Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
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.