We have temporarily turned off the ability to post while we deal with a massive spam attack. Thank you for your patience.

Luxury Lounge

1…245246248250251…428

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    But it's better in the snow!

    Regards,
    OW
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Forbes top-ten most expensive luxury cars to repair (over five years)

    1. Audi A8: $1,640
    1. Mercedes-Benz G Class: $1,640
    3. Jaguar XK: $1,629
    4. Land Rover Range Rover $1,600
    5. Mercedes-Benz CL Class: $1,540
    6. BMW 7 Series $1,529
    7. Audi Q7: $1,400
    8. Land Rover LR2/LR3 $1,360
    9. BMW M6: $1,300
    9. Porsche Cayman: $1,300
    ...

    Spread out over 5 years, that's really not a whole lot of money. That works out to a little more than $27/month for the A8 $21/month for the Cayman.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    What the heck is one rear fog light in a tail lens gonna do? Very cheap looking from my view.

    Also, why the headlights burn different is beyond me as well!

    Regards,
    OW
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Yet it still falls quite short on power compared to that cheap OHV, weighs nearly two tons, and gets thoroughly smoked buy the Corvette with the cheap, low-tech technology by the time the quarter mile ends (look at the trap speeds.)

    The GT-R produces 126hp per litre. Dyno results seem to indicate that Nissan isn't pulling a BMW, and hugely understating the power. The GT-R shouldn't be as fast as it is, and the fact that its able to take down nearly every super car is down to engineering brilliance. The Z06 produces 72hp per litre, typical for an OHV. It weighs hundreds of pounds less than the GT-R and has more horsepower, and yet the GT-R will beat it in every metric except a 1/4 mile drag race. Making a car thats fast in a straight line 1/4 mile isn't all that difficult. Big engine, big tires. Making one that can beat nearly everything up to 3x more expensive at the 'ring is much harder.
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    The 2007 Lexus LS 460 tested by Car and Driver only recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds, not 5.4 seconds like Lexus has promised. Car and Driver says it is because of the tall first gear. While this is disappointing, the scary part is the braking. It took the big Lexus 209 feet to stop from 70 mph. For comparison, the Audi Q7 SUV only requires 170 feet.
    The car did have the regular all-season tires

    I've never paid much attention to stopping distances, but that does seem like a big difference.

    But I think this info is wrong.
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    Since he apparently owed Josh Fogg $1,500, Ken Griffey Jr.
    went about paying him back in the most devious way possible.

    Griffey paid off his debt by having 150,000 pennies — $25 to a box, 60 total cartons —
    stacked in Fogg's locker like it was a safe deposit box.
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    Sorry to be way late again on this. Been really busy with work. Then for a while, the forums were blocked by the proxy.

    Anyway, there's only one rear fog light. That's why one is brighter than the other

    1 rear fog light ok thats new to me but why does every1 keeps their fog light open :confuse:

    Atleast you replied .

    There doesn't seem to be any discussion here about merc I guess every1 is a lexus bmw audi fan

    thanks
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    I've never paid much attention to stopping distances, but that does seem like a big difference.

    C&D had a pre-production tester, and it had some kind of issue with the brakes. Production LS460s have recorded much more reasonable distances.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    The new Edmunds review is one of the harshest I've seen, though all the TSX reviews have generally been negative. It's basically a bag of gadgets with the ability to go, stop, and steer (poorly, poorly, and poorly), seemingly thrown in at the last minute. Doesn't bode particularly well for the next TL.

    Link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=126300?tid=edmun- ds.il.home.photopanel..1.*
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    I keep thinking back to the NYIAS and at the Acura exhibit, there was much less traffic for the 25 minutes we spent near the display ( we parked the kids and kept checking back). The big draw was the TL-S.

    Mercedes, BMW were mobbed but Lexus much less so but still very active compared to Acura.

    Regards,
    OW
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Making one that can beat nearly everything up to 3x more expensive at the 'ring is much harder.

