I have never bought a car (Toyota Camry and Avalon) with "required extras" that I didn't want. Just tell the dealer to find the car you want, or be prepared to discount the extras if he wants to make a sale. It seems to work at my dealership!
What you describe on your Avalon is the same with the Azera. It is extremely frustrating to try and fill the tank, from a near empty status, on a long trip and not be able to get it full. I must admit to resorting to a couple of tactics, when I need to overcome this objectionable limitation.
One, I fill it the best I can, and then, make a second purchase by cash another 1.5 gallons and with the pump running slowing for the last 1/4 of a gallon or so, I am able to get it all in.
Or, I just wait after it does the automatic stop, give it a few seconds and then slowly try and fill it. Some pumps will let you do this more easily than others. If someone has a better solution, I am all ears.
BTW, based on using old method and computer, I find my computer to show about .1 mpg less than manual method, which is certainly good enough for me.
Another kind of interesting thing about the Azera fuel computer is that when you are driving and your average mpg goes up (long downhill down a mountain, constant 55 mph , etc.) the miles to empty does not readjust up, the display simply stays where it is until your fuel reaches the point where the miles start to drop again based on the new average fuel economy. It is sometimes very interesting to drive 10 miles and see the miles to empty never change. My 07 Azera does not have an instant FE reading, only an average.
Devil's advocate then Louis - why - if it (the FSE) is supposedly more efficient are the FE ratings lower for the IS than it is for the Avalon - its not because the IS is any heavier. Or for that matter with FE being a primary sales attribute these days then why wouldn't Toyota put the DI in the Avalon and increase the FE advantage it already has in this class? As far as Toyota being the ONLY one - hasn't BMW been using the same technology in their 'double-Vanos' straight sixes even longer than Toyota? VW in their 280hp 3.5 Passat engine, MB in their C350?? I was surprised to see BMW have to resort to turbocharging in the new 335 though, simply to produce the same sort of naturally aspirated power you have in your IS already. Guess that in itself speaks volumes about the techinical superiority of the 2GR.
"Going down into a pretty stiff headwind, we got 29.6 MPG. Coming home, we got 31.4. This was 90% Interstate cruising at 75 - 80 MPH. We have taken a number of shorter trips on two-lane roads at lower speeds and gotten 33-34 MPG. On her daily commute of 50/50 city and freeway, grocery shopping, etc. it averages around 24-25 MPG. The tall overdrive in 6th gear really helps fuel economy on the highway. The engine is powerful enough to prevent unwanted downshifts on hills, too"
"The Taurus has a 3.16 axle ratio and a .74 OD for a final drive of 2.34. At 75 MPH, it is turning around 2000 RPM" :confuse:
Using your figures which BTW I am unable to verify for a 2008 Taurus, we find that with the standard tire, a Continental ContiTouringContact CT95, size 215/60TR17 turns 767 revs per mile.
3.16 X 0.74 X 767 equals 1794 revs per mile at 60 mph. Indeed, rather 'tall' gearing.
1794 divided by 60 equals 29.89 revs per one mph.
Taking that further, we find that:
75 mph will be 2241 RPM
80 mph will be 2391 RPM
I do not see how this vehicle turning those revs will achieve those high average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds. :confuse:
the miles to empty does not readjust up, the display simply stays where it is Avalon is the same, but my wife's 5 year old Altima OTH does 'adjust up'. One other thing that I'd like to see changed on the Avalon, the 'average MPG' resets itself every time you fill up and sometimes will even reset itself when it 'thinks' it's getting filled up - gas sloshing around in the tank or parking on a slope. Makes it impossible to keep track of FE on a long multiple fill-up trip - unless you do it manually. Have found the computer FE to generally be closer than the calculated method, especially if I'm not the one 'breaking the rules' and filling the gas up the filler neck.
why - if it (the FSE) is supposedly more efficient are the FE ratings lower for the IS than it is for the Avalon
Different tuning and almost 40 extra hp (268 vs 306). The FSE is tuned for performance driving and FE is tuned for smoothness and efficiency.
why wouldn't Toyota put the DI in the Avalon and increase the FE advantage it already has in this class?
Cost my captain, cost!!
'double-Vanos'
I think double VANOS is about the intake valves like Honda's i-VTEC and Toyota's i VVT. I was talking about the fuel injecting technology, those two are totally different animals. Actually the DI technology is nothing new, it has been used on diesel engines since like forever, it has been used on gasoline engines earlier too but only becomes popular recently. However, so far I don't know what other engine(s) uses the duel injection technology like Toyota did with the 2GR-FSE.
now we are getting a bit more technical aren't we? These numbers BTW almost identical to what I see in my Avalon BTW and what I would guess is very typical for these drivetrains.Had a hard time with 80mph at 2000 rpm!
