hello everyone, I test drove both a Honda accord coupe, EX V6 with nav and the 325xi yesterday.
It's very interesting to me that the accord popped up a few times in this thread about near luxury cars.
I must say that the 240hp accord seemed more powerful than the BMW, with only marginally worse handling. granted I was not on a race track, but this is everyday driving.
I also must say that this accord had every possible option and is $4,000 cheaper than the BMW that has almost no options (not even power seats!) I was amazed that you could actually talk to the navigation system.
Finally, I was amazed at how plush the honda was and how spartan the BMW was. the BMW was almost embarassingly uncomfortable on the inside.
All this being said, can anyone really justify goping with the BMW here? Also, can anyone justify spending $4k more for the Acura TL.
Maybe go for the BMW because of 1) all wheel drive and 2) prestige of driving a BMW?
I dont understand why is that Saab does not count, because it stepped on your toes. We are talking about stock cars without any additions from after market, hey Saab does not have 3.0 V6 like IS does.
riez and kd, I wonder how far you two push you RWD cars. I have a TL and I really in to cars so I have driven quiet a few RWD and FWD cars. With that said do you really know your cars limits, I bet you don't, because if you do you must of crash it a few times (or be really close to it) to understand were exactly the limit is. In order to compare RWD and FWD you really have to spend alot of time driving each one and really push it to the limit, and that would only be possible only on the race trace or on the empty road at night. I don't think any of you two had this kind of experience and for this meter so as anybody else on this side including myself. So if you think that RWD is better than FWD that is your opinion, not a fact, and it varies from car to car. While 330 in my opinion has a slight advantage over TL in handling, there is no way you can take advantage of it. As for IS, in my opinion it does not even handle as good as TL, so just leave it a that.
pp...it was written tongue in cheek...forgot the smiley...:)
But to answer the question, I push the car pretty darn hard. I don't drive to smash 'er up or to race it, but the predictable response, smooth drivetrain and communicative steering let's me do almost anything. Now could a professional push it harder, absolutely.
Honda Accord V6 to a BMW 325 for $28,000. To me it's no contest, the Honda is very nice at that price. I never go for loaded cars, but there is a certain level of options that I want. A $28,000 BMW does not have it. Having just driven a loaded Honda Accord, I can say it drives very nicely. Could I see myself driving it? Absolutely? Does it handle anywhere close to my 330i. Not a chance. But if the sport in sports sedan doesn't matter, it's a compelling choice.
"I have a TL and I really in to cars so I have driven quiet a few RWD and FWD cars."
Me too, including a 911.
"So if you think that RWD is better than FWD that is your opinion, not a fact, and it varies from car to car. While 330 in my opinion has a slight advantage over TL in handling, there is no way you can take advantage of it."
pp - I agree. If you're idea of handling is to plow threw snow with all-seasons a FWD will outdo a RWD. But I can feel the difference between a great FWD and a great RWD. It is no contest. Does it make a difference going to work on traffic clogged streets. No. But that is not what this conversation is about, or else we would all be driving Hyundais (sorry shenkar that's the last of it). A great RWD will be able to outperform in the aggregate a great FWD, because of the balance and power delivery. As I said it doesn't make a difference in traffic cloggeds streets, but that is not what this conversation is about. What drive-train one chooses is a personal preference. They each have their advantages and limitations.
But let's not confuse the ability of the car with the ability of the driver or amount of traffic on the road.
Tomorrow (tues 1/6) I'm gonna drive my beautifully maintained, low mileage(15.8k) 2001 Maxima GLE (loaded - chrome wheels ,meridian,the works)to a fella who has a 1999 BMW 328i 5spd also loaded, w 66.4k. Am I nuts, or what? I have about 4-5k equity in the Nissan, with a 7 year mfg warranty, and all I have done for nearly 3 years is fill up the tank and change the oil every 3-4k...it handles great IMO - I'm just looking for something sporty that's more fuel efficient, and I haven't had a manual in about 10 years, and think it would be fun again. Am I nuts, or what?...are the bimmers really the ultimate driving machine, or am I in for a nasty surprise when the snow flies, or when I need the notoriously expensive repairs (electrical?) done. Any and all comments will be gladly accepted! When does BMW recommend engine/timing belt/radiator, etc service...at 60-70k like most foreign cars? Thanks in advance! Chuck
Objectively speaking, it's hard to beat an Accord v6 coupe manual for a combo of fun and practicality.
Anything beyond that is for the "fun" and "prestige" factor. How much that fun and prestige are worth is up to you.
If you're considering the Accord, you might also want to give the TL a shot. If you don't want the Nav, the TL can be had for up to $2k off MSRP in some areas at which point it doesn't cost more than a comparable Accord.
"The overwhelming mass of opinions either way, have been driven by the marketing spin of the manufacturers and the auotmotive press. We bite into something that sounds good, and promote it as gospel when for the vast majority of us...it makes absolutely no difference.
You've found a ride you really like. We're all glad for you. Why spoil it for everyone else who may like something different. Can't both decisions be valid???"
There is no voodoo or gospel here and no marketing hype. Marketing hype is what got FWD to suceed. RWD platfroms offer a lot of good things to a paltform and it makes sense to improve the design of auto's. FWD is a thing of the past I would bet by 2010. RWD with traction control is great for 60% of the country and the rest will be offered AWD or ATEESA type systems.
The argument that FWD is a good decision isn't invalidated yet neither can you say that it's hype that gets people demanding RWD cars. Balance is not just weight distribution..it's also which way the weight shift when you floor it. RWD is not bad - in fact it's merit's, I believe, and not hype got it on the comeback trail.
Has a car ever competed with BMW before 02 in the entry lux arena. There were plenty of attempts with FWD but none suceeded until G35 out RWD sedan.