    But isn't that exactly what Chevy did with the Z06? I'd like to see the GT-R do that without the AWD and techno gadgets. Then I'll be impressed. And I'm not buying that the GT-R beats the Z06 in every metric except 1/4 mile. (And I can't believe you're even insinuating that the Z06 can't turn.) Using the "ricer" metric of HP/L, I wonder how much that little V6 would be making without those two turbos bolted to it? Looking at trap speeds, the Z06 is obviously accelerating much faster/harder than the GT-R. The only reason the GT-R gets the 0-60 it does is because of the AWD and fancy torque transfer, launch control, etc., etc. Once the car has been on the market a while and the reviewers have stopped sniffing the ether (and manufacturers stop sending out "ringer" press cars), I bet we'll start seeing the real numbers on the GT-R. At that point, I doubt the GT-R will top any supercar in any metric except rear seat room.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    That particular review has become infamous and had to be a premeditated hatchet job by C&D. After the truth came out I immediately canceled my subscription. You had to really dig thru the article to find out this was not a production car.

    To my way of thinking this review casts doubt on every review that C&D has ever done and leaves them with a total lack of credibility.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • 2001gs4302001gs430 Member Posts: 767
    I wonder how much that little V6 would be making without those two turbos bolted to it?

    Do you feel the same way if we were talking about BMW's award winning TTi6 compares to slightly bigger NA V6s from either Lexus or Infiniti? I wonder if BMW sent out "ringers" as well? :surprise: :surprise:
  • 2001gs4302001gs430 Member Posts: 767
    I have never used CR's rating for my car buying decisions either.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    V-8's are a dying breed except for the high end as the Z-06 is. AMG, M SRT, V will need to rethink the performance equation where economy is now again the focus.

    I have no problem in AWD performance as I am no purist.

    I am longing for a TTi6 myself! The NA N52 is brilliant but the N54 trumps it.

    Regards,
    OW
  • 2001gs4302001gs430 Member Posts: 767
    What are the N52 and N54?
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    N52 is the NA I6 for the E90 2006 3-series. The N54 is the blown version in 2007 335/535.

    Regards,
    OW
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Two low pressure turbos mated to either the Lexus or Infiniti V6s would absolutely kill the BMW 3.0TT.

    Of course, that's just imo...
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    1 of the first x6 to crash possible :surprise: :surprise:

    link title
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Did anyone notice that the car ran into that X6 is also a Bimmer?

    What does that tell you...

    ;) :P :shades:
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    And I'm not buying that the GT-R beats the Z06 in every metric except 1/4 mile. (And I can't believe you're even insinuating that the Z06 can't turn.)

    From MT: "The Corvette experienced a little more difficulty keeping pace with the others when the road started to bend. Despite the excellent grip provided by the fattest tires of the group — 275/35ZR-18s front and 325/30ZR-19s rear — and its state-of-the-art yaw-control system, the Z06's rear end danced around through low- and mid-speed corners."

    "Where the GT-R shined brightest was at the racetrack. You can see from its lap times that it handed both the Chevrolet Corvette and Porsche 911 Turbo their respective lunches, working its way around Buttonwillow's challenging Race No. 13 configuration about 5 sec. faster than the others."

    "The GT-R's handling was in a league by itself. The suspension felt more compliant than the Japan-spec model's, yet still provided unbelievable stability through all variety of corners. Just when you think you feel the rear end coming out, stay on the throttle and let the ATTESA E-TS awd system do its thing. It'll immediately transfer as much as 50 percent of the engine torque to the front wheels (the torque split for normal driving is 2/98), stabilizing the car without sacrificing speed. The Nissan's handling balance is so spectacular that it registered 1.01g on the skidpad and romped through the slalom at an impressive 73.4 mph, about 3 mph faster than the others (and faster than the Ferrari Enzo)."

    So the GT-R is faster 0-60, posts a higher g on the skidpad, is faster through the slalom, and will beat the Z06 and 911 Turbo on every race track. Show me a test where the Z06 has beaten the GT-R on a track.