Cost my captain, cost!! I'm sure it is not free - however I'm sure you've probably read the articles about the development of the 2GR and also know that Toyota is saving literally billions of dollars making a far better engine then before. If I remember right something to the tune of a grand saved PER ENGINE - you wouldn't think a set of Nippondenso injectors would even approach that?
you wouldn't think a set of Nippondenso injectors would even approach that?
The primary disadvantages of direct injection engines are complexity and cost. Direct injection systems are more expensive to build because their components must be more rugged -- they handle fuel at significantly higher pressures than indirect injection systems and the injectors themselves must be able to withstand the heat and pressure of combustion inside the cylinder.
Not to mention the extra 750 for Southeastern Toyota and the 700 "ToyoGuard" fabric and exterior protection
if it makes you feel any better - Gulf States down here in Texas does the same thing (GST and SET are the only 2 independent Toyota distributors left apparently) - and it STILL is almost impossible to find an Avalon down here without that kinda extra markup in it and that's after the car has been available for more than 3 years. A testament to how well the car sells perhaps but a definite disadvantage when dealing with those that are so conscious of initial prices.
like it's not just a set of Nippondenso injectors...
yep from the sound of this article its a set of really high quality injectors - and a few extra lines in a computer program. Still not convinced that DI doesn't cost a bit of gas though - understanding of course that a IS350 better damn well be geared differently than a 'mere' Avalon. One of these cars can do so much more than the other , can't it?
I was surprised to see BMW have to resort to turbocharging in the new 335 though, simply to produce the same sort of naturally aspirated power you have in your IS already. Guess that in itself speaks volumes about the techinical superiority of the 2GR
The BMW 335i has a 3.0L engine and has 300 lbs/ft of torque @ 1400 rpm while the Lexus 3.5L has 277@4800 rpm. Plus, the BMW 335i is under-rated with having 300HP after some have found out after taking the car to a dyno where it was rated at 300 RWHP.
HYUNDAI AZERA NAMED A CONSUMERS' TOP RATED SEDAN BY EDMUNDS.COM
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF., 05/29/2008 The 2008 Hyundai Azera was awarded the “Consumers’ Top Rated Vehicle Award” in the $15,000 - $25,000 sedan category by Edmunds.com’s visitors. The 2008 Azera received the average highest rating from the site’s audience as of April 30, 2008.
“This recognition further reinforces our brand philosophy on how smart consumers think about premium sedans,” said Scott Margason, national manager, Product Development at Hyundai Motor America. “Clearly, the Azera raises the bar by combining safety, luxury and value like no other vehicle in its segment. Consumers who want full-size sedan features, a smooth and powerful engine and a comfortable ride will be pleased with the Azera.”
Edmunds.com tabulated the results for 21 award categories by evaluating the feedback of thousands of site visitors. Awards were given for coupes, convertibles, sedans, wagons, SUVs, trucks, minivan/vans and hybrids. Edmunds.com’s editors agree that Azera is a great choice for consumers looking for a family sedan with luxurious touches at an affordable price.
More and more customers are discovering the Hyundai Azera’s advantages. Enhanced design and convenience features, together with a comprehensive standard active and passive safety technology package, render the 2008 Azera a solid alternative to vehicles like the Lexus ES350, Toyota Avalon and Nissan Maxima. Spacious and luxurious, the Azera features more interior volume than more expensive luxury sedans, such as the Mercedes Benz E-Class and BMW 7-Series. Couple this with its continued accolades from independent automotive studies across the board and there’s no question that Azera is one of the smartest premium large sedan choices available in the American marketplace today.
I do not see how this vehicle turning those revs will achieve those high average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds.
And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about.
For what its worth, I obtained the speed per 1000 RPM that I quoted earlier from a shop manual. Checking a few auto magazines who publish such information, I found some variance in the published numbers. The axle ratio and OD ratio are accurate although rounded a tad but I have no quarrel with your math. The only variable I can think of would be tire pressure that could ever so slightly impact overall diameter and revs per mile.
