once again I think you miss the point - it all has to do with a car doing what you want and need it to do as opposed to the car making many of those decisions. For many drivers out there, there is nothing better than to be able to downshift 'engine brake' into a corner and then use that lower gear to accelerate through and out of that corner. That 'twisties' comment made by a previous poster is right on, there is no contest. Those folks that enjoy the freedoms of having that kind of control will likely never get any sort of pleasure out of things like CVTs or even shiftable slush boxes. These folks are not even 'odd' , they just enjoy driving in a traditional sense, put more value in a car's dynamic capabilities, and generally look with some disdain at anything that inhibits their abilities to control what a car does. BTW, sounds like you really should be driving that Maxima, while it is also not a 'sports sedan', it does have the power and responsiveness of one - and then you can legitimately 'blow by' about whoever you want and still you won't have to deal with those nasty shifts.
As an ex-biker with a Ducati (among many), I can appreciate the experience of powering through the 'twisties.' As a seasonal visitor in the Phoenix area, I find that far too many thrill seekers make their own curves by lane-changing at unreasonable speeds amid congested freeway traffic. Commuter travel is not the appropriate venue for would-be racers. Those interested in displaying driving prowess would be well-advised to take it to the track or, at least, relatively deserted back roads. If not for their sake, to preserve their prospective victims...
I had and have driven many automatics over the years, including a few that were very nice(my favorite being a Volvo 164E) And while they are good in traffic, in mountain roads, it's dreadful. My Buick(beater mobile - couldn't kill it if I tried - still running around somewhere) was automatic and while it had more than enough power to run up a hill, the second you crested the hill, you had to let off the gas and pretty much let it coast.
We have a lot of these sweeping curves in California. Instead of going up a hill, they do this wave-like motion as they snake up the side of a mountain. So you get to the top of a rise and then you are going downhill for a while as you go back towards the mountain - then back up again.
And automatics all act the same - you can't power up the hill and keep it at 4000rpm because you'll end up going 80mph on the downhill part. So you let off and - it drops into overdrive or the highest gear possible - then 3 seconds later, you're at the curve and it needs to get into 2nd gear from 4th. Cue nasty shift and massive transfer of weight due to it right at the apex of the curve(ow). Your momentum just evaporated and so you lug up the hill on torque alone(ie - better have a 3.0L something or larger) Rinse, repeat.
With a stickshift, I just leave it in third gear and happily let it rev between 2000 and 4000 rpm.
Coming down is even more of a mismatch, though. Unless you manually lock your automatic in 2nd, you're going to be essentially in neutral and working off of brakes alone, since there's zero engine braking at 1200-1400rpm in overdrive(or torque coverter locked up - same difference). Me? I just again, leave it in third(covers about 30-50mph on my current vehicle) and let it happily rev up and down as needed - sometimes not even shifting for miles at a time.
Of course, the trick is to learn to apply this to city and highway driving. I shift my 5-speed far less than the automatic ever shifted on its own on my way to work. Maybe ten shifts on a 12 mile commute through L.A. My Buick - it was constantly hunting between third and fourth every 30 seconds.
While I agree with all the comments about DRIVING vs. controlling a transportation appliance, I don't get the issue you had with automatics and the mountains/hills. You did mention you dropped it into a lower gear and although a slush box isn't as positive, I would've guessed it was close enough in the rolling hills. Maybe there was something that didn't come through in the text. I'm not really arguing, just observing. I agree with all the drivers out there.
Well, it's not rolling hills. Imagine a mountain - the road is climbing up the side - so it goes along the side, in and out until it hits one major outcropping/spine and then runs back down along the other side. Excapt it goes down when it cuts back and up heading towards the spine(kind of like a wave - up a lot, down a litle, up some more...)