    It's easy to whine about GT-R press cars being ringers because your car is losing so badly. What about the regular privately owned, off the Japanese production line gray import GT-Rs that magazine's like CAR tested, ones that Nissan PR had absolutely nothing to do with, and yet they still send the M3, R8, 911 Turbo and GT3 home crying?

    Take away the AWD and turbos and then see how it does? What kind of reasoning is that? Without AWD and twin turbos it wouldn't be a GT-R, it would be a 350Z.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Do you feel the same way if we were talking about BMW's award winning TTi6 compares to slightly bigger NA V6s from either Lexus or Infiniti? I wonder if BMW sent out "ringers" as well?

    They don't need to, they just underrate the power the 3.0TT is actually producing. Take a look at a dyno test result vs. Infiniti's 330hp VQ37HR. The BMW engine is actually producing around 330hp and 330ft.lbs of torque, probably a little too close to the V8 for the marketing department. Obviously considering the normally aspirated version of BMW's 3.0L produced 255hp vs. over 300 for Lexus and Infiniti, if they chose to fight back with the use of turbos the IS350 and G37 would be faster than the 335i.

    image
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    Did anyone notice that the car ran into that X6 is also a Bimmer?

    Well I sure did don't know about others I think both of them were driving fast.

    I have also posted 2 more videos of x6 tests you can see if you want to.
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    International Engine of the Year 2008:
    BMW 3.0L Twin-Turbo (135, 335, X6

    Does this make the inline 6 in the better choice then the v8?
    For the X6?

    I have a general question since I am not an expert here.

    I have heard numerous times that bmws ride is not good with run flats I have also heard that some have even changed their x5 run flats to normal tires.

    Driving a bmw x5 x6 with run flats does it have a worse ride than for example avalon camry land cruiser. I do know that lexus cars have the best smoothness ride quality
  • atlas7atlas7 Member Posts: 126
    The 2007 Lexus LS 460 tested by Car and Driver only recorded a 0-60 time of 6 seconds, not 5.4 seconds like Lexus has promised. Car and Driver says it is because of the tall first gear. While this is disappointing, the scary part is the braking. It took the big Lexus 209 feet to stop from 70 mph. For comparison, the Audi Q7 SUV only requires 170 feet.

    I have a 2008 LS460. I don't have quantifiable data to dispute the numbers, but I can tell you the brakes on the car are great and the car is an absolute bullet, especially in the "power" mode. Those numbers in C&D, especially the braking are absurd.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    C&D must have gotten a stipend from the Germans for that test! You can make the numbers anything you want them to be. That's why they are starting to publish more specific test conditions before they become like CR.

    See? I can be neutral with the best of them!

    Regards,
    OW
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    Firstly, the 503 (1955)

    image

    and

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/503_blue.jpg

    Then, the Baroque Angel 502 (1954)

    image

    Nice, aren't they?

    More pics/info at

    link title

    Regards,
    Jose
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    These are CARS!!!! Nice!!!

    Regards,
    OW
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    Why can't we still make cars that look like that?

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 5,208
    Aerodynamics and federal regulations (safety), my guess. Probably mostly regulations...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    HaHa, have a look at this 502 Polizei:

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/3954_832.jpg

    or at these others…

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/3328_832.jpg

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/3752_832.jpg

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/0105_832.jpg

    And this is the BMW Dixi (ca. 1927; 747 cc straight-4), a variant of the Austin 7 and the first car made by BMW:

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/0101_832.jpg

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/1315_832.jpg

    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/pics/vintage/0102_832.jpg

    Time to go to bed and dream of nice cars :)

    Regards,
    Jose
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    I assume the first BMW Dixi was not a real AWD xi. ;)

    Regards,
    OW
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Time to go to bed and dream of nice cars

    Some of my favorites:

    Aurburn Boattail Speedster

    Alfa 8C 2900B

    Aston Martin DB4

    Jaguar XK150
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    I assume the first BMW Dixi was not a real AWD xi.