In any case, I think we agree that the Taurus gearing in top gear is higher than most and that helps steady cruise FE. Where it becomes a detriment, IMO, is in heavier AWD vehicles like the Ford Edge which is 600 Lbs heavier than a FWD Taurus. They have way too much of a tendency to downshift on slight hills or even going into a headwind. I have heard reports that the AWD Taurus even has some trouble maintaining that high top gear in hilly situations. The old Ford 500 with the 3.0 certainly did. I am only guessing now but that may be part of the reason the AWD Taurus has a 24 MPG highway rating while the FWD model is 28.
The BMW 335i has a 3.0L engine and has 300 lbs/ft of torque 1400 rpm while the Lexus 3.5L has 2774800 rpm true enough, turbocharging especially in the dual stage manner BMW implements it will produce lots of torque available at lower rpms. And yes Bavarian horses have histroically been a larger than Japanese or American ones, but perhaps you are missing the point - given that the BMW straight sixes have always industry leaders, the comment was only that they 'resorted' to turbocharging to get that same sort of power you already have in that naturally aspirated Toyota V6. Nissan also 'resorted' to turbocharging in the V6 powered GTR and managed close to 500hp! Given that Nissan is doing that with a VQ variant V6, guess that would mean that a turbochraged 2GR might be worth what - 600 hp and 500 lb. ft.? The comment obviously not meant to diss BMW's wonderful engines at all- only to point out what an accomplishment that particular Japanese engine is.
"And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about."
That's true to be sure. Why would I want to go out and waste money renting any Taurus when I already have a better beautiful Azera in my garage?
Steady speed results you say? Yet you admit making a long interstate trip cross -country. Must be hard to keep your car at steady state speeds? Never stopping all that way for gas or to eat or rest stops? Your mileage figures could not have been at steady state speeds either but "overall results." I say that such high figures are perhaps possible at a lower steady speeds of 65 mph or less, but not going cross country at such high speeds with occasional stops along the way.
When any vehicle is pulling such tall gearing, going over a certain speed will decrease your mileage as you go faster. You do not get higher mileage at faster speeds, but less mileage.
As far as tire diameter, etc. I got my figures from the tire manufactures charts. Any differences because of tire pressure would be difficult to measure and impossible to measure when figuring fuel economy.
Must be some shop manual that gives speed per 1000 rpm. I have never seen such figures in any shop manual that I have had in the last 60 years!
OK, Snaglepus, I am going to waste 2 more minutes on this and then I am done.
I did not quote MPG for a cross country trip or overall results for a weekend trip! Minneapolis to Des Moines is a 4 hour jaunt. No, I don't need to stop on a short trip like that and I certainly did not need gas or food. Pulling on the Interstate in Minneapolis, setting the cruise at 77 MPH, pressing the MPG reset button, and driving to the Des Moines area is my idea of steady speed cruising. Did I ever have to touch the brake to slow down or step on the accelerator to speed up? Yes, a few times of course! Would the mileage have been lower if I included the mileage while driving around Des Moines and other little towns visiting relatives? Of course it would have been lower! Had I set the cruise at 60 instead of 77, would the mileage have been better? No doubt about it! 90 instead of 77, would it have been worse? No question about that, either!
That is all the information that I have for you. Thanks for your interest in the Taurus.
Doesn't work in my area at any Toyota dealer. Lexus is even worse. BTW, I had a Camry that had instant MPG read out. Found it basically useless and also very distracting, as in dangerous.
There is an article today on edmunds about people getting from 1.5 to 2 times EPA FE in their cars. IN the past I achieved 35 mpg mostly highway mpg in my 05 Maxima and thats 9 mpg higher than new EPA estimate. I am currently carpooling with a guy and my mpg is expected to fall by at least 1-2 mpg , but I am still managing to get 30-32 mpg. I used both computer and gas station estimate and they are in my case are almost same. I reset computer @ a gas station few miles from highway. I can only imagine my FE if I did it once I reached my cruising speed. I also try to keep 59-64 constant speed AC or open windows have small effect on FE ( about 1-2 mpg loss)
I have the 18" rims with 225/55 tires on my Taurus - any idea if the overall diameter is different than the 17" rims? I don't know what tire size the 17" rims come with. That might account for the disparity in calculated rpm at 80mph and what I'm seeing on the tach. I'd guess I'm at around 2150rpm at 80mph, (which is "around 2k rpm" for me).
Pirelli does not list either the overall diameter for your tire or the revs per mile. Is that your brand? That brand is what TireRack lists as OEM for the 2008 Taurus FWD LTD model.
For other brands, you can use anywhere between 746 and 750 revs per mile for that size.
This tire would indeed be bigger in overall diameter than the 215-60-17s listed for the SEL models. Those tires are 767 revs per mile.
