and I never thought I'd say that about an SUV.
However, I'm the first to acknowledge that the price is out of control. Our long-term car is loaded with almost every option, including Sport Package and DVD navigation. And it costs over $45,000!!! As one staffer put it, "$45,000 for a premium RAV4?"
I'd tried rephrasing it as "$45,000 for a really nice premium RAV4" but it didn't help my position much.
Regardless, I've got the keys and sincerely look forward to driving it this weekend.
As far as price? They have killer lease deals.. While you might have an $850 pre-tax finance payment on that $45K MSRP car, the lease price for the same car is only around $520/mo.+ tax...
Pretty cheap, relative to the MSRP... and probably cheaper than leasing a comparably priced RX330... or anything else that has an MSRP north of $40K.
1. Is there a tendency these days for audio designers to deliberately design in muddy, boom-box sound systems in cars? I have heard so many urban cars playing "one note" bass that it's kinda become a joke (I used to build audio systems).
2. Which in your opinion is the __best__ sound system you have heard in your recent test vehicles?
Hey Kurt... I'm looking into aftermarket audio systems... where's a good place to start researching? I'm willing to read lots of technical stuff but I really need the basics first. Everything I've found starts out at too high a level for me.
I'd comment on modern stock audio systems to keep this post on topic, but it's been a while since I've been in a modern car.
Head over to the Aftermarket & Accessories board and check out the Aftermarket Sound Systems & OEM Upgrades topic. You'll find a bunch of folks involved in the discussion and willing to offer their opinions and advice.
1. I think audio designers are trying to please everyone (both hip-hop folks and classic music listeners) by creating systems that are capable of recreating both types of music. But there's been an undeniable slide toward the bass side of things in modern cars because of the...uh...eclectic tastes of buyers under 30.
My recent ride in the new GTO seemed to represent a common problem. The car was certainly capable of bass, but as for good separation, clean highs and overall balanced sound, it was weak. GM probably figures most target buyers for the car won't notice the system's weak spots because of the type of music they'll be playing.
Whatever the cause, it's sad for those of us who prefer to hear every tone in the spectrum of music.
2. I would say the Mark Levinson systems in the various Lexus products all sound great (big surprise, right?). I was recently in the Aston Martin DB9 and its Bose system was stellar (and between the sound quality and the head unit's diplay style the system was obviously lifted right out of the new Volvo cars...not that that's a bad thing, with most new Volvos sound great, too).
On the less expensive front, the Mini Cooper and Ford Focus both have excellent sound for their price category. The Chrysler 300 (and Dodge Magnum) also sound pretty good for the price. I'm sure there are others out there, but these come immediately to mind.
One more thing: BMW's used to have terrible sound systems -- even AFTER they started using Harman/Kardon (and I'm a huge Harman/Kardon fan). But they must have been getting consistent feedback from customers (I know we hammered our long-term 1999 3 Series sound system every chance we got), because in the last few years they've really turned it around and now they are competitive with Audi and Lexus. Oh, and the new Ferrari 612 Scaglietti? Easily the best sound system I've ever heard in a Ferrari, and FINALLY worthy of the car's price tag.
(Yes, I know, if you're in a V12 Ferrari you're only supposed to listen to the engine, but let's get real; when a car crosses the $200,000 mark the audio system should be first rate, even if you never use it)
Oh, one more just came to mind: the Bentley Continental GT -- sweeeet! Not that it shouldn't be for $150 large.
Just finished testing six cars at our test facility. The quickest was the STi, but I only got a 14.3. That's uncorrected, so it should equate to a 14.0 or even a 13.9, but I know they can do better. I kept launching the thing at higher and higher rpms, and the times kept dropping, but when I got to 5,000 rpm I stopped going up. Someone on staff told me you can go even higher and the drivetrain can take it all day, but I just can't launch an all-wheel drive car at 5,000-plus rpm and sleep well at night. That's got to be murder on everything from the flywheel to the drive wheels. Anyone else have comments on this topic?
I also tested the GTO, which also scored 14.3 (not good considering it has 100 more horsepower than the STi). Traction wasn't too much of a problem, but the transmission is lame. The throws are too long, and not particularly rewarding when the shifter finally gets there. And just like the last 'Vette I tested (an '05) I feel like this engine doesn't rev fast enough above 5,000 rpm. It seems like those last 2,000 rpm take too long to arrive, which has to be hurting times. I don't know if the gearing could be changed or what, but that 6.0-liter V8 just doesn't rev quickly (unlike the STi's turbo boxer engine, which hits like a hammer just off idle and never looks back).
Another tester from today was the 2006 Eclipse. First, I really like the looks of this car. It basically looks like the mid-90s version, which is a very good thing in my opinion. Visibility (especially rear visibility) is blatantly sacrificed for style, but hey, it's a sport coupe so practicality went out the window on day one, right? And the 260 hp engine makes MASSIVE torque. Launching it was tricky once traction control was turned off because it basically wanted to smoke 'em through first gear and into second. It's going to lead to torque steer issues, but I'll take that trade off for the immediacy of power it has anyday. Very fun in the slalom, too. It was pulling times that compare to Boxsters and S2000s, so the car is very nimble (despite being kind of heavy). I wasn't expecting to like the new Eclipse much, and I still need more seat time to be sure. But so far I like was I've seen.
Nice words on the Focus stereo. As my daily driver is a Focus ZX5, I concur on your opinion of this audio system. For a plane Jane, no frills, no updates system, it does some nice things. Add in RDS and you've got a winner.
Gonna miss it when my daughter finally learns how to drive a stick and I trade cars with her.
Of course, the closest most of us would get to a Ferrari, Bentley, or an Aston would be the pics that show up in the trade rags.
While I think the WRX and the EVO are fun little numbers, the manufacturers have to know that to get the performance their capable of, they will be abused. At least, I hope they know that. If not, we're going to see a lot of these little pocket rockets that look/feel like they've been through a war. It doesn't allow for much confidence if you look at the rest of the materials that accompany the great drivetrains.
I concur on the GTO. Drove both an '04 and an '05 and one of the major downfalls was the shifter. In general, the entire car drove "heavy"...from the clutch to the shifter to the suspension to the steering. I chalked it up to being yet another car that felt too "GMish". Don't know why it revs so slow, but you are right....with a 100 extra HP on tap, your numbers should have been better.
Surprising about the Mitsu. That would go a long way to bringing them back from the dead. Problem is, can they really survive in the U.S. with only one competitive model?
I know of a GM contact who would be more than happy to share with you their test procedure for getting low 13's/high 12's with the 2005 GTO. Email is in my contact info on Edmunds. I've seen all kinds of timeslips showing 13.2 to 12.9, and I don't believe there is some kind of conspiracy.