    LOL. I am not sure if that Dixi still had a chain instead of live axle. :D

    Regards,
    Jose
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    Nice cars those you posted, to be awakened by and go for a drive!! All of them are beauties, though the best-looking to me is the Alpha 8C 290B. A real dream.

    When looking at cars such as that Aurburn I always wonder how driving one of them would be. Size, weight, grip, non-assisted steering (I imagine), non-controlled power. Automatic or manual? Alfa, Aston and Jaguar are closer to my imaginary.

    Regards,
    Jose
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    When looking at cars such as that Aurburn I always wonder how driving one of them would be. Size, weight, grip, non-assisted steering (I imagine), non-controlled power. Automatic or manual?

    The top of the line '35 Auburn 851 Speedster had a 4.5L supercharged straight eight that produced 150hp and 230ft.lbs of torque. It was 194" long and weighed 3750lbs. The suspension was a beam axle with semi-elliptic springs and hydraulic shocks, and it had non-assisted worm and peg steering and 3-speed manual with a dual ratio differential. It was very quick for its day (could reach well over 100mph) but I'm sure by today's standards it would handle like a complete pig, as would probably every car from the pre-war era.

    Here are some additional pictures:

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/733-1.jpg
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/733-2.jpg
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/733-3.jpg
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/733-6.jpg

    I love the Auburn, but that Alfa just makes your jaw drop. The short wheelbase "superleggera" spyder version of the Alfa is possibly the best looking car ever made.

    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/2422-7.jpg
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/2422-8.jpg
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/2422-12.jpg
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    Many thanks for the specs and pics. I have absorbed the Alfa net lines. Also the steering wheel and dashboard. The wood, buttons, levers and Jaeger's spheres, but in particular the chronometer. ;)

    Regards,
    Jose
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,356
    I think it is more the fact that today the metal is so thin that they would probably collapse under their own weight!! :sick:

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    You are right the Alfa --wow---t
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    Tony, I sent an e-mail to your CarSpace address on houses being torn down over here. I wonder if you read it. Please let me know it.

    Regards,
    Jose
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    God, this makes me really not want a TSX at all... As if I didn't not want it enough in the first place.

    It also makes me appreciate the current TL's sharp style and performance, which is fleeting. Expect the new one to be bigger and more boring, just like its little brother.

    Oh and, Edmunds says the TSX is on par with an A4 2.0T? Maybe one that they drove, but otherwise, not even close. Road & Track got an A4 2.0T S-Line manual from 0-60mph in 6.5 sec.

    '08 BMW X5 4.8i • '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Audi seems to have the right idea. The S3 and TT-S both use the 270hp 2.0T with DSG, which is more than quick enough; early reports suggest a ~4.7 sec 0-60 time for the TT-S. They both get significantly better mileage than what they could've gotten. The same will be true of the new 3.0L supercharged S4. As for their RS models--they'll probably be sticking with V8s and monster V10s there.

    '08 BMW X5 4.8i • '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    Does this make the inline 6 in the better choice then the v8?
    For the X6?

    It just depends on what you want. I would actually choose the six, because according to the latest test it has sub-6 sec 0-60 times, which is great. If it's über power you're after, though, choose the V8, at the expense of some mileage.

    I have heard numerous times that bmws ride is not good with run flats I have also heard that some have even changed their x5 run flats to normal tires.

    That's what I'm planning on doing when the X5 goes through its current run-flats.

    Driving a bmw x5 x6 with run flats does it have a worse ride than for example avalon camry land cruiser.

    Well, that has nothing to do with anything. You can't compare an X5 to a Camry. They were built for different purposes. X5 has a sportier suspension, so no matter what tires you put on it the ride won't be as smooth. However, if you compared an X5 fitted with run-flats to one with normal tires, yes, there would be a significant difference.

    '08 BMW X5 4.8i • '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet
  • bmlexusbmlexus Member Posts: 755
    It just depends on what you want. I would actually choose the six, because according to the latest test it has sub-6 sec 0-60 times, which is great. If it's über power you're after, though, choose the V8, at the expense of some mileage.