The problem is when you are going downhill and have to make a quick run uphill right in the middle of a turn - or the exact opposite. Unless you manually lock the automatic into gear, it's going to lock up the torque converter the first chance it gets. The automatic will spin down to nothing as fast as it can while the manual is happily revving at near maximum torque - so a much smaller engine is required to do the job. And the engine never hesitates or has to shift.
eg: try to get a GM 4 speed auto to go 4000rpm without manually locking it into 2nd gear. It's almost impossible to drive that way, so you're stuck with about 130-140useable HP during normal driving, if that.
A good 5 or 6 speed - always easy to keep it revved near its optimal range if you want. Much quicker to spin up as well in city traffic.
once again I think you miss the point - it all has to do with a car doing what you want and need it to do as opposed to the car making many of those decisions.
The thing is, the CVT on my Freestyle and Five Hundred DO seem to do what I'd do . . or close enough for me.
For many drivers out there, there is nothing better than to be able to downshift 'engine brake' into a corner and then use that lower gear to accelerate through and out of that corner.
If I lay off the accelerator going into a turn, and then get on the accelerator coming out of it, this is exactly what it feels like the CVT is doing. Obviously it's a bit difficult to actually verify this, as I have no way of knowing what gear the vehicle is in at any given moment.
I can appreciate the experience of powering through the 'twisties.' As a seasonal visitor in the Phoenix area, I find that far too many thrill seekers make their own curves by lane-changing at unreasonable speeds amid congested freeway traffic. Commuter travel is not the appropriate venue for would-be racers.
I agree. I've seen too many people pull out of the slow lane and NOT accelerate fast enough, causing those behind them (in the faster lane) to have to hit the brakes. That annoys me to no end.
Not only do you need to make sure you can accelerate fast enough to keep those behind you from having to slow down, you also need to be able to suddenly brake if required for those pulling out in front of you.
While I say I "blow by" many cars on a routine basis, I don't make a habit of whipping between lanes trying to pass cars up where I end up having to tailgate the guy in front of me until a car+10% gap opens up for me to switch lanes again.
I don't consider manu-matics to be a very good compromise, either, though they can work reasonably well at times.
Until they decide to override you/out-think you. And most automatics now lock up the torque converter reguardless of the gear you are in once you hit 40mph or so. Great for MPG tests, but lousy when you are having to dodge traffic.
A proper CVT without a torque converter, though - probably the ideal compromise.(though most all have a torque converter and are essentially fancy one-speed automatics as a result.
I have no way of knowing what gear the vehicle is in at any given moment. this is exactly the problem - the CAR is making that decision! While the CVT will 'downshift' slightly with a speed decrease (this being a function of keeping the engine at some sort of predetermined peak HP/torque efficiency level), it will not allow for any significant amount of engine braking, this type of thing being contrary to any sort of FE priorities in the controlling computer program. You are left with the accelerator and the brakes as your primary means to control anything, in any case.
BUT, as more folks experience the alternative, these newer 5 speed+ (sometimes reticient) 'traditional' autos - I can understand why many buyers prefer the CVT especially in vehicle classes such as this. And I can also understand those 'odd' buyers (by your definition) out there that would logically object to them. Viva le Appliance, it does seem to be where we are heading!
Having both an 06 Avalon Limited and an 01 Vette, I know that the Ford 500, while a roomy and nice looking car, is too under powered and in NO circumstance could it out run our Avalon, much less a Vettte that does 0-60 in 5 seconds. Ford is coming out with a 3.5 liter engine--hopefully, it will have some "guts" and still get decent mileage. And we wonder why the foreign cars are "kicking our butt's!!" I burn 87 Octane in the Avalon and get 26+ driving around the Ozarks and 31 MPG + on trips to Texas. Tried 93 Octane both going to and back from texas and 32.7 was the best MPG. Never figured that it was worth the extra cost for 93 Octane. Bob
I know that the Ford 500, while a roomy and nice looking car, is too under powered and this would be Ford's problem is selling the car in any sort of significant volumes - it is a good 'fleet car' which is where I suspect a good portion of those 'sales' are. HP is HP, however, and if (and when) Ford can finally get 265 ponies in the 500, it should help. Have read reviews to the effect that the 3.5 is little more than a bored/stroked 3.0 - with similar roughness/reluctance, guess we'll see. To be fair though it is a problem shared with the Optima and the Lucerne 3.8. I've said it before - given a choice between power and economy - buyers want BOTH, something the 'American' brands do have trouble with.