Mid-14's is, "you're doing something wrong". Or you're at 10,000 feet. Or you have 55 pounds of air in the tires (don't laugh, they ship that way from Australia for the 2 month boat/train ride and most dealers are too stupid to do the PDI. I drove my first GTO around for nearly 850 miles like this, and it damaged the suspension. For that, and other reasons, I am on GTO #2).
Not bashing you - just that your results don't jibe with anything I've ever seen from anyone with experience at the track (not beating you up here).
Actually, I think if you polled all of the 2004/2005 GTO's they'd say the stereo system sucks. Maybe GM figures this market's just going to rip the stereo out and put in an aftermarket system? Or fill the trunk (how limited it is) with subwoofers. In any case, I don't think GMNA spent any time worrying about the stereo, just carrying over the Aussie unit unchanged (notice the On button on the right-hand side of the stereo, for the right-side driver :-). This is not typical GM. If it was, everything would be Delco/Delphi.
Some audio guys have taken a look at the system and figured out the weak points. The Blaupunkt head unit isn't too bad, but the EQ presets are terrible. Turn them off. Turn off the speed-sensitive volume, too. (With the stereo off, hold down the 4 key for about 2 seconds while pressing the On button). Set the Bass to -2 and Treble to -1.
Pop the trunk and stand behind the car. Inside the trunk, on the left-hand side, behind the carpet, is the subwoofer amp mounted against the outside of the car. You can reach your hand in between the outside and the amp, and there's a dial to adjust the subwoofer amp. Turn it up almost all of the way (I crank it and move it back).
Doing so, the stereo sounds MUCH better. Should ship this way from the factory. Of course, those that have taken the doors and rear panels apart show the $5 Korean paper speakers are the real reason the sound gets muddy/distorted at volumes over 40. I have some Kenwood Excelon speakers (got 'em on closeout from Crutchfield) that I'll be putting in my GTO tonight.
Thnx for Audio feedback, Karl. Levinson sound systems were legend when I did snd design for the Mouse; nice to hear they're still at it. Standing waves are a real problem inside a car, which makes placement of the woofers critical for tight, clean bass.
Here is the info from the GM contact (I sent him an email):
2005 0-60 times There seems to be some concern about the 0-60 times on the 2005 GTOs. GM quotes one set of times and the magazines report another, slower result. From the engineer who runs the test at Milford, here is what he does to produce the 4.6/4.7 second times:
Vehicle prep Full tank of fuel Tire pressure checked Vehicle weighed to ensure baseline
LS2 Manual Launch at 2200-2500 RPM Quickly release clutch as accelerator is depressed to WOT Modulate as necessary (only in first gear) Power shift to second gear
More Explanation Launch RPM is higher for the LS2 than the LS1. Launch at 2200-2500, depending on road surface. Once a stable launch RPM is reached, clutch is quickly released and at the same time the accelerator is applied to WOT. This is where the skill comes in. Depending on the road surface grip, it may be feasible to leave the accelerator on the floor and continue with the run, as long as there is is not a great deal of tire slip. Tire slip is a good thing, the tire's coefficient of friction increases with some slip, but too much wheelspin and the coefficient of friction drops off rapidly. If too much slip develops, the vehicle must be "pedaled", this is, the accelerator must be modulated to reduce the engine output but still keep the tires at peak friction. This is the part that takes practice. Depending on surface, it may be necessary to quickly go WOT at the initial launch, then roll off the throttle to 75% pedal and slowly increase pedal, monitoring tire slip. Listening to the engine and tires is key. When it comes time to shift, continue to hold the accelerator at WOT, apply the clutch, change gear and release the clutch. A powershift is worth about 0.2 seconds over a normal "lift throttle" shift for a 0-60 run.
Wheel Hop Controlling wheel hop can be difficult. Different tires can cause hop more than others. One way to reduce the chances of getting into hop is to perform the launch as stated above. This quick lauch shocks the tires and produces wheel slip which usually does not go into wheel hop. If the vehicle goes into hop, there are two ways around it. One is to modulate the throttle, reducing engine torque and setting the tire. The other is to apply more throttle, and try to power through the hop.
LS2 Auto Launch Lightly apply throttle to take out drivetrain lash, but do not exceed 1000 RPMs and do not stall the converter. Release brake as the accelerator is depressed to WOT (depending on surface, it may be necessary to not apply WOT initially, but go quickly to about 75% and roll into the throttle depending on the sound of the engine and tires. Modulate accelerator as necessary (careful not to roll off the throttle too much to cause a 2nd gear upshift).
This discussion of "what it takes" to get a good time out of the GTO brings up another important topic.
If a specific vehicle requires extra special coaxing to get its "best time" shouldn't that be figured into its evaluation as a performance car? A few years ago we tested a Viper RT/10 against a Corvette Z06 and Mustang SVT Cobra. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=89505
In that test I managed a 12.0 in the Viper. Actually, I managed several times ranging from 12.04 to 12.08. It was killing me that I couldn't do an 11, but getting those 12.0s was very easy and consistent (and also quite fast for the time). I read other magazine figures at the time, and they all were doing between 12.1 and 12.3, so I felt pretty good about it (since then I've seen Vipers in the high 11s, but at that point my times were actually faster than what I saw in Motor Trend, Road and Track or Car & Driver).
Then I got a best of 12.9 for the Z06, which everyone was disappointed with (myself, other editors, and our readers). Then I got a 13.6 for the Cobra, which was even more disappointing. Many readers thought I was just a terrible driver because of the low Corvette and Cobra times, but I couldn't help thinking about the repeated 12.0s that I got from the Viper with no trouble at all.
It became apparent that the Viper wasn't only quicker, but also easier to drive quickly. To me that counted for a lot. If a car is "theoretically" capable of pulling one time, but getting that time takes a "special touch" that few drivers can recreate without repeated practice and/or just the right conditions, how fast is it going to be at the hands of most drivers most of the time? Sitting around quoting magazine times is one thing; going at and getting those times is something else entirely.
If a buyer reads a bunch of magazines and expects his GTO to do 13.0s in the quarter, then gets his car and goes up against an STi or an M3 and gets smoked, he's not going to be happy, no matter what caused it.
The obvious answer is "Well, if the GTO owner knew what he was doing he could have won." Maybe. But if an M3 or STi buyer can be brainless about how to launch/drive their cars, and still win, doesn't that count for something?
I know a lot of magazines that do two things to get the times they publish: 1. Beat the crap out of the car trying various techniques until they find just the right combination that works 2. "Convert" their numbers based on various testing conditions
I've always questioned both practices, especially number 1.
When we tested along the coast of Southern California we never corrected because testing conditions were always sea level with high humidity, and usually the temperature was between 58 and 70 degrees (those numbers I quoted for the Viper, ZO6 and Cobra were all uncorrected). Now that we test further inland, at 1,000 feet and with higher temperatures and less humidity, we have to correct like the magazines do. I'm not a fan of it, but it's pretty much industry standard these days.
