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
Well...here is where the arguement can start. The 3 cubic feet extra the XG supposedly had over the Sonata...was NOT noticable. I test drove both vehicles and I can assure you...it didn't seem any roomier than the Sonata. The difference between the hp and torque between the XG and the Sonata was not hugely significant at all. Another reason why the XG wasn't worth the extra money over the Sonata.
You can believe what you want, maybe you're biased as a former XG owner and maybe I'm biased as a former Sonata owner, but I test drove both and the XG didn't bring enough to the table to sway me to get it over the Sonata...it just didn't.
The look of the XG, while somewhat unique...was also quite awkward. The Sonata styling immediately brought one to think of a Jag (thus mine was nicknamed Baby Jag). And yes, the XG actually came out before the body style of the Sonata changed and I looked at the XG first. So it wasn't about having my mind set on the Sonata.
Opinions differ. I'll live with that, hope you will too.
2005 models:
XG 350
194 HP at 5500 RPM
216 torque at 3500 RPM
Sonata
170 HP at 6000 RPM
181 torque at 4000 RPM
well, of course and exactly right - and even in your Azera that system will always come back on when you start the car. So therefore, it is always on - except in those rare cases, maybe on a snowy day, that you conciously turn it off. Under 'normal circumstances' it had better not interfere, then you really would be losing control of your car to a computer, wouldn't you?
In the Sonata 'test' I did myself - a tight 20mph posted traffic circle, the car would comfortably get around it at 55 mph with some tire squeal and a lot of understeer with the system off. Trying it with the system on, 10 mph less, as the VSC applied the brakes (actually just one brake I think) and cut the throttle for me.
Opinions differ. I'll live with that, hope you will too.
Performance specs from Edmunds Comparison tests:
XG 350 beat 2 out of 3 competitors in the races.
Sonata was a distant 5th place loser in its 5 car comparison test.
XG 350
3.5 liters motor
194 HP at 5500 RPM
216 torque at 3500 RPM
7.7 seconds 0-60 MPH
15.9 seconds 1/4 mile
127 ft. 60-0 braking
60.6 mph slalom
18/26 city/hwy EPA MPG
Sonata
2.7 liters motor
170 HP at 6000 RPM
181 torque at 4000 RPM
9.1 seconds 0-60 MPH
16.8 seconds 1/4 mile
132 ft. 60-0 braking
60.0 mph slalom
19/27 city/hwy EPA MPG
XG 350 soundly beat 2 out of 3 competitors in races.
Sonata was a distant 5th place loser in its 5 car comparison test.
The early Kia Amanti was truly a slug. Look it up. Really slow and handles like a fat sow compared the hot rod XG 350. Hahaha!
The called it the perfect car for the head of state of an emerging 3rd world country. Too funny! But an accurate assessment. It is very luxurious in its old world styling and large number of upscale features. And it has a very smooth, quiet ride too.
During the last couple years it was sold, the XG was advertised new for under $18,000 in Sunday papers of cities across the U.S.
Yep, yep...The XG was a good budget limo!
Hahahaha!
But it's a GREAT thing to see if you carefully WAIT for the deals to be had.
My salary will go up again.
The only reason ABS is needed is because every other yayhoo out there has it . . and they USE it to "stop on a dime", instead of driving responsibly.
These idiots will actually SPEED UP to approach a plainly visible wall of red tail lights in front of them, to then slame on the brakes.
But it DOES shorten stopping distance for those who prefer to slam on their brakes.
Actually, in many vehicles, you can't really completely turn off the ESC. All you can can do is "turn it down" somewhat.
Most people know that they are not likely to win many debates by using absolutes in conjunction with each other, such as claiming nothing, all, anyone and other such words strung together. It just backs you into a corner with no escape route. And it only takes one little example to prove you wrong.
If you want to you can go argue with the editors of Consumer Digest, but it won't help. They described it as a cheap limo too.