The CVT is the smoothest thing out there. Try driving on very hilly terraine with a traditional automatic. Then, drive in a CVT and you will be very pleased with the CVT. No shocks at all from gear hunting and the ratio is always right!! Say that a cars 2nd gear ends at 65mph at 6500rpm. When it changes to 3rd, the rpm is now at 4000, but the steep hill you are trying to tackle requires a higer rpm for extra power. Well guess what? If you had a CVT something like this will never happen because at any given time you have the disposal to run the engine near redline at any given moment.
You know, the old 1987 Buick Lesabre I had did the exact same thing driving around the Midwest when I was on trips out there.
I'd gladly swap half of that power for decent gas mileage. All they've managed to do is give us more HP but not one bit better economy. We still are filling up after the same number of days driving as we were twenty years ago - and It's getting old, fast.
All they've managed to do is give us more HP but not one bit better economy. not true, I'd like you to name one older car, including your 87 LeSabre, that would get highway mileage well into the mid 30's and overall mileages in the high 20s in a 3600 lb (the LeSabre at that time smaller and significantly lighter with less safety equipment and 'bling') full size sedan. You can buy one right now, from Toyota! I fill my Avalon up every 7-10 days, driving about 450 miles on 16 gallons (or so) of gas. And further, if you really want to explore the world of appliances, there is, of course, the TCH - about the same (interior) size as that LeSabre, quicker, and tickle the bejeepers out of 40 mpg.. Or maybe you mean that "Detroit" is not making any progress, which is true, how would you expect anything different when what they put in their cars today dates back at least that far!
I was on a market a year ago looking for a large sedan. in my opinion at that time (2005) maxima was the best of all worlds for the price. fully loaded except for navigation and elite package for 25600 new While Avalon was nice, its hesitated and what's with rear seats moving few degrees, who needs it? 300c- nice looks and thats all. Horrible reliability and FE. Ford 500- do I need a car that I need to fix or repair daily and so underpowered. V6 Accord- nice, reliable but where is its power v6 Sonata- nice but previous unreliability hurts caddilac CTS- nice, test drove - loved it, but once you option this car- it becomes really expensive. pontiac g6- nice car, however 3.5 v6 in 05 was underpowered and 3.9 consumed too much gas Infinity g35- nice but expensive. plus AWD burns too much gas and rwd is scary in the winter
alex- while I'll grant you that 10 degrees or so of rear seat recline doesn't sound like much, it does make a world of difference if you happen to be a full size adult 'stuck' back there. The fold down does disappear on any car with this option (*that I know of), including the 'elite' optioned Maxima. The 25k for the Maxima sounds good, maybe cheaper than a similarily equipped 07 Altima which can get into the 30s pretty quickly. agree generally with your assessments (you didn't mention the Azera), hope you continue to enjoy your Altima.
Hi there, I came across this topic while browsing and thought I would throw in my two cents. I've been casually car shopping and drove both of those on Saturday along with a Honda Accord v6 that left me deeply UNimpressed. I would have to go back and drive them both again before I could begin to pick between them -- they are both really sweet to drive, but feel very different. I don't think anyone can beat Buick for quietness and smoothness, but the new Impalas are giving them a run for the money. I was quite impressed. I think the Impala feels more "sporty" which is what I'm used to as I'm currently driving an Intrepid/RT that's getting up there in years. (Hence the casual car shopping.) Can anyone who has owned either of these cars for a year or so give me feedback about how they are AFTER they've seen a little use? Thanks! Karen
by 1987 definitions, perhaps so - WB, width, and ht., interior volume all about the same - 7" vehicle length and trunk size bigger (no batteries) on the old LeSabre. That particular car did do very well at the gas pump 19/29, thanks to some rather abusive OD gearing (as pletko noted), but still a few mpg short of the Avalon which is slightly larger and hauls around an extra 400 lbs. And it pales in comparison obviously to the TCH which really is what a 'full size' car was 20 years ago. In response to pletko's contention that has been no FE progress, which I believe not to be the case.