As for beating a car up until I get the number I want, that doesn't appeal to me either. I don't know how many real-world owners are going to have access to test equipment and a facility to endlessly "practice" multiple techniques until they get it right. And I don't personally like the idea of running a car through the quarter mile more than about five times, especially if I'm doing crazy, 5,000 rpm-plus clutch dumps. Neither case represents real-world performance in my opinion.
You can make an argument that automotive publications are duty bound to find a car's "ultimate performance capabilities," vehicle abuse and realistic test procedures be damned, but I've never bought in to that. In my younger, irresponsible days I raced too many cars that "should" have beat me, but didn't. I quickly learned that magazine test numbers were a theoretical guide, at best.
It's almost like we need another parameter on our specs page: 0-60 1/4-mile Difficulty in attaining these times (scale of 1-10, with 10 being "you're more likely to die from a bee sting)
To me, the ultimate performance car is: A. Extremely powerful B. Extremely capable in terms of handling and braking dynamics
And, most importantly C. Properly designed to make its power, handling and braking dynamics accessible to as many drivers as possible.
We can wax nostalgic about the power studs who tamed early Ford Cobras and/or Porsche 911s, but that says more about how great those drivers were, not how well the cars were designed or set up. Ask Dan Gurney why the GT40 won Le Mans and he'll happily tell you, "Not only was it faster and more durable than the Ferraris, it was also easier to drive and it had so much capability in reserve that I never had to truly press the car to stay in first place, thus it could run 24 hours without anything breaking."
Now THAT's a performance car.
At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes. Me? I'll be the one in the STi, doing a basic 5,000-rpm clutch dump and otherwise not worrying about it.
OK Karl, if the GTO is so hard to launch, why is it that I can go to a 2004/2005-specific GTO site and see all kinds of scanned-in timeslips for 2005 GTO owners getting 12.9-13.2's? And Edmunds pulls a 14.5?
Do you think all of those folks have read the above? Probably not. Do I think they are all great drivers? Probably not.
When I see something like this, which flies in the face of a) the manufacturer's claims and, more importantly, b) experience of other car owners, this tells me that something is very wrong - either with the car, the driver, the testing equipment or environmental conditions. It frankly makes me discredit your reviews.
Not trying to stir up trouble - just stating my feelings.
In no way am I questioning your ability as a driver. Please do not take it that way. I as merely stating that other publications have scored better numbers.
However, this sound a little sarcastic/antagonistic -
"At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes"
To me a 5,000 rpm clutch dump seems a little abusive.
Also, Road and Track claims they use throttle lift shifts.
What are your thought on the H3? Have you driven one yet? I have seen A LOT of them on the roads in the last two weeks. All the GM execs must have gotten them to evaluate.
Quite a few 9-7x around as well - they look sharp. An acquaintance of mine has had one for as a company car, I have been in it but have yet to drive it.
I don't know. I think multiple 12.0s in a Viper is pretty good (not to mention the dozens of other cars I've tested and gotten as good or better numbers than the "other" guys).
But maybe the GTO is too much for me to handle...
BTW, it wasn't a 14.5, it was a 14.3 -- uncorrected. Which ought to equate to a 13.9-14.0 corrected. I know that's still not "good enough" but just want to be clear what my number was.
Be happy to hear what any owners out there have actually posted (not read about, not seen on a Web site, but actually driven and posted themselves).
However, this sound a little sarcastic/antagonistic -
"At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes"
My point was that a four paragraph description of how to launch a car for the best times seemed pretty excessive. I don't know how many people are willing to put that much time/energy/research into simply going fast, but maybe I'm wrong.
Excuse me, but I did not see anything in the GTO instructions that would indicate this vehicle is especially hard to manipulate.
Modulate the throttle to prevent excessive wheelspin? Take the driveline lash out by pressing on the throttle with foot on brake? If you get wheel hop either modulate the throttle or try to power out of it?
It seems to me this is all Drag Racing 101. Basic tips to use for ANY vehicle.
I know a lot of magazines that do two things to get the times they publish: 1. Beat the crap out of the car trying various techniques until they find just the right combination that works
That's why 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times never really mean a whole lot to me when buying a car....I'm certainly not going to buy Car X over Car Y just because car X is .2 seconds faster to 60.
I do like the way Car and Driver includes the "street start" 5-60 number, I think that is more realistic. I certainly wouldn't take my nice new car and dump the clutch at 4000rpm just to save .2 seconds going to 60... maybe some people do?
I do agree with karl, easily repeatable performance certainly has much more value in the "real world"....
I'd MUCH rather have a car that I can consistently do 0-60 in 6 secs just by mashing the gas pedal, than have a car that can theoretically do 0-60 in 5.8 if I dump the clutch at 5000rpm or otherwise abuse it. I don't want to have to be John Force or Don Garlitts to get the best out of my car!
So, what is the formula to correct for conditions? I have heard about it, but never actually seen it.
The formulas are pretty complex, but we thankfully have a computer program that will do it for us. I believe it only cost us $95, and considering all the things it can do that seemed like a good deal. For instance, you not only input the test conditions (altitude, temperature, humidity, wind, etc.) but you can put in the vehicle type (turbocharged, supercharged, manual, auto, etc.). That shows a thorough design for the software, because, for example, at a high temperature of 80 or more degrees a turbo- or supercharged car will suffer more horsepower loss than a normally aspirated car.
Anyway, I'm not sure of all the formulas, but I think the ideal testing conditions that it corrects for are: Sea level 62 degrees 85 percent humidity Calm (no) wind
The big one, btw, is altitude. One-thousand feet doesn't seen that high to me, but I grew up in Denver so what do it know. However, the software breaks down how much of a correction comes from each testing condition, and the 1,000 feet we test at is easily the largest factor that affects our raw times. Temperature also becomes somewhat of a factor if it's above 85 degrees.
I've been wanting to ask everyone about the topic of interior design. In the last few months I've written two editorials that touch on this topic, and I'd like to get feedback from the group. My first column discussed 10 areas of basic interior controls:
How to Make the Perfect Automobile — Part 1: Basic Controls
Anyway, I was reminded by this theme because another staffer was just complaining about the "automatic locks" on our new Ridgeline long-term car (yes, we just got a Ridgeline long-term vehicle that we'll be reporting on starting next month). These locks do the typical "lock" when you start moving the vehicle but they don't unlock when you stop again, requiring extra work every time you want to get out of the car. I go into this aspect of new vehicles in the second column, and I'm curious about what others think.
Basically, I know these automatic locks are done for various "safety/security" concerns, but I HATE them, as do most of the people on our staff.
...but I like automatic locks. In my view, they're safer to have in a crash (less likely for the doors to open), and they'll help keep thugs out when stopping in rough neighborhoods. Of course, if the miscreants are carrying guns, then forget it.