Perhaps you are on to something. That is a considerable difference in tire diameter. Do you know for sure what the overall gear ratio is for your car when it is in overdrive 6th gear?
Evidently Buick is dropping the 3.8 liter engine in favor of the 3.9 liter as the base V6 engine for the 2009 Lucerne. Any comments? Does this make the V6 Lucerne a more viable option, with the roughly 30 hp improvement over the 3.8?
IMO its not that big of an improvement. The MPG should be similar, (using the Impala's #s) however the highway # comes with the use of cylinder deactivation. The 3.9 is also a dated OHV design, at least it has VVT. Like joe97 said GMs 3.6 is the better option here, however, I read somewhere that the 3.6 is not setup to be installed where the Lucerne is being built. IMO if they aren't putting the 3.6 in, keep the 3800 at the very least the Buick lovers will be happy as that engine has a following so to speak. Bulletproof it is... rough, noisy and underpowered in todays standards... that too.
Like I said, if you brought the Genesis out with NO badging on it and sat folks in it and asked them to give their opinion of what the car should be worth...
This should be done, and then the final test is to smash them into a brick wall.
The 3.9 in the Lucerne should make somewhere between 227 hp (like in the G6 convertible) and 240 hp (like in the Impala).
As far as the 3.6 liter, it is already used in the Malibu/Aura, CTS, STS, SRX, etc. I wonder if GM needed to 'use up' their supply of 3.9's? The 3.9, being more of a torquey engine, may make more sense in a larger car like the Lucerne.
The Ford website shows the Taurus FWD to have a 3.16 axle ratio and the AWD version to be 2.77. I suspect they printed it backwards. Based on the revs per mile that a tech at my dealer provided me, it makes more sense that the FWD model is the one with the 2.77 axle. The OD gear is .74 so we are looking at about a 2.05 overall top gear.
I stand corrected. Still, that is 36 more hp than the 197 in the Lucerne's 3.8. Consumer Reports clocked a 3.9 liter Impala 0-60 in 7.8 sec, just a hair slower than the 7.5 sec. 0-60 run they got in the Lucerne V8. The Lucerne 3.8 was clocked at 9.2 sec. Do keep in mind, however, that the Impala is slightly lighter than the Lucerne.
Let's say the 3.9 in the Lucerne is good for low-8 0-60 times. That makes it more in line with other makes and closer to the V8 Lucerne, with some benefit with the sticker price and at the pump.
Indeed, not a big deal (233 v. 240) but the big deal is 233 vs. 197. Motor Trend had a 3.8L Lucerne at 8.8 seconds to 60, with the V8 Lucerne at something like 7.2 seconds (I'll have to look it up).
The 3.9 ought to be good for at least 8 seconds, a notable improvement.
UPDATE: Car and Driver quoted the 2006 Lucerne CXS at 6.9 seconds to 60 saying this: From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph.
They also say this about the 2007 Impala LTZ, with the 3.9L.
Its 233 horsepower is enough to giddyap to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, and the 15.6-second quarter-mile pass at 91 mph is respectable for what this car is.
Not a whole lot better with the Northstar, eh? For the record, Consumer Guide tested an Impala LT 3.5L with a curb weight of 3,555 lbs. The Lucerne CXL in the same publication was tested with a curb weight of 3,764 lbs, or about the weight of an extra decent-sized passenger.
shame when GMs (or any mfgrs.) ability to compete is dictated by plants they are contractually obligated to keep open and/or their poor finances dictate an inability to produce enough quantity of a good thing (the 3.6) . Don't think the 3.9 is much better - other than being a proper 60 d. V6, the very thought of that engine (the 3.9) at 5600 rpm (where all the hp is) enough to make me wince just thinking about it. More torque will certainly make any car more driveable, but that projected (and not really class competitive) acceleration comes from that torque as it is applied over time - otherwise known as horsepower The Lucerne has much going for it, although very little under the hood, it looks like it will remain that way - GMs stepchild!
Just because an engine has OHV or other "older" technologies doesn't mean it's rubbish. Often these engines are very reliable and inexpensive to repair because they DO use these simpler technologies.
I'd rather have a more reliable and less costly to repair drivetrain than the type of nonsense that you're seeing recently. $3500-$4000 to fix a transmission? That's robbery. Yet that's what one costs on most Toyotas now. BMW or Audi or any of the others aren't any different, either. A 3800 plus 4 speed - the entire engine and transmission can be replaced for under $3500.
The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.
The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.