I actually have Maxima and I do feel lucky getting fully loaded except for navigation 05 Maxima. it was the end of the year deal and I was buying from dealer's stock. That's why my only choice was silver.
yep the Maxima, had one of those, lasted almost 300k (and 12 years) before it needed a tranny. The 03 Altima is the one I own, 70k and never been in the shop, just recently had to replace the battery though. Wife has got the hots for the 07 Altima, I'm thinking that the Maxima may be a better buy in the higher 20s.
My old Buick *did* get 28-30mpg on the highway, I'm sure it did, taking some advantage of the relatively decent torque that car did have and some really low gearing at highway speeds. And you need to consider how much bigger and heavier cars in this class have gotten. At 20lbs/HP (about the same as that LeSabre), that 180hp Avalon you're asking for, would be a slug and would likely do worse FE wise than the current 268 HP model, the engine would simply have to work too hard.
Karen, I own an '06 Impala SS, my sister owns a 3LT, and my nephew owns a 2LT. Between us, we have all three engines and nearly every option. The only mileage attributable "flaw" may be increased road noise in my SS with 16,000 miles. I believe it's the Goodyear tires (of which I'm not a fan). Other concerns are a problem with range of the FOBs for a which a fix has been promised this month and tire monitor error messages which are also associated with the FOB range issue. One other recurring problem is with the window seals on the front windows "screeching". It seems to be an isolated problem happening only to a few but is easily fixed with some silicone lubricant (although the service departments will repeatedly change the seal if you keep going back). SS owners have complained about fuel economy which doesn't match up to the 28 mpg on the sticker but the going average seems to be 18 mixed and 25 highway. My sister's 3.9L gets 26-27 highway and around 20 mixed. My nephew gets over 30 on the highway with his 3.5L. If there are any other questions, feel free to ask.
CR has the current Sonata at 'average', but it is still too early to tell what this particular car will be doing 3,4 or 5 years from now, it was new in 06. While an 'average' rating is not too bad for a new design, the poster that has apparently got you all upset with something that is historically accurate, 'previous unreliability hurts' - part of that Korean car perception, which may, as you suggest, be unfair, we won't know for a few years yet, research or not - the truth.
Thanks Ron! I'm very impressed with both cars. It's good to hear from someone who has one (or in your case more) of them! I'm also planning to go check out the Saturn Aura, and if I haven't made a decision by then (and I hope I don't have to) I am very curious about the redesigned Malibu. The pictures look very nice. Karen
Karen... given the choice between the impala or a LaCrosse, my personal pick would be the Buick. Not a thing wrong with the Impala, just I think the LaCrosse is much easier on the eye, and is more "plus" inside.. not to mention it's pretty hard to beat the "ride" of a buick... have you considered the Lucerne. Before I bought my 07 Avalon, I had a terrible time choosing between it and the Lucerne. I actually thought the ride on the Buick was much better then that of the Avalon, also, you can get the Lucerne with the V-8 Northstar engine if you want the 275 hp powerplant..... and it will only cost you about 2 grand more. Good luck car shopping.