I believe many (most?) cars with automatic locks today have the feature that the doors will automatically unlock within seconds after a crash severe enough to set off the airbags, so that amateur rescuers can get in more easily. (Professionals have the Jaws of Life and other gadgets that can easily bypass locked doors.)
In my '04 Camry, when you reach to open the front doors, the locks undo themselves, just like cars of years ago used to do. The rear doors cannot be unlocked in this manner, which is good if you carry children.
BTW, are the "carmudgeon" columns still accessible on Edmunds? I wasn't able to find them after "Inside Line" appeared.
We have two brands of vehicles in our house - Saturn and Ford. Both auto lock at a low speed (< 10 MPH) or when the car is put into drive. However, the Saturns (VUE and L300) also unlock - the VUE when the transmission goes into park, the L300 when the key is removed from the ignition.
The Ford does not auto unlock - BUT - pulling on the door handle will open the drivers door (see 210delray's comments above). This is OK 95% of the time, but when I need to open a different door for some reason, I have to remember to hit the unlock button on the door. Can be frustrating.
Also, the Ford and the VUE are parked in a garage. When we need to retrieve something from them after parking, the only door that is usually unlocked in the Focus is the drivers door. In the VUE, because of the auto-unlock feature, all the doors are unlocked. Much more convenient.
Karl, do you really mean "interior ergonomics"? Design, to me (and I'm a left brain techie guy all the way) is how things look, sound and feel, where ergonomics (as I define it) is how easy or hard it is for the user to interact with something.
As an example, when we bought our Focus 18 months ago, one of the things my wife and daughter both loved about it was the sound the turn signal makes. Very distinctive - and loud. However, I've been driving the car daily for about a year now and I've come to find it somewhat annoying. Yes, it's a small thing, but one that grates on a user after time.
Another example is the look of the dashboard and center console. When looking at sedans a couple of years ago, I had narrowed down my choices to the Nissan Altima and the (newly redesigned) Saturn L300. While I liked the looks of the Altima on the outside, the inside just totally turned me off. The cheapness of the materials, the orange lighting of the instrument panel, the overall look just didn't do it for me. OTOH, the Saturn, while not being a stunner on the outside, really seemed, to me at least, to look nicer on the inside. Granted, I know it's all painted plastic and stuff, but the look just was more pleasant, more expensive. And, given that I'll have to live with the inside much more than I'll be looking at the exterior, the Saturn was my choice.
After posting my last message, I attempted to edit it to fix the paragraph issues. The edit windows shows my paragraphs exactly as I had defined them, but they're gone when posted.
I'm going to be the bigger oddball here. I like auto locking of the doors when you reach a certain speed, but hate (!) auto unlocking. Probably just a security thing, but I like it automatically locking up, just hate it unlocking when I park at a railroad crossing or some shady looking gas station/parking lot.
I agree. That's how mine work (auto lock, manual unlock) and I agree it's a security issue. I also hate when all the doors unlock when you press the remote open. Not many cars do that any more.
I don't think locked doors will add any security to doors popping open in an accident though. If the door frame is sprung that flimsy little security lock won't keep it closed.
I gave a ride to a friend one time, and when I shut my door I reflexively locked the doors (no auto-lock in those days, just a dad's reflexes.) He immediately unlocked his door. I asked why, out of curiosity and he said with two men in the car in Leesburg VA he wasn't worried much about security, and he didn't figure the locks would keep the doors shut in an accident anyway. But id we did have an accident he didn't want the rescue people inhibited in any way in getting him out.
I really didn't have a good answer to that. I respected his logic.
When was the last time that someone had a complete brake failure and only had the 'emergency brake' to rely on? How many of todays drivers, if faced with a complete brake failure, would even THINK about the 'emergency brake' before it was WAY too late?
Yet it is used everyday (or should be) as a parking brake.
Seeing as how I've got essentially no experience with foot-operated pbrakes (my wife's new Ody is the only vehicle I've owned in the last 25 years with one), I don't have that much against them. What is the problem with a foot opp'ed pbrake?
Funny thing is that I call it an "Emergency brake" but know it functions as a parking brake. Just hard to use a different term for it.
Rorr, the problem with an foot mounted e-brake (can't help it) is in manual equipped cars. You can't use it while in motion and even in automatics, you can't really control its deployment (if you want the back end to step out/come around or other such horse play).
Well, some of the basic elements make sense. Others don't. IMHO, window controls belong in the center console near the stickshift. My right hand is almost always off the wheel and either on or very near the stick. The placement of window controls on the left makes no sense to me as my left hand is always controlling the wheel. If I pull up to pay an attendant I have the following motions in my car:
1. Left hand steers in close. 2. Right foot brakes. 3. Right hand dabs the window down button. 4. Left foot depresses clutch. 5. Right hand pushes car into first as I stop. Pay the man, accelerate out, steer, hit lift window and shift to second.
My left hand rarely, if ever, leaves the wheel. In my Mazda the motions for dropping the window are all mixed up and make no sense. Left hand off wheel...uh, who will steer the ship then? Right hand off stick while left hand goes for window? Doesn't make sense. Too muh wasted energy. Door locks and windows belong in the center console. It's a quick simple drop from the stick to the buttons and back.
Love my autolocks. Why is it such a problem to pull a door handle to open a door? You pull the handle anyway to get out right? My Jetta did this and my BMW does it. I could only fathom disliking auto locks if one had to physically press an unlock door button before opening the door. If it's a simple pull handle like BMW/VW, then where is the problem? All I see is safety. Double-click to open all locks (not exactly tough...especially considering I often hold down my unlock button to drop all my windows/moonroof while I approach the car).
Agree completely on nav interfaces. Also find is appalling that $200 in equipment and technology is priced at $2k. Price it at $400 and people will get it without a second thought. But they expect me to pay $2k for some basic software, GPS and an lcd screen? No way.
I prefer that my right mirror tilts down on my BMW. And if I want it up, I flip the switch on the mirror control and it pops up. No big deal. I can have it either way. And you can too.
I do hate that rear view mirrors seem to be getting really small. The e90 3 series has oval, tiny mirrors. They're utterly worthless and make the tiny rectangle mirrors on the e46 3 series seem great. That's not an easy thing.
I can disable my traction control (and do so now). Agree it would suck if I couldn't.
Comments
1991 Mitsubishi Lancer
1993 Ford Taurus (bought in 1994, used, sold in 2002 with 64,000 KM)
1998 Ford Windstar (bought new sold in 2002 with 85,000 KM)
2002 Toyota Camry (company car, had it for one year with 17,000 KM)
current vehicle - 2004 Toyota Camry w/ 26,000 KM. Will be replaced by company in october with either Honda Accord, Mazda 6 or Nissan Altima.