It's a shame, because the Lucerne should get this engine and drop the now-behind-the-times Northstar. Tune the engine with the same 275hp/251lb-ft as in the Acadia/Outlook XR and give it a transmission from this side of the ninteen eighties and it might have a fighting chance against the Avalon/Azera/Taurus in the engine room.
Since most of the folks here are primarily new car buyers and owners, it sure would seem silly to pay that much money for anything that is so clearly inferior. Heck, we could go back to the horse and buggy and only have to buy some horseshoes - and hay. The chances of my 05 Avalon having any problems with it for the first 75000 or so are pretty remote - oh wait, it already has - repair costs $0. Your glass must always be half-empty, if you are out buying substandard vehicles because you are worried about tranny repair costs that never happen.
OTH if I was looking to buy a car on a tight budget, didn't care about FE, or driving wallowing whales I'd get in line for that late model Crown Vic you seem to favor. Dirt cheap now - and later - and worth every penny!
There is no difference between under $3500 and $3500 to $4000. For the additional $1K potential tranny cost in the event of a catastrophic failure in 10 year I'd rather be driving a BMW than a Buick.
Try $1200 or less to replace a 4 speed transmission in a Buick(or other GM with one). Yes, the new GM 5-6 speed models are also similarly pricey, so the smart money is on the older 4 speed design.
That's some serious money saved, and last I checked, they are very reliable as all of the bugs have been worked out. It's not a fun car. But it's virtually as reliable as what Toyota or Honda make. Just 1/3 the cost to fix.
The prices you quoted to replace a GM 4 speed tranny is nonsense. My 2001 Impala needed a remanufactured tranny at less than 40K miles (bought brand new) and I was quoted $3500 plus taxes. This is in Canada at a GM dealership (could have gone elsewhere but given a 3 year warranty if I went with GM) but it shouldn't be that much less in the US. Maybe 25% cheaper at the most.
I guess it all depends if one goes to the dealer or not. When my tranny went on my '96 Camry the dealer wanted $2300, Aamco wanted $2200 and I ended up taking it to a shop that deals with foreign cars and got it done for $1800 and it came with a 1-yr warranty as well. The guy even replaced my rear engine seal at no extra labor charge since he had the tranny dropped already.
Well, let's see.. Canada at the time was charging what... 30% extra for money conversion and import fees and gouging and...
I can get the transmission replaced on a LeSabre/etc from that era for no more than $1500 in any major city IF I bypass the dealer and shop around for even an hour or so.
I did note that the new GM 5-6 speed models are now 3-4K like Toyota. Ouch.
I would guess that the GM trany cost more because it's new and few if any rebuilds are available yet. If you price a new transmission from any mfg. you will always pay more.
Comments
One, I fill it the best I can, and then, make a second purchase by cash another 1.5 gallons and with the pump running slowing for the last 1/4 of a gallon or so, I am able to get it all in.
Or, I just wait after it does the automatic stop, give it a few seconds and then slowly try and fill it. Some pumps will let you do this more easily than others. If someone has a better solution, I am all ears.
BTW, based on using old method and computer, I find my computer to show about .1 mpg less than manual method, which is certainly good enough for me.
Another kind of interesting thing about the Azera fuel computer is that when you are driving and your average mpg goes up (long downhill down a mountain, constant 55 mph , etc.) the miles to empty does not readjust up, the display simply stays where it is until your fuel reaches the point where the miles start to drop again based on the new average fuel economy. It is sometimes very interesting to drive 10 miles and see the miles to empty never change. My 07 Azera does not have an instant FE reading, only an average.
As far as Toyota being the ONLY one - hasn't BMW been using the same technology in their 'double-Vanos' straight sixes even longer than Toyota? VW in their 280hp 3.5 Passat engine, MB in their C350?? I was surprised to see BMW have to resort to turbocharging in the new 335 though, simply to produce the same sort of naturally aspirated power you have in your IS already. Guess that in itself speaks volumes about the techinical superiority of the 2GR.
trips on two-lane roads at lower speeds and gotten 33-34 MPG. On her daily commute
of 50/50 city and freeway, grocery shopping, etc. it averages around 24-25 MPG.
The tall overdrive in 6th gear really helps fuel economy on the highway. The
engine is powerful enough to prevent unwanted downshifts on hills, too"
"The Taurus has a 3.16 axle ratio and a .74 OD for a final drive
of 2.34. At 75 MPH, it is turning around 2000 RPM" :confuse:
Using your figures which BTW I am unable to verify for a 2008 Taurus, we find
that with the standard tire, a Continental ContiTouringContact
CT95, size 215/60TR17 turns 767 revs per mile.