Hi Roland. Thanks for your input. It is hard to beat the ride of a Buick. My only real hesitation (and again I have to go back and drive them again) is that I thought the LaCrosse was a little smaller inside than I expected, but then I am driving a really big car right now. I have not yet driven the Lucerne, and I definitely will before I make any decision. They are awfully nice! Karen
1 - Please test-drive the LaCrosse CXS. It's worlds better than the other models as it has alloy wheels, better handling, and the same 3.6 engine they put in the CTS(though tuned a bit better, IMO - more low-end torque). Very nice. Drives like a tiny V8 but with V6 gas mileage.
A 2007 CXS with less than 20K on it(ie - still essentially new) - with 9 years on the drivetrain warranty still left, btw, is just over $20K.
2 - Also consider a couple of year used CTS. This is a very nice car and drives well. A 2004 certified model with the 3.6 engine should be well under $20K. To me it seems like a good compromise between the LaCrosse CXS and the Lucerne CXS - but with RWD thrown in as a bonus.
Many thanks for the input! I actually did drive both the Buick CX and CXS and yes, definitely prefer the feel of the CXS. But I'm sorry -- what is a CTS? Is this a Buick or another brand of car?
Sorry - it's the smaller Cadillac. Same 3.6 engine and suspension as the LaCrosse CXS, but with RWD and if you like, stickshift. It's a very good car, used. There is a sport package as well, which ups the suspension a bit, thouth, IMO, it's cheaper to just add aftermarket calipers instead to get the better braking.
IMO, the light green and black look best. It's not a Lexus inside, but the interior isn't bad, either. It took a lot of flak on the interior from the press, but IMO - it's still better than a Buick inside, so as a former 3 time Buick owner, I have no complaints with it. It's a definite step up from what I'm used to.
It's on my personal top 5 list for a far this fall because it drives like a dream and costs way less compared to the competition. You can barely find an IS300 for under $20K, for instance, and something like a used GS300 or E-Class, which are closer competition to the CTS? Not going to happen - not even close.
Speaking of minivans, you do know that Hyundai offers the Shiftronic feature in their new minivan? In my opinion, that is truly a waste of technology there.
Actually plekto, the manu-matic isn't that bad at all for dodging traffic. The key is taking the time to learn how the transmission works and listen for it to tell you when you need to shift to beat it to the punch of thinking for you. In essence, just like driving a stick...only difference is you hang on to a gear too long and the revs get close to redline, you're looking at it shifting for you. In short, you can make it work...just gotta beat it to the punch.
Captain2...if previous unreliability hurts, then the whole vehicle line up would be affected by that statement as everyone knew at some point or another that Hyundai didn't produce the most reliable products covering a pretty good length of time. However, in my opinion (based on my experience) I would say that Hyundai really started turning things around in '02. I had no problems with my '02 Sonata (which I owned for 4 years and put 105K miles on it). Granted, you'll always hear a horror story hear and there, but I think I can honestly say the number of horror stories dropped drastically compared to what the manufacturer was used to. Since then, they've been making huge strides in addressing product reliablity. So as far as recent past goes (4-5 years), I would say that Hyundai is on an upswing. Why do you think Toyota and Honda are so worried? Have you seen the new Honda commercial where a Camry and Sonata are deflated to point out resale value? Notice they aren't attacking Hyundai's reliablity record any more!!!
allmet - in terms of 'turning things around' I believe that you are probably right - but it is still too early to tell. In terms of 'hanging your hat' on an improved Korean vehicle - check out the Azera, not the Sonata. CR currently has it rated higher (much better than average) than the Avalon (improving to (merely) better than average)! Since both the Avalon and Azera were really NEW designs, this does say something about Hyundai's ability to build a better car. You will also get no argument from me concerning the 'Japanese 3' worrying, they ought to be worried, but there is no denying the perceptions that consumers have and how it effects Hyundai, the company's sales prices and resale values? When I do get around to replacing my Avalon, the first place I may visit is a Hyundai dealer, because by then we will likely know how much 'better than average' it really is (or isn't), and I don't give a damn what my neighbors might think when they see that Azera in the driveway! That would be their problem, not mine...