I haven't seen any change in the forums atmosphere; it seems as free-spirited and robust as ever.
I can assure you that manufacturers not only read these forums, but participate as well -- though not always as manufacturer reps... It's a great source of market research for them.
BTW, this is the other vehicle in the upcoming comparison test I mentioned -- yes, GTO vs STi. Two very different vehicles...yet their MSRP's are nearly identical. Should be an interesting read. Turbo versus cubic inches. Rear-wheel drive versus all-wheel drive, coupe versus sedan, etc.
I've haven't been in an STi for awhile, so I'm looking forward to a re-introduction!
Driving notes to follow soon...
During my Super Street days (1996-1998) a car like this would have been pure fantasy for American enthusiasts. In fact, during those years the only way you could drive one was by playing Gran Turismo on Playstation. I personally credit Gran Tursimo with educating American consumers (many of them under the age of 20 at the time) in the fine art of appreciating turbos and all-wheel drive.
Now those "kids" are old enough to buy $30,000 cars, and they are happy to pay for real versions of their Gran Turismo project cars.
The only element of the STi that borders on "too extreme" for me is the ride quality. I tend to be pretty forgiving when it comes to ride quality (heck, I owned a Mini Cooper for 2 years) but this one goes just beyond my tolerance level. That said, for the target audience the suspension is not an issue; neither is everything else that makes this car pretty extreme. I love the turbo rush, the metal-ball shifter and the aggressive seat bolsters (the blue inserts look great, too).
The one thing that strikes me about the STi is that the car's mechanicals, and even some of its interior materials (like the metal shifter and suede seats) seem like professional/premium grade items, but then the switchgear and other interior components (like the door panels and dash) feel economy car grade. I guess that's how Subaru can create a 300 horsepower, all-wheel drive vehicle for $33,000. The Evo suffers from this disparity to an even greater degree, with much of its interior feeling bargin-bin-like (even as it whips through corners quicker than a Porsche Boxster).
I'm still torn between the Evo and STi. The STi always strikes me as the "grown-ups" rally car while the Evo is the "pure-man's" rally car. I guess my final decision would come down to this -- both cars sacrifice comfort and practicality for performance, but the Evo does this to a greater degree. If you're going down that road in the first place, why not go all the way (especially if it costs you less money)?
I'd probably go Evo MR.
We see just as much disagreement as ever!
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
But, now... I find out it is all your fault.. Very interesting..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I know Karl does his own work because I don't see the same blurb about a car ("The winds of change") in six different places (by supposedly different authors) when I read car reviews in the paper or at other sites.
Steve, Host
But I must tell you that every time I drive our long-term X3 I'm reminded just how NICE that car is. I know "nice" is a pretty lame word, but it's very accurate in this case. I get in the X3, fire it up, and within 50 feet of engaging DRIVE I find myself saying, "man, this thing is nice!"
Some people on staff think the X3 rides too harshly, and I know all about Car & Driver's position on this vehicle -- they seem to think it's the automotive equivalent of Saddam Hussein. But I think the ride quality is fine, and the handling is simply superb. I honestly love driving it, and I never thought I'd say that about an SUV.
However, I'm the first to acknowledge that the price is out of control. Our long-term car is loaded with almost every option, including Sport Package and DVD navigation. And it costs over $45,000!!! As one staffer put it, "$45,000 for a premium RAV4?"
I'd tried rephrasing it as "$45,000 for a really nice premium RAV4" but it didn't help my position much.
Regardless, I've got the keys and sincerely look forward to driving it this weekend.
Pretty cheap, relative to the MSRP... and probably cheaper than leasing a comparably priced RX330... or anything else that has an MSRP north of $40K.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
1. Is there a tendency these days for audio designers to deliberately design in muddy, boom-box sound systems in cars? I have heard so many urban cars playing "one note" bass that it's kinda become a joke (I used to build audio systems).
2. Which in your opinion is the __best__ sound system you have heard in your recent test vehicles?
I'd comment on modern stock audio systems to keep this post on topic, but it's been a while since I've been in a modern car.
1. I think audio designers are trying to please everyone (both hip-hop folks and classic music listeners) by creating systems that are capable of recreating both types of music. But there's been an undeniable slide toward the bass side of things in modern cars because of the...uh...eclectic tastes of buyers under 30.
My recent ride in the new GTO seemed to represent a common problem. The car was certainly capable of bass, but as for good separation, clean highs and overall balanced sound, it was weak. GM probably figures most target buyers for the car won't notice the system's weak spots because of the type of music they'll be playing.
Whatever the cause, it's sad for those of us who prefer to hear every tone in the spectrum of music.
2. I would say the Mark Levinson systems in the various Lexus products all sound great (big surprise, right?). I was recently in the Aston Martin DB9 and its Bose system was stellar (and between the sound quality and the head unit's diplay style the system was obviously lifted right out of the new Volvo cars...not that that's a bad thing, with most new Volvos sound great, too).
On the less expensive front, the Mini Cooper and Ford Focus both have excellent sound for their price category. The Chrysler 300 (and Dodge Magnum) also sound pretty good for the price. I'm sure there are others out there, but these come immediately to mind.
One more thing: BMW's used to have terrible sound systems -- even AFTER they started using Harman/Kardon (and I'm a huge Harman/Kardon fan). But they must have been getting consistent feedback from customers (I know we hammered our long-term 1999 3 Series sound system every chance we got), because in the last few years they've really turned it around and now they are competitive with Audi and Lexus. Oh, and the new Ferrari 612 Scaglietti? Easily the best sound system I've ever heard in a Ferrari, and FINALLY worthy of the car's price tag.
(Yes, I know, if you're in a V12 Ferrari you're only supposed to listen to the engine, but let's get real; when a car crosses the $200,000 mark the audio system should be first rate, even if you never use it)
Oh, one more just came to mind: the Bentley Continental GT -- sweeeet! Not that it shouldn't be for $150 large.
Just finished testing six cars at our test facility. The quickest was the STi, but I only got a 14.3. That's uncorrected, so it should equate to a 14.0 or even a 13.9, but I know they can do better. I kept launching the thing at higher and higher rpms, and the times kept dropping, but when I got to 5,000 rpm I stopped going up. Someone on staff told me you can go even higher and the drivetrain can take it all day, but I just can't launch an all-wheel drive car at 5,000-plus rpm and sleep well at night. That's got to be murder on everything from the flywheel to the drive wheels. Anyone else have comments on this topic?
I also tested the GTO, which also scored 14.3 (not good considering it has 100 more horsepower than the STi). Traction wasn't too much of a problem, but the transmission is lame. The throws are too long, and not particularly rewarding when the shifter finally gets there. And just like the last 'Vette I tested (an '05) I feel like this engine doesn't rev fast enough above 5,000 rpm. It seems like those last 2,000 rpm take too long to arrive, which has to be hurting times. I don't know if the gearing could be changed or what, but that 6.0-liter V8 just doesn't rev quickly (unlike the STi's turbo boxer engine, which hits like a hammer just off idle and never looks back).