3.16 X 0.74 X 767 equals 1794 revs per mile at 60 mph. Indeed, rather 'tall' gearing.
1794 divided by 60 equals 29.89 revs per one mph.
Taking that further, we find that:
75 mph will be 2241 RPM
80 mph will be 2391 RPM
I do not see how this vehicle turning those revs will achieve those high
average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds. :confuse:
Avalon is the same, but my wife's 5 year old Altima OTH does 'adjust up'. One other thing that I'd like to see changed on the Avalon, the 'average MPG' resets itself every time you fill up and sometimes will even reset itself when it 'thinks' it's getting filled up - gas sloshing around in the tank or parking on a slope. Makes it impossible to keep track of FE on a long multiple fill-up trip - unless you do it manually. Have found the computer FE to generally be closer than the calculated method, especially if I'm not the one 'breaking the rules' and filling the gas up the filler neck.
Different tuning and almost 40 extra hp (268 vs 306). The FSE is tuned for performance driving and FE is tuned for smoothness and efficiency.
why wouldn't Toyota put the DI in the Avalon and increase the FE advantage it already has in this class?
Cost my captain, cost!!
'double-Vanos'
I think double VANOS is about the intake valves like Honda's i-VTEC and Toyota's i VVT. I was talking about the fuel injecting technology, those two are totally different animals. Actually the DI technology is nothing new, it has been used on diesel engines since like forever, it has been used on gasoline engines earlier too but only becomes popular recently. However, so far I don't know what other engine(s) uses the duel injection technology like Toyota did with the 2GR-FSE.
80 mph will be 2391 RPM
now we are getting a bit more technical aren't we? These numbers BTW almost identical to what I see in my Avalon BTW and what I would guess is very typical for these drivetrains.Had a hard time with 80mph at 2000 rpm!
I'm sure it is not free - however I'm sure you've probably read the articles about the development of the 2GR and also know that Toyota is saving literally billions of dollars making a far better engine then before. If I remember right something to the tune of a grand saved PER ENGINE - you wouldn't think a set of Nippondenso injectors would even approach that?
The primary disadvantages of direct injection engines are complexity and cost. Direct injection systems are more expensive to build because their components must be more rugged -- they handle fuel at significantly higher pressures than indirect injection systems and the injectors themselves must be able to withstand the heat and pressure of combustion inside the cylinder.
Source: Direct Fuel Injection
Looks like it's not just a set of Nippondenso injectors...
if it makes you feel any better - Gulf States down here in Texas does the same thing (GST and SET are the only 2 independent Toyota distributors left apparently) - and it STILL is almost impossible to find an Avalon down here without that kinda extra markup in it and that's after the car has been available for more than 3 years. A testament to how well the car sells perhaps but a definite disadvantage when dealing with those that are so conscious of initial prices.
Perhaps you should create a 2GR Forum.
yep from the sound of this article its a set of really high quality injectors - and a few extra lines in a computer program. Still not convinced that DI doesn't cost a bit of gas though - understanding of course that a IS350 better damn well be geared differently than a 'mere' Avalon. One of these cars can do so much more than the other , can't it?
The BMW 335i has a 3.0L engine and has 300 lbs/ft of torque @ 1400 rpm while the Lexus 3.5L has 277@4800 rpm.
Plus, the BMW 335i is under-rated with having 300HP after some have found out after taking the car to a dyno where it was rated at 300 RWHP.
HYUNDAI AZERA NAMED A CONSUMERS' TOP RATED SEDAN BY EDMUNDS.COM
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF., 05/29/2008 The 2008 Hyundai Azera was awarded the “Consumers’ Top Rated Vehicle Award” in the $15,000 - $25,000 sedan category by Edmunds.com’s visitors. The 2008 Azera received the average highest rating from the site’s audience as of April 30, 2008.
“This recognition further reinforces our brand philosophy on how smart consumers think about premium sedans,” said Scott Margason, national manager, Product Development at Hyundai Motor America. “Clearly, the Azera raises the bar by combining safety, luxury and value like no other vehicle in its segment. Consumers who want full-size sedan features, a smooth and powerful engine and a comfortable ride will be pleased with the Azera.”
Edmunds.com tabulated the results for 21 award categories by evaluating the feedback of thousands of site visitors. Awards were given for coupes, convertibles, sedans, wagons, SUVs, trucks, minivan/vans and hybrids. Edmunds.com’s editors agree that Azera is a great choice for consumers looking for a family sedan with luxurious touches at an affordable price.