I don't know what car you drive but to me Toyota's manumatic is almost next to worthless. My car comes with paddle shifters and I played with it once then done with it. The 2GR is so good whenever I want to have fun with it I just leave the shifter at D and turn on the power mode. The tranny itself can shift better than 99% of the people out there.
The reasons I don't like Toyota's manumatic are:
1. Can't hold gear - you can only choose the highest gear but it can't hold it.
2. The tranny always tries to "out-think" you whenever you decided to down-shift or up-shift, thus the lag.
Comments
Actually, I do enjoy driving. But not shifting. :P
And given how many "sports sedans" I regularly blow by each day, I must enjoy driving more than the typical driver out there.
BTW, sounds like you really should be driving that Maxima, while it is also not a 'sports sedan', it does have the power and responsiveness of one - and then you can legitimately 'blow by' about whoever you want and still you won't have to deal with those nasty shifts.
thrill seekers make their own curves by lane-changing at unreasonable speeds amid congested freeway traffic. Commuter travel is not the appropriate venue for would-be racers. Those interested in displaying driving prowess would be well-advised
to take it to the track or, at least, relatively deserted back roads. If not for their sake, to preserve their prospective victims...
I had and have driven many automatics over the years, including a few that were very nice(my favorite being a Volvo 164E) And while they are good in traffic, in mountain roads, it's dreadful. My Buick(beater mobile - couldn't kill it if I tried - still running around somewhere) was automatic and while it had more than enough power to run up a hill, the second you crested the hill, you had to let off the gas and pretty much let it coast.
We have a lot of these sweeping curves in California. Instead of going up a hill, they do this wave-like motion as they snake up the side of a mountain. So you get to the top of a rise and then you are going downhill for a while as you go back towards the mountain - then back up again.
And automatics all act the same - you can't power up the hill and keep it at 4000rpm because you'll end up going 80mph on the downhill part. So you let off and - it drops into overdrive or the highest gear possible - then 3 seconds later, you're at the curve and it needs to get into 2nd gear from 4th. Cue nasty shift and massive transfer of weight due to it right at the apex of the curve(ow). Your momentum just evaporated and so you lug up the hill on torque alone(ie - better have a 3.0L something or larger) Rinse, repeat.
With a stickshift, I just leave it in third gear and happily let it rev between 2000 and 4000 rpm.
Coming down is even more of a mismatch, though. Unless you manually lock your automatic in 2nd, you're going to be essentially in neutral and working off of brakes alone, since there's zero engine braking at 1200-1400rpm in overdrive(or torque coverter locked up - same difference). Me? I just again, leave it in third(covers about 30-50mph on my current vehicle) and let it happily rev up and down as needed - sometimes not even shifting for miles at a time.
Of course, the trick is to learn to apply this to city and highway driving. I shift my 5-speed far less than the automatic ever shifted on its own on my way to work. Maybe ten shifts on a 12 mile commute through L.A. My Buick - it was constantly hunting between third and fourth every 30 seconds.
The problem is when you are going downhill and have to make a quick run uphill right in the middle of a turn - or the exact opposite. Unless you manually lock the automatic into gear, it's going to lock up the torque converter the first chance it gets. The automatic will spin down to nothing as fast as it can while the manual is happily revving at near maximum torque - so a much smaller engine is required to do the job. And the engine never hesitates or has to shift.
eg: try to get a GM 4 speed auto to go 4000rpm without manually locking it into 2nd gear. It's almost impossible to drive that way, so you're stuck with about 130-140useable HP during normal driving, if that.
A good 5 or 6 speed - always easy to keep it revved near its optimal range if you want. Much quicker to spin up as well in city traffic.
The thing is, the CVT on my Freestyle and Five Hundred DO seem to do what I'd do . . or close enough for me.
For many drivers out there, there is nothing better than to be able to downshift 'engine brake' into a corner and then use that lower gear to accelerate through and out of that corner.