Another tester from today was the 2006 Eclipse. First, I really like the looks of this car. It basically looks like the mid-90s version, which is a very good thing in my opinion. Visibility (especially rear visibility) is blatantly sacrificed for style, but hey, it's a sport coupe so practicality went out the window on day one, right? And the 260 hp engine makes MASSIVE torque. Launching it was tricky once traction control was turned off because it basically wanted to smoke 'em through first gear and into second. It's going to lead to torque steer issues, but I'll take that trade off for the immediacy of power it has anyday. Very fun in the slalom, too. It was pulling times that compare to Boxsters and S2000s, so the car is very nimble (despite being kind of heavy). I wasn't expecting to like the new Eclipse much, and I still need more seat time to be sure. But so far I like was I've seen.
Gonna miss it when my daughter finally learns how to drive a stick and I trade cars with her.
Of course, the closest most of us would get to a Ferrari, Bentley, or an Aston would be the pics that show up in the trade rags.
While I think the WRX and the EVO are fun little numbers, the manufacturers have to know that to get the performance their capable of, they will be abused. At least, I hope they know that. If not, we're going to see a lot of these little pocket rockets that look/feel like they've been through a war. It doesn't allow for much confidence if you look at the rest of the materials that accompany the great drivetrains.
I concur on the GTO. Drove both an '04 and an '05 and one of the major downfalls was the shifter. In general, the entire car drove "heavy"...from the clutch to the shifter to the suspension to the steering. I chalked it up to being yet another car that felt too "GMish". Don't know why it revs so slow, but you are right....with a 100 extra HP on tap, your numbers should have been better.
Surprising about the Mitsu. That would go a long way to bringing them back from the dead. Problem is, can they really survive in the U.S. with only one competitive model?
When will the results for the Consumers Most Wanted 2005 be out? I want to see if my top choices make it.
I know of a GM contact who would be more than happy to share with you their test procedure for getting low 13's/high 12's with the 2005 GTO. Email is in my contact info on Edmunds. I've seen all kinds of timeslips showing 13.2 to 12.9, and I don't believe there is some kind of conspiracy.
Mid-14's is, "you're doing something wrong". Or you're at 10,000 feet. Or you have 55 pounds of air in the tires (don't laugh, they ship that way from Australia for the 2 month boat/train ride and most dealers are too stupid to do the PDI. I drove my first GTO around for nearly 850 miles like this, and it damaged the suspension. For that, and other reasons, I am on GTO #2).
Not bashing you - just that your results don't jibe with anything I've ever seen from anyone with experience at the track (not beating you up here).
--Robert
Some audio guys have taken a look at the system and figured out the weak points. The Blaupunkt head unit isn't too bad, but the EQ presets are terrible. Turn them off. Turn off the speed-sensitive volume, too. (With the stereo off, hold down the 4 key for about 2 seconds while pressing the On button). Set the Bass to -2 and Treble to -1.
Pop the trunk and stand behind the car. Inside the trunk, on the left-hand side, behind the carpet, is the subwoofer amp mounted against the outside of the car. You can reach your hand in between the outside and the amp, and there's a dial to adjust the subwoofer amp. Turn it up almost all of the way (I crank it and move it back).
Doing so, the stereo sounds MUCH better. Should ship this way from the factory. Of course, those that have taken the doors and rear panels apart show the $5 Korean paper speakers are the real reason the sound gets muddy/distorted at volumes over 40. I have some Kenwood Excelon speakers (got 'em on closeout from Crutchfield) that I'll be putting in my GTO tonight.
--Robert
Standing waves are a real problem inside a car, which makes placement of the woofers critical for tight, clean bass.
Motor Trend - 5.0/13.3
Car and Driver - 4.8/13.3
Road and Track with an 04 - 5.4/13.9
Sound like a really rough day at work;)
2005 0-60 times
There seems to be some concern about the 0-60 times on the 2005 GTOs. GM quotes one set of times and the magazines report another, slower result.
From the engineer who runs the test at Milford, here is what he does to produce the 4.6/4.7 second times:
Vehicle prep
Full tank of fuel
Tire pressure checked
Vehicle weighed to ensure baseline
LS2 Manual
Launch at 2200-2500 RPM
Quickly release clutch as accelerator is depressed to WOT
Modulate as necessary (only in first gear)
Power shift to second gear
More Explanation
Launch RPM is higher for the LS2 than the LS1. Launch at 2200-2500, depending on road surface. Once a stable launch RPM is reached, clutch is quickly released and at the same time the accelerator is applied to WOT. This is where the skill comes in. Depending on the road surface grip, it may be feasible to leave the accelerator on the floor and continue with the run, as long as there is is not a great deal of tire slip. Tire slip is a good thing, the tire's coefficient of friction increases with some slip, but too much wheelspin and the coefficient of friction drops off rapidly. If too much slip develops, the vehicle must be "pedaled", this is, the accelerator must be modulated to reduce the engine output but still keep the tires at peak friction. This is the part that takes practice. Depending on surface, it may be necessary to quickly go WOT at the initial launch, then roll off the throttle to 75% pedal and slowly increase pedal, monitoring tire slip. Listening to the engine and tires is key.
When it comes time to shift, continue to hold the accelerator at WOT, apply the clutch, change gear and release the clutch. A powershift is worth about 0.2 seconds over a normal "lift throttle" shift for a 0-60 run.
Wheel Hop
Controlling wheel hop can be difficult. Different tires can cause hop more than others. One way to reduce the chances of getting into hop is to perform the launch as stated above. This quick lauch shocks the tires and produces wheel slip which usually does not go into wheel hop. If the vehicle goes into hop, there are two ways around it. One is to modulate the throttle, reducing engine torque and setting the tire. The other is to apply more throttle, and try to power through the hop.
LS2 Auto Launch
Lightly apply throttle to take out drivetrain lash, but do not exceed 1000 RPMs and do not stall the converter. Release brake as the accelerator is depressed to WOT (depending on surface, it may be necessary to not apply WOT initially, but go quickly to about 75% and roll into the throttle depending on the sound of the engine and tires. Modulate accelerator as necessary (careful not to roll off the throttle too much to cause a 2nd gear upshift).
If a specific vehicle requires extra special coaxing to get its "best time" shouldn't that be figured into its evaluation as a performance car? A few years ago we tested a Viper RT/10 against a Corvette Z06 and Mustang SVT Cobra.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=89505
In that test I managed a 12.0 in the Viper. Actually, I managed several times ranging from 12.04 to 12.08. It was killing me that I couldn't do an 11, but getting those 12.0s was very easy and consistent (and also quite fast for the time). I read other magazine figures at the time, and they all were doing between 12.1 and 12.3, so I felt pretty good about it (since then I've seen Vipers in the high 11s, but at that point my times were actually faster than what I saw in Motor Trend, Road and Track or Car & Driver).