Here's something said by a guy who knew a little about debate and how to persuade others: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. -- Abraham Lincoln
The problem, though, is people who USE that ability routinely in their driving. All they're doing is causing accidents. Just like the *#&*# who drive 50mph on the freeway.
Of course, having lived in Italy for two years, "longer following distance" means just close enough so a Fiat Quattro-Cento can't slip in!...
As cars get better and better, "our" knowledge level of the inner workings declines. In some ways, I miss the little quirks of older cars. I felt a personal connection to a car that I could start but would give a stranger a hard time. In those days you truly OWNED the car with all its "faults."
Cars are becoming more and more appliance-like and the operators are less and less drivers.
I am sure that all those thousands of 500 buyers over the last three years were ripe with anticipation that the car would be a dud, only to see the thing discounted down to nothing in its last days. Really what happened - they all just got screwed by Ford's inability to make a competitive car! Merry Christmas, best wishes from Dearborn!
Nothing that releases brakes for you during a panic stop, or put them on for you in an emergency manuever (along with cutting throttle and/or slowing steering/tranny responses) improves anything and in fact, may hurt - depending at what level the systems are set to interfere relative to the car's actual capabilites. What both systems do do - is to help you maintain control, which is quite different.
As long as there are 'yahoos' (your word) out there that think that these systems make them imprevious to their own mistakes and misjudgements, which I think most people actually believe - we are better off without them!
I gather you're a believer in the efficacy of the "Darwin Awards" on the gene pool?...
Sounds like Houston. LOL
Today, there was a group of three motorcycle riders that decided they'd just zip between cars travelling at 40mph or so in congested traffic. I guess they figured if they can fit in between the cars, why not do it. Sheesh.
Actually, the only reason I would feel "screwed" by Ford is that if things dont change, I won't be able to get a CVT in my next car 8 years or so down the road.
Then again, Ford may not exist then, either.
Precisely. And that's OK with me. But there's far too many who now RELY on those systems to help them "stop on a dime", instead of relying on safe driving practices.
Of course most new 2007 cars that sell in that same market segment are faster now. Remember, that XG 350 was a car that came out in 2002.
Back then it beat the Camry V6 and the Volkswagen Passat V6 in the races. The XG 350 lost only to the new hotrod Altima 3.5 V6 that made a whopping 240 HP at 5800 rpm and torque of 246 at 4400 rpm. The XG 350 made maximum HP 194 at 5500 rpm and its torque peak of 216 ft.lbs at 3500 rpm. The XG's nice fat torque curve helped it out-accelerate the lighter Camry and Passat.
In 2002, there were not any midsized sedans that could beat the Altima 3.5 in a race unless you paid a whole lot more money.
The base MSRPs of the cars were all around $24,000 to $26,000 except for the $29,300 Passat GLX which won the overall comparison. The XG 350 was $2000 less than the middle two cars' base MSRPs, and had the most equipment all of which was included in its base price. The XG also had the smoothest quietest ride of the bunch, gave the best fuel mileage and had the only 5-speed automatic; the others had 4-speeds.
The XG was more than $5000 less expensive, loaded.
The old XG 350 did 0-60 in 7.7 seconds.
The Altima 3.5 did 0-60 in 7.3 seconds, and it was about THE fastest 6 cylinder midsize car you could get back then, so the XG's 7.7 seconds made it far from a slug.
You shoulda seen the time that a motorcyclist decided to "pop a wheelie" and travel for at least a quarter-mile down the interestate . . . with cars ALL around him doing 60mph.
This Korean site has traditionally rec'd 'spot-on' sketches.
http://www.bobaedream.com/board/data/data_view.php?code=national&No=76165&page=1- &select=Subject&content=bh&r_no=6&search_gubun=&s_pagescale=&search_day=
Contemporary road tests in 1999 showed 0-60 in 7.7 and 7.8 seconds (Motor Trend).