If I lay off the accelerator going into a turn, and then get on the accelerator coming out of it, this is exactly what it feels like the CVT is doing. Obviously it's a bit difficult to actually verify this, as I have no way of knowing what gear the vehicle is in at any given moment.
I agree. I've seen too many people pull out of the slow lane and NOT accelerate fast enough, causing those behind them (in the faster lane) to have to hit the brakes. That annoys me to no end.
Not only do you need to make sure you can accelerate fast enough to keep those behind you from having to slow down, you also need to be able to suddenly brake if required for those pulling out in front of you.
While I say I "blow by" many cars on a routine basis, I don't make a habit of whipping between lanes trying to pass cars up where I end up having to tailgate the guy in front of me until a car+10% gap opens up for me to switch lanes again.
You can do this with many automatics, though . . you CAN select the gear you want, and it'll only shift out of it if truly required.
Until they decide to override you/out-think you. And most automatics now lock up the torque converter reguardless of the gear you are in once you hit 40mph or so. Great for MPG tests, but lousy when you are having to dodge traffic.
A proper CVT without a torque converter, though - probably the ideal compromise.(though most all have a torque converter and are essentially fancy one-speed automatics as a result.
this is exactly the problem - the CAR is making that decision! While the CVT will 'downshift' slightly with a speed decrease (this being a function of keeping the engine at some sort of predetermined peak HP/torque efficiency level), it will not allow for any significant amount of engine braking, this type of thing being contrary to any sort of FE priorities in the controlling computer program. You are left with the accelerator and the brakes as your primary means to control anything, in any case.
BUT, as more folks experience the alternative, these newer 5 speed+ (sometimes reticient) 'traditional' autos - I can understand why many buyers prefer the CVT especially in vehicle classes such as this. And I can also understand those 'odd' buyers (by your definition) out there that would logically object to them. Viva le Appliance, it does seem to be where we are heading!
and this would be Ford's problem is selling the car in any sort of significant volumes - it is a good 'fleet car' which is where I suspect a good portion of those 'sales' are. HP is HP, however, and if (and when) Ford can finally get 265 ponies in the 500, it should help. Have read reviews to the effect that the 3.5 is little more than a bored/stroked 3.0 - with similar roughness/reluctance, guess we'll see. To be fair though it is a problem shared with the Optima and the Lucerne 3.8. I've said it before - given a choice between power and economy - buyers want BOTH, something the 'American' brands do have trouble with.
I'd gladly swap half of that power for decent gas mileage. All they've managed to do is give us more HP but not one bit better economy. We still are filling up after the same number of days driving as we were twenty years ago - and It's getting old, fast.
not true, I'd like you to name one older car, including your 87 LeSabre, that would get highway mileage well into the mid 30's and overall mileages in the high 20s in a 3600 lb (the LeSabre at that time smaller and significantly lighter with less safety equipment and 'bling') full size sedan. You can buy one right now, from Toyota! I fill my Avalon up every 7-10 days, driving about 450 miles on 16 gallons (or so) of gas. And further, if you really want to explore the world of appliances, there is, of course, the TCH - about the same (interior) size as that LeSabre, quicker, and tickle the bejeepers out of 40 mpg.. Or maybe you mean that "Detroit" is not making any progress, which is true, how would you expect anything different when what they put in their cars today dates back at least that far!
in my opinion at that time (2005) maxima was the best of all worlds for the price. fully loaded except for navigation and elite package for 25600 new
While Avalon was nice, its hesitated and what's with rear seats moving few degrees, who needs it?
300c- nice looks and thats all. Horrible reliability and FE.
Ford 500- do I need a car that I need to fix or repair daily and so underpowered.