Then I got a best of 12.9 for the Z06, which everyone was disappointed with (myself, other editors, and our readers). Then I got a 13.6 for the Cobra, which was even more disappointing. Many readers thought I was just a terrible driver because of the low Corvette and Cobra times, but I couldn't help thinking about the repeated 12.0s that I got from the Viper with no trouble at all.
It became apparent that the Viper wasn't only quicker, but also easier to drive quickly. To me that counted for a lot. If a car is "theoretically" capable of pulling one time, but getting that time takes a "special touch" that few drivers can recreate without repeated practice and/or just the right conditions, how fast is it going to be at the hands of most drivers most of the time? Sitting around quoting magazine times is one thing; going at and getting those times is something else entirely.
If a buyer reads a bunch of magazines and expects his GTO to do 13.0s in the quarter, then gets his car and goes up against an STi or an M3 and gets smoked, he's not going to be happy, no matter what caused it.
The obvious answer is "Well, if the GTO owner knew what he was doing he could have won." Maybe. But if an M3 or STi buyer can be brainless about how to launch/drive their cars, and still win, doesn't that count for something?
I know a lot of magazines that do two things to get the times they publish:
1. Beat the crap out of the car trying various techniques until they find just the right combination that works
2. "Convert" their numbers based on various testing conditions
I've always questioned both practices, especially number 1.
When we tested along the coast of Southern California we never corrected because testing conditions were always sea level with high humidity, and usually the temperature was between 58 and 70 degrees (those numbers I quoted for the Viper, ZO6 and Cobra were all uncorrected). Now that we test further inland, at 1,000 feet and with higher temperatures and less humidity, we have to correct like the magazines do. I'm not a fan of it, but it's pretty much industry standard these days.
As for beating a car up until I get the number I want, that doesn't appeal to me either. I don't know how many real-world owners are going to have access to test equipment and a facility to endlessly "practice" multiple techniques until they get it right. And I don't personally like the idea of running a car through the quarter mile more than about five times, especially if I'm doing crazy, 5,000 rpm-plus clutch dumps. Neither case represents real-world performance in my opinion.
You can make an argument that automotive publications are duty bound to find a car's "ultimate performance capabilities," vehicle abuse and realistic test procedures be damned, but I've never bought in to that. In my younger, irresponsible days I raced too many cars that "should" have beat me, but didn't. I quickly learned that magazine test numbers were a theoretical guide, at best.
It's almost like we need another parameter on our specs page:
0-60
1/4-mile
Difficulty in attaining these times (scale of 1-10, with 10 being "you're more likely to die from a bee sting)
To me, the ultimate performance car is:
A. Extremely powerful
B. Extremely capable in terms of handling and braking dynamics
And, most importantly
C. Properly designed to make its power, handling and braking dynamics accessible to as many drivers as possible.
We can wax nostalgic about the power studs who tamed early Ford Cobras and/or Porsche 911s, but that says more about how great those drivers were, not how well the cars were designed or set up. Ask Dan Gurney why the GT40 won Le Mans and he'll happily tell you, "Not only was it faster and more durable than the Ferraris, it was also easier to drive and it had so much capability in reserve that I never had to truly press the car to stay in first place, thus it could run 24 hours without anything breaking."
Now THAT's a performance car.
At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes. Me? I'll be the one in the STi, doing a basic 5,000-rpm clutch dump and otherwise not worrying about it.
Do you think all of those folks have read the above? Probably not. Do I think they are all great drivers? Probably not.
When I see something like this, which flies in the face of a) the manufacturer's claims and, more importantly, b) experience of other car owners, this tells me that something is very wrong - either with the car, the driver, the testing equipment or environmental conditions. It frankly makes me discredit your reviews.
Not trying to stir up trouble - just stating my feelings.
Respectfully submitted,
--Robert
In no way am I questioning your ability as a driver. Please do not take it that way. I as merely stating that other publications have scored better numbers.
However, this sound a little sarcastic/antagonistic -
"At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes"
To me a 5,000 rpm clutch dump seems a little abusive.
Also, Road and Track claims they use throttle lift shifts.
Quite a few 9-7x around as well - they look sharp. An acquaintance of mine has had one for as a company car, I have been in it but have yet to drive it.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But maybe the GTO is too much for me to handle...
BTW, it wasn't a 14.5, it was a 14.3 -- uncorrected. Which ought to equate to a 13.9-14.0 corrected. I know that's still not "good enough" but just want to be clear what my number was.
Be happy to hear what any owners out there have actually posted (not read about, not seen on a Web site, but actually driven and posted themselves).
"At the very least, I hope every GTO owner out there has read through these detailed launch specifics...and that they have the "skill" to perfectly execute them when the time comes"
My point was that a four paragraph description of how to launch a car for the best times seemed pretty excessive. I don't know how many people are willing to put that much time/energy/research into simply going fast, but maybe I'm wrong.
So, what is the formula to correct for conditions? I have heard about it, but never actually seen it.
Modulate the throttle to prevent excessive wheelspin?
Take the driveline lash out by pressing on the throttle with foot on brake?
If you get wheel hop either modulate the throttle or try to power out of it?
It seems to me this is all Drag Racing 101. Basic tips to use for ANY vehicle.
1. Beat the crap out of the car trying various techniques until they find just the right combination that works
That's why 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times never really mean a whole lot to me when buying a car....I'm certainly not going to buy Car X over Car Y just because car X is .2 seconds faster to 60.
I do like the way Car and Driver includes the "street start" 5-60 number, I think that is more realistic. I certainly wouldn't take my nice new car and dump the clutch at 4000rpm just to save .2 seconds going to 60... maybe some people do?
And, editor Karl, I was just busting your chops... Although, I do believe I have the best ever 1/4 time in a '98 CR-V with 5-speed....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I'd MUCH rather have a car that I can consistently do 0-60 in 6 secs just by mashing the gas pedal, than have a car that can theoretically do 0-60 in 5.8 if I dump the clutch at 5000rpm or otherwise abuse it. I don't want to have to be John Force or Don Garlitts to get the best out of my car!
The formulas are pretty complex, but we thankfully have a computer program that will do it for us. I believe it only cost us $95, and considering all the things it can do that seemed like a good deal. For instance, you not only input the test conditions (altitude, temperature, humidity, wind, etc.) but you can put in the vehicle type (turbocharged, supercharged, manual, auto, etc.). That shows a thorough design for the software, because, for example, at a high temperature of 80 or more degrees a turbo- or supercharged car will suffer more horsepower loss than a normally aspirated car.