3.5-liter, aluminum High-Output SOHC 24-valve V6 generates a responsive 250* horsepower at 6,400 rpm, with 250* pound-feet of torque at 3,900 rpm.
The 2001 model road test showed 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds. Miles Per Gallon EPA city 18, hwy 26.
In 2002, a c"300 Special M" ame out. The limited-edition sedan gets a bump of five ponies—to 255, owing to reduced back pressure from its dual exhaust. Torque is up as well, to 258 pound-feet, an increase of three. Coupled to an AutoStick transmission that features a shorter final-drive ratio—3.89 versus 3.66—the beefed-up six seemed poised to make the Special quicker.
Poised? Yes. Quicker? No. The Special clipped the 60-mph mark in 8.0 seconds, 100 mph in 22.7, and the quarter-mile in 15.9. Not shabby, but not any better than the last 300 we tested (March 2000), which reached 60 in 7.8, 100 in 21.2, and the quarter-mile in 15.9. (Road & Track magazine)
(The 300 C is the current model. With a 345 cubic inch V8 hemi it may have 0-60 times in the 6 second range, but the 300 M never did.)
Might? How about 5.3 seconds!
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8009/2005-chrysler-300c-hemi-page3.html
Here is the link
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11447/chrysler-300-touring.html
It shows the 3.5L 300 going to 60 in 7.3 seconds.
The 300 weighs quite a bit more than 300M.
My guess is that the newer 2005+ 3.5L High Outputs are now rated a true 250HP and the 300M may have had the 250 overstated.
Car magazine numbers will vary. Car and Driver usually gets the best numbers. When getting data from Consumer Reports you need to add a full second to the 0-60 figure.
Car and Driver got 5.9 seconds for the 07 V6 Camry and
Consumer Reports got 7.1 seconds. Thats a huge difference.
But in this particular case (3.5L DC)both were tested by Car and Driver which will keep the results accurate.
My saying the V-8 300 C might do a 6 second run allowed for any time. I did not limit the 300 C to any particular time.
I did limit the 300 M to times slower than the 6 second range.
I was never concerned about the current model 300 with a 3.5 motor. I was not making claims about it or responding to other posts about it. I was responding to posts about the 300 M.
Yeah, Car & Driver (and Road & Track) usually have the quickest times. Motor Trend also gets quick times, but generally don't test so many imports as the other two. Their testers do whatever it takes to get maximum performance. They will torque brake an automatic trans car to get the quickest launch and will dump the clutch at high rpm and forego lift-throttle shifts on a manual car if it will result in a quicker time. They are hard on cars.
Consumer reports drives more gently, not doing any of those extreme techniques, so their times are slower.
The 1/4 mile terminal speed should not vary too much using gentle or drastic launches.
Again, your post, though arguably interesting, was not really responsive to any point I was trying to make.
"The Chrysler 300C can go from zero to 60 mph in just 6.3 seconds. According to Burke Brown, chief engineer for both the 300 and the related Dodge Magnum:
"Chrysler's new rear-wheel-drive architecture transfers hemi power to the pavement. Rear-wheel drive offers improved handling, with the front wheels steering and the rear wheels driving."
http://www.ridedrive.com/05chry-300-0904.html
And, "The 340-horsepower Hemi has to carry 4046 pounds, so it won't run with a Corvette, but it is plenty fast, with a 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds, according to Chrysler."
http://chrysler.jbcarpages.com/300/2005/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0606_fullsize_sedan_comparison/spe- cs_pricing.html
The SRT8 is a big sedan with 56 cubic feet of front passenger space and 51 in the rear. It isn't light at 4212 pounds, but at just below 10 pounds per horsepower the SRT8 will bust through 60 mph in 4.7 seconds on its way to a 13.2-second quarter-mile at 109 mph.
Car & Driver.
My '07 Azera lease expires in 24 months, so I'm licking my chops in anticipation.