V6 Accord- nice, reliable but where is its power
v6 Sonata- nice but previous unreliability hurts
caddilac CTS- nice, test drove - loved it, but once you option this car- it becomes really expensive.
pontiac g6- nice car, however 3.5 v6 in 05 was underpowered and 3.9 consumed too much gas
Infinity g35- nice but expensive. plus AWD burns too much gas and rwd is scary in the winter
I'd gladly take a 180HP Avalon that got 40MPG highway instead.
I'm sure it did, taking some advantage of the relatively decent torque that car did have and some really low gearing at highway speeds. And you need to consider how much bigger and heavier cars in this class have gotten. At 20lbs/HP (about the same as that LeSabre), that 180hp Avalon you're asking for, would be a slug and would likely do worse FE wise than the current 268 HP model, the engine would simply have to work too hard.
I own an '06 Impala SS, my sister owns a 3LT, and my nephew owns a 2LT. Between us, we have all three engines and nearly every option.
The only mileage attributable "flaw" may be increased road noise in my SS with 16,000 miles. I believe it's the Goodyear tires (of which I'm not a fan). Other concerns are a problem with range of the FOBs for a which a fix has been promised this month and tire monitor error messages which are also associated with the FOB range issue. One other recurring problem is with the window seals on the front windows "screeching". It seems to be an isolated problem happening only to a few but is easily fixed with some silicone lubricant (although the service departments will repeatedly change the seal if you keep going back).
SS owners have complained about fuel economy which doesn't match up to the 28 mpg on the sticker but the going average seems to be 18 mixed and 25 highway. My sister's 3.9L gets 26-27 highway and around 20 mixed. My nephew gets over 30 on the highway with his 3.5L.
If there are any other questions, feel free to ask.
Ron
and it will only cost you about 2 grand more. Good luck car shopping.
Roland
1 - Please test-drive the LaCrosse CXS. It's worlds better than the other models as it has alloy wheels, better handling, and the same 3.6 engine they put in the CTS(though tuned a bit better, IMO - more low-end torque). Very nice. Drives like a tiny V8 but with V6 gas mileage.
A 2007 CXS with less than 20K on it(ie - still essentially new) - with 9 years on the drivetrain warranty still left, btw, is just over $20K.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=215614277
That's their asking price. I'm sure they didn't pay even $20K for it at auction, so there's still someroom for haggling.
2 - Also consider a couple of year used CTS. This is a very nice car and drives well. A 2004 certified model with the 3.6 engine should be well under $20K. To me it seems like a good compromise between the LaCrosse CXS and the Lucerne CXS - but with RWD thrown in as a bonus.
Many thanks for the input! I actually did drive both the Buick CX and CXS and yes, definitely prefer the feel of the CXS. But I'm sorry -- what is a CTS? Is this a Buick or another brand of car?
Karen
IMO, the light green and black look best. It's not a Lexus inside, but the interior isn't bad, either. It took a lot of flak on the interior from the press, but IMO - it's still better than a Buick inside, so as a former 3 time Buick owner, I have no complaints with it. It's a definite step up from what I'm used to.
It's on my personal top 5 list for a far this fall because it drives like a dream and costs way less compared to the competition. You can barely find an IS300 for under $20K, for instance, and something like a used GS300 or E-Class, which are closer competition to the CTS? Not going to happen - not even close.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=212588925
Ugly color, but quite affordable
Softer, yes, better well thats subjective. If you preferred the ride of the Lucerne, what was the deciding factor that sold you on the Avalon?
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
When I do get around to replacing my Avalon, the first place I may visit is a Hyundai dealer, because by then we will likely know how much 'better than average' it really is (or isn't), and I don't give a damn what my neighbors might think when they see that Azera in the driveway! That would be their problem, not mine...
The reasons I don't like Toyota's manumatic are:
1. Can't hold gear - you can only choose the highest gear but it can't hold it.
2. The tranny always tries to "out-think" you whenever you decided to down-shift or up-shift, thus the lag.
Recently purchased an Avalon for a family friend and that's why I am here.