Anyway, I'm not sure of all the formulas, but I think the ideal testing conditions that it corrects for are:
Sea level
62 degrees
85 percent humidity
Calm (no) wind
The big one, btw, is altitude. One-thousand feet doesn't seen that high to me, but I grew up in Denver so what do it know. However, the software breaks down how much of a correction comes from each testing condition, and the 1,000 feet we test at is easily the largest factor that affects our raw times. Temperature also becomes somewhat of a factor if it's above 85 degrees.
How to Make the Perfect Automobile — Part 1: Basic Controls
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/101877/article.html
The second one focused on few areas but went into more detail on advanced interior controls:
How to Make the Perfect Automobile — Part 2: "Advanced" Controls
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/105288/article.html
Anyway, I was reminded by this theme because another staffer was just complaining about the "automatic locks" on our new Ridgeline long-term car (yes, we just got a Ridgeline long-term vehicle that we'll be reporting on starting next month). These locks do the typical "lock" when you start moving the vehicle but they don't unlock when you stop again, requiring extra work every time you want to get out of the car. I go into this aspect of new vehicles in the second column, and I'm curious about what others think.
Basically, I know these automatic locks are done for various "safety/security" concerns, but I HATE them, as do most of the people on our staff.
Thoughts?
I believe many (most?) cars with automatic locks today have the feature that the doors will automatically unlock within seconds after a crash severe enough to set off the airbags, so that amateur rescuers can get in more easily. (Professionals have the Jaws of Life and other gadgets that can easily bypass locked doors.)
In my '04 Camry, when you reach to open the front doors, the locks undo themselves, just like cars of years ago used to do. The rear doors cannot be unlocked in this manner, which is good if you carry children.
BTW, are the "carmudgeon" columns still accessible on Edmunds? I wasn't able to find them after "Inside Line" appeared.
The Ford does not auto unlock - BUT - pulling on the door handle will open the drivers door (see 210delray's comments above). This is OK 95% of the time, but when I need to open a different door for some reason, I have to remember to hit the unlock button on the door. Can be frustrating.
Also, the Ford and the VUE are parked in a garage. When we need to retrieve something from them after parking, the only door that is usually unlocked in the Focus is the drivers door. In the VUE, because of the auto-unlock feature, all the doors are unlocked. Much more convenient.
Karl, do you really mean "interior ergonomics"? Design, to me (and I'm a left brain techie guy all the way) is how things look, sound and feel, where ergonomics (as I define it) is how easy or hard it is for the user to interact with something.
As an example, when we bought our Focus 18 months ago, one of the things my wife and daughter both loved about it was the sound the turn signal makes. Very distinctive - and loud. However, I've been driving the car daily for about a year now and I've come to find it somewhat annoying. Yes, it's a small thing, but one that grates on a user after time.
Another example is the look of the dashboard and center console. When looking at sedans a couple of years ago, I had narrowed down my choices to the Nissan Altima and the (newly redesigned) Saturn L300. While I liked the looks of the Altima on the outside, the inside just totally turned me off. The cheapness of the materials, the orange lighting of the instrument panel, the overall look just didn't do it for me. OTOH, the Saturn, while not being a stunner on the outside, really seemed, to me at least, to look nicer on the inside. Granted, I know it's all painted plastic and stuff, but the look just was more pleasant, more expensive. And, given that I'll have to live with the inside much more than I'll be looking at the exterior, the Saturn was my choice.
The Carmudgeon index page is accessible off the Road Tests tab on Edmunds.com (at the bottom of the page).
Here's a direct link to the Carmudgeon index page:
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/index.html?tid=edmunds.e.reviewslanding.news- - ..2.*
The awards are LIVE as of a few minutes ago!
Here's the link:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/consumersmostwanted/2005/index.html
Happy to hear feedback from any and all voters or observers.
I don't think locked doors will add any security to doors popping open in an accident though. If the door frame is sprung that flimsy little security lock won't keep it closed.
Gee, no rant about foot operated ebrakes? (and is it a parking brake or an emergency brake?).
Steve, Host
I gave a ride to a friend one time, and when I shut my door I reflexively locked the doors (no auto-lock in those days, just a dad's reflexes.) He immediately unlocked his door. I asked why, out of curiosity and he said with two men in the car in Leesburg VA he wasn't worried much about security, and he didn't figure the locks would keep the doors shut in an accident anyway. But id we did have an accident he didn't want the rescue people inhibited in any way in getting him out.
I really didn't have a good answer to that. I respected his logic.
When was the last time that someone had a complete brake failure and only had the 'emergency brake' to rely on? How many of todays drivers, if faced with a complete brake failure, would even THINK about the 'emergency brake' before it was WAY too late?
Yet it is used everyday (or should be) as a parking brake.
Seeing as how I've got essentially no experience with foot-operated pbrakes (my wife's new Ody is the only vehicle I've owned in the last 25 years with one), I don't have that much against them. What is the problem with a foot opp'ed pbrake?
Rorr, the problem with an foot mounted e-brake (can't help it) is in manual equipped cars. You can't use it while in motion and even in automatics, you can't really control its deployment (if you want the back end to step out/come around or other such horse play).
1. Left hand steers in close.
2. Right foot brakes.
3. Right hand dabs the window down button.
4. Left foot depresses clutch.
5. Right hand pushes car into first as I stop.
Pay the man, accelerate out, steer, hit lift window and shift to second.
My left hand rarely, if ever, leaves the wheel. In my Mazda the motions for dropping the window are all mixed up and make no sense. Left hand off wheel...uh, who will steer the ship then? Right hand off stick while left hand goes for window? Doesn't make sense. Too muh wasted energy. Door locks and windows belong in the center console. It's a quick simple drop from the stick to the buttons and back.
Love my autolocks. Why is it such a problem to pull a door handle to open a door? You pull the handle anyway to get out right? My Jetta did this and my BMW does it. I could only fathom disliking auto locks if one had to physically press an unlock door button before opening the door. If it's a simple pull handle like BMW/VW, then where is the problem? All I see is safety. Double-click to open all locks (not exactly tough...especially considering I often hold down my unlock button to drop all my windows/moonroof while I approach the car).
Agree completely on nav interfaces. Also find is appalling that $200 in equipment and technology is priced at $2k. Price it at $400 and people will get it without a second thought. But they expect me to pay $2k for some basic software, GPS and an lcd screen? No way.
I prefer that my right mirror tilts down on my BMW. And if I want it up, I flip the switch on the mirror control and it pops up. No big deal. I can have it either way. And you can too.
I do hate that rear view mirrors seem to be getting really small. The e90 3 series has oval, tiny mirrors. They're utterly worthless and make the tiny rectangle mirrors on the e46 3 series seem great. That's not an easy thing.
I can disable my traction control (and do so now). Agree it would suck if I couldn't.