More and more customers are discovering the Hyundai Azera’s advantages. Enhanced design and convenience features, together with a comprehensive standard active and passive safety technology package, render the 2008 Azera a solid alternative to vehicles like the Lexus ES350, Toyota Avalon and Nissan Maxima. Spacious and luxurious, the Azera features more interior volume than more expensive luxury sedans, such as the Mercedes Benz E-Class and BMW 7-Series. Couple this with its continued accolades from independent automotive studies across the board and there’s no question that Azera is one of the smartest premium large sedan choices available in the American marketplace today.
average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds.
And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about.
For what its worth, I obtained the speed per 1000 RPM that I quoted earlier from a shop manual. Checking a few auto magazines who publish such information, I found some variance in the published numbers. The axle ratio and OD ratio are accurate although rounded a tad but I have no quarrel with your math. The only variable I can think of would be tire pressure that could ever so slightly impact overall diameter and revs per mile.
In any case, I think we agree that the Taurus gearing in top gear is higher than most and that helps steady cruise FE. Where it becomes a detriment, IMO, is in heavier AWD vehicles like the Ford Edge which is 600 Lbs heavier than a FWD Taurus. They have way too much of a tendency to downshift on slight hills or even going into a headwind. I have heard reports that the AWD Taurus even has some trouble maintaining that high top gear in hilly situations. The old Ford 500 with the 3.0 certainly did. I am only guessing now but that may be part of the reason the AWD Taurus has a 24 MPG highway rating while the FWD model is 28.
true enough, turbocharging especially in the dual stage manner BMW implements it will produce lots of torque available at lower rpms. And yes Bavarian horses have histroically been a larger than Japanese or American ones, but perhaps you are missing the point - given that the BMW straight sixes have always industry leaders, the comment was only that they 'resorted' to turbocharging to get that same sort of power you already have in that naturally aspirated Toyota V6. Nissan also 'resorted' to turbocharging in the V6 powered GTR and managed close to 500hp! Given that Nissan is doing that with a VQ variant V6, guess that would mean that a turbochraged 2GR might be worth what - 600 hp and 500 lb. ft.?
The comment obviously not meant to diss BMW's wonderful engines at all- only to point out what an accomplishment that particular Japanese engine is.
That's true to be sure. Why would I want to go out and waste money renting
any Taurus when I already have a better beautiful Azera in my garage?
Steady speed results you say? Yet you admit making a long interstate trip
cross -country. Must be hard to keep your car at steady state speeds?
Never stopping all that way for gas or to eat or rest stops?
Your mileage figures could not have been at steady state speeds either but "overall results." I say that such high figures are perhaps possible at a lower steady speeds of 65 mph or less, but not going cross country at such high speeds with occasional stops along the way.
When any vehicle is pulling such tall gearing, going over a certain speed will decrease your
mileage as you go faster. You do not get higher mileage at faster speeds, but less mileage.
As far as tire diameter, etc. I got my figures from the tire manufactures charts.
Any differences because of tire pressure would be difficult to measure
and impossible to measure when figuring fuel economy.
Must be some shop manual that gives speed per 1000 rpm. I have never seen
such figures in any shop manual that I have had in the last 60 years!
I did not quote MPG for a cross country trip or overall results for a weekend trip! Minneapolis to Des Moines is a 4 hour jaunt. No, I don't need to stop on a short trip like that and I certainly did not need gas or food. Pulling on the Interstate in Minneapolis, setting the cruise at 77 MPH, pressing the MPG reset button, and driving to the Des Moines area is my idea of steady speed cruising. Did I ever have to touch the brake to slow down or step on the accelerator to speed up? Yes, a few times of course! Would the mileage have been lower if I included the mileage while driving around Des Moines and other little towns visiting relatives? Of course it would have been lower! Had I set the cruise at 60 instead of 77, would the mileage have been better? No doubt about it! 90 instead of 77, would it have been worse? No question about that, either!
That is all the information that I have for you. Thanks for your interest in the Taurus.
BTW, I had a Camry that had instant MPG read out. Found it basically useless and also very distracting, as in dangerous.
Several personally directed posts have been removed. Let's move on, please.
Regards
I used both computer and gas station estimate and they are in my case are almost same. I reset computer @ a gas station few miles from highway. I can only imagine my FE if I did it once I reached my cruising speed. I also try to keep 59-64 constant speed AC or open windows have small effect on FE ( about 1-2 mpg loss)
Is that your brand?