    But doesn't it makes any different that the six won the best engine award?

    I did read in C&D review I think that the v8 was not so good in traffic they mentioned some odd points.

    Since I don't drive over the limit, I am not sure if would choose any car why would I get the v8 :confuse: :confuse:

    Just for the 0 to 60 1 second faster :confuse:

    Then again previously heard that the x5 should not be consider with the six well then it was less power as well.

    BTW do you thing the x6 inline six twin turbo is better then your x5 4.8 naturally asp.


    That's what I'm planning on doing when the X5 goes through its current run-flats.

    But why is the ride that BAD? Or expensive tires? how much is each tire?

    The brake pads price? How long did the tires last?

    What size are you planning to put?

    But it will look odd. x5 is made to look good with run flats.

    Well, that has nothing to do with anything. You can't compare an X5 to a Camry. They were built for different purposes. X5 has a sportier suspension, so no matter what tires you put on it the ride won't be as smooth. However, if you compared an X5 fitted with run-flats to one with normal tires, yes, there would be a significant difference.

    Ok you cleared that no matter how bad the ride quality is should be better than camry at least .

    If compare the x5 with run flats to the land cruiser the ride will be definitely for the X5 correct?

    Since I am not sure are cayennes and S class fitted with run flats?
    Because I have noticed the tires for but of these are so fat compare to those thin tires on the LS460L

    BTW hows is your x5 everything ok?
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    You are right the Alfa --wow---t

    No kidding. The Alfa was also pretty much state-of-the-art back in 1937, as it was the road version of Alfa's championship winning 2900A racer. The 2.9L supercharged straight 8 was all aluminum with DOHC, and produced 180hp. The body was aluminum over a steel frame, and the car weighed only 2500lbs. The front suspension was independent double-wishbones with coil springs, with swing axles and leaf springs at the back.

    There are some gorgeous Delahayes from the '40s and of course plenty of '60s classics, but IMO the mid-to-late '30s was the true golden age of automotive design. There will never be cars like those again.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Expect the new one to be bigger and more boring, just like its little brother.

    Well, the Accord got big, fat, and dull, the TL is based on the Accord, so its easy enough to put 2+2 together. Electric steering (presumably) and even more power on the front wheels don't instill a lot of confidence. I also have to assume that sales of the RL will drop to Q45 levels after the new TL is released.

    Oh and, Edmunds says the TSX is on par with an A4 2.0T? Maybe one that they drove, but otherwise, not even close. Road & Track got an A4 2.0T S-Line manual from 0-60mph in 6.5 sec.

    Considering the 2.0T is now producing 211hp and 258ft.lbs of torque, more torque than the 3.2 V6, the TSX's NA four isn't even in the same ballpark. Even though Honda cut the power to boost torque by a few ft.lbs at a lower rpm, its still down by more than 80. There's also no help on the horizon, as apparently the turbo four from the RDX wont fit. The A4 is just a better car across the board.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Do you feel the same way if we were talking about BMW's award winning TTi6 compares to slightly bigger NA V6s from either Lexus or Infiniti? ...

    Yep!
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Just when you think you feel the rear end coming out, stay on the throttle and let the ATTESA E-TS awd system do its thing. It'll immediately transfer as much as 50 percent of the engine torque to the front wheels (the torque split for normal driving is 2/98), stabilizing the car without sacrificing speed. ...

    Umm... Yeah.

    ...What about the regular privately owned, off the Japanese production line gray import GT-Rs that magazine's like CAR tested...

    What about 'em? :confuse: The operative phrase there is "gray market." Not one of those cars is stock. What was your point in bringing up those?
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    This maybe the new TL:

    http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f90/bluebirdgmc83/2009TL001.jpg

    http://www.leftlanenews.com/acura-tl-future.html

    (pictures are too large so I posted the link instead)

    My take on this: Acura is effed...

    :sick: :cry:
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Yes. They are slipping.

    Regards,
    OW
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.