That brand is what TireRack lists as OEM for the 2008 Taurus FWD LTD model.
For other brands, you can use anywhere between 746 and 750 revs per mile for that size.
This tire would indeed be bigger in overall diameter than the 215-60-17s listed for the SEL models.
Those tires are 767 revs per mile.
Perhaps you are on to something. That is a considerable difference in tire diameter.
Do you know for sure what the overall gear ratio is for your car when it is in overdrive 6th gear?
The question to beg, why not the 3.6L V6?
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
This should be done, and then the final test is to smash them into a brick wall.
The cars, or the folks?
"You don't always get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get less."
As far as the 3.6 liter, it is already used in the Malibu/Aura, CTS, STS, SRX, etc. I wonder if GM needed to 'use up' their supply of 3.9's? The 3.9, being more of a torquey engine, may make more sense in a larger car like the Lucerne.
The Ford website shows the Taurus FWD to have a 3.16 axle ratio and the AWD version to be 2.77. I suspect they printed it backwards. Based on the revs per mile that a tech at my dealer provided me, it makes more sense that the FWD model is the one with the 2.77 axle. The OD gear is .74 so we are looking at about a 2.05 overall top gear.
Let's say the 3.9 in the Lucerne is good for low-8 0-60 times. That makes it more in line with other makes and closer to the V8 Lucerne, with some benefit with the sticker price and at the pump.
The 3.9 ought to be good for at least 8 seconds, a notable improvement.
UPDATE: Car and Driver quoted the 2006 Lucerne CXS at 6.9 seconds to 60 saying this:
From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph.
They also say this about the 2007 Impala LTZ, with the 3.9L.
Its 233 horsepower is enough to giddyap to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, and the 15.6-second quarter-mile pass at 91 mph is respectable for what this car is.
Not a whole lot better with the Northstar, eh? For the record, Consumer Guide tested an Impala LT 3.5L with a curb weight of 3,555 lbs. The Lucerne CXL in the same publication was tested with a curb weight of 3,764 lbs, or about the weight of an extra decent-sized passenger.
I'd rather have a more reliable and less costly to repair drivetrain than the type of nonsense that you're seeing recently. $3500-$4000 to fix a transmission? That's robbery. Yet that's what one costs on most Toyotas now. BMW or Audi or any of the others aren't any different, either. A 3800 plus 4 speed - the entire engine and transmission can be replaced for under $3500.
The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.
It's a shame, because the Lucerne should get this engine and drop the now-behind-the-times Northstar. Tune the engine with the same 275hp/251lb-ft as in the Acadia/Outlook XR and give it a transmission from this side of the ninteen eighties and it might have a fighting chance against the Avalon/Azera/Taurus in the engine room.
OTH if I was looking to buy a car on a tight budget, didn't care about FE, or driving wallowing whales I'd get in line for that late model Crown Vic you seem to favor. Dirt cheap now - and later - and worth every penny!
That's some serious money saved, and last I checked, they are very reliable as all of the bugs have been worked out. It's not a fun car. But it's virtually as reliable as what Toyota or Honda make. Just 1/3 the cost to fix.
Average cost for repair:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1992-to-1999-buick-lesabre-2.htm
$1045
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2005-to-2007-toyota-avalon-6.htm
$3410
Dang. That's some serious money. Three GM transmissions for the price of one from Toyota.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2002-to-2006-toyota-camry-6.htm
The older 4 speed Camry transmission also was fairly inexpensive to fix.
My 2001 Impala needed a remanufactured tranny at less than 40K miles (bought brand new) and I was quoted $3500 plus taxes. This is in Canada at a GM dealership (could have gone elsewhere but given a 3 year warranty if I went with GM) but it shouldn't be that much less in the US. Maybe 25% cheaper at the most.
I can get the transmission replaced on a LeSabre/etc from that era for no more than $1500 in any major city IF I bypass the dealer and shop around for even an hour or so.
I did note that the new GM 5-6 speed models are now 3-4K like Toyota. Ouch.
It does now, but actually in 2006 it had 242 hp. Not sure why the decrease.
It's due to the new SAE standard, the engine output is still the same.
Same thing happened to the Avalon as it dropped to 268hp.
A few examples:
Acura TL - 270hp to 258hp
Nissan Maxima - 265hp to 255hp
Honda Odyssey - 255hp to 244hp
Toyota Corolla - 130hp to 126hp
Mazda 3s - 160hp to 156hp