"Has a car ever competed with BMW before 02 in the entry lux arena. There were plenty of attempts with FWD but none suceeded until G35 out RWD sedan."
Specifically the 3-series though. It's ironic above $40K there is not a lot of competition in the FWD space. Aside from the Acura RL, what other vehicle is FWD? The IS is a competitor and was not overlooked. However, I still think the styling of the IS300 is racer-like and not really world class. That would keep me from getting it (although riez loves his). Certainly not as nice looking as the SC430.
Ahem...does anyone out there have some definative figures covering sales of FWD vs RWD by car segment and or make/model? Perhaps some hard data could help settle this raging inferno. I can't see anything else that will, cause at the end of the day...everything else is completely subjective.
Thank you for you attention (as he steps down off his soap box...) (:^())
Joke: What is a FWD Porsche? A VW. What is a FWD BMW? An Audi. What is a FWD Bentley? A rickshaw.
Notice that premium marques like BMW (excluding the Mini brand, but that is a unique situation) and MB don't use FWD. Guess their buyers are just uneducated about the benefits of FWD?
Notice that supercar manufacturers like Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lambro, etc. don't use FWD. Guess their buyers are just uneducated about the benefits of FWD?
Does Honda use FWD in its NSX supercar? Honda knows the difference between FWD and RWD.
Do Mazda and Toyota use FWD for performance cars like Miata or MR2? They know the difference between FWD and RWD cars.
"The Accord I can get for $26-26.5k fully loaded."
With NAV? Tell me where and I'll be there in a flash to purchase it. New? 0 miles? Out the door? Even Edmunds TMV estimates about $27.5K
"BMW is the fact that it has the prestige of BMW."
Let's see Honda has value, BMW has prestige. Sort of ignored the equation in the middle. Why someone would want to purchase any car. I could purchase a car much less expensive with much more value than a Honda and equal reliability.
Let's try it this way. Honda has a reputation for providing value in it's cars. BMW has a reputation for building cars with a level of luxury and performance. That's a much better way of saying Honda has value, BMW has prestige.
shenkar - please don't fall into the trap of using sales figures as an estimate of the goodness or best of technology. Camry is still the best selling vehicle in America, I guess that means it's technology sets the standard? Right? FWD reliable appliance? Right? Why aren't we all buying them?
riez, I agree. kd, I agree. I guess what I'm trying to get at is the relavance of this fight we're having here.
I still say, for most people, driving on public roads in America, the real-world performance differences are negligible at best...non-existent at worst.
I currently own both FWD and RWD vehicles, and I love them all. They all do exactly what I need them to do. So does that mean that my RWD Mercedes sedans are superior to my '04 FWD Nissan Quest van? Certainly not based on drivetrain configuration alone.
There are a very few situations where one or the other will clearly be preferrable, but in most other situations they will be interchangable. I just don't believe there are absolutes when discussing the average driver, on the average road here in America. And I'd be so bold as to say that includes every single one of us (unless you reside in Nevada or Utah or the like).
We're fundamentally arguing our preferences and prejudices, in the main, and I don't see the need for that since they both are valid in MOST situations.
"I still say, for most people, driving on public roads in America, the real-world performance differences are negligible at best...non-existent at worst"
The rear drivers will never let this go. The driving dynamic is desirable and evident all the time - and I would suggest most of on this board would be above average in our expectations for performance and platform. You dont have to go to Utah to enjoy the dynamics. There may be no merit in arguing which is better F or R drive but there is no way you can say a RWD car is never enjoyed or worth it or needed. The cars may be interchangable most of the time if you want to get there but the desirable charachteristics of RWD are there to enjoy all the time and the preference is more than fluff.
I thought this was a forum about BMW 3-series, but looks like I'm in the middle of an arguement about FWD vs RWD. So, OK, any comments on how a 328i (or any 3 series) handles on snowy, winding hills, such as we have here in western PA? I can alway just load up the trunk w/sandbags...How about mid-to long term reliability issues -any firsthand experiences with problems after 5 years in a 3 series? I understand electrical glitches are very common, but not usually very serious.
"So, OK, any comments on how a 328i (or any 3 series) handles on snowy, winding hills, such as we have here in western PA?"
Change PA to NY or NJ and here's my take. The handling will be compromised at best without snow tires. This applies to any RWD vehicle. Preferably 4 good snows will make a big difference.
chrisboth - FWD is a thing of the past... since it is cheaper for manufacturers to use FWD and serves to make smaller and lighter cars (which translates to better gas mileage), then, no, you won't see that happen. But, if I were to entertain your idea for a moment and throw away all benefits to a manufacturer, I'd have to say BOTH RWD and FWD will be in the past and everything will be AWD.
As far as the RWD vs. FWD, I'd like to do as I say above and jump on the side of AWD! If its good enough for some top supercars and exotics, its good enough for me!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"As far as the RWD vs. FWD, I'd like to do as I say above and jump on the side of AWD!"
AWD does add weight, lower fuel efficiency and compromise handling. The trade-off is the ability to handle torque with the loss of balance posed by the additional hardware. But to some the trade-off is worth it.
Why do you think AWD compromises handling ? Several years ago when Audi introduced AWD in their German Series racing cars they dominated the racing series and attributed it to the AWD. They were forced to add a great deal of weight to their cars in order to try and make the series "fair". What part of AWD do you feel compromises handling and why ?
"The Accord I can get for $26-26.5k fully loaded."
"With NAV? Tell me where and I'll be there in a flash to purchase it. New? 0 miles? Out the door? Even Edmunds TMV estimates about $27.5K"
$26.5k is the street price of a new EX-V6 NAV. Check the Accord Prices board. Edmunds TMV tends to be conservative. The EX-V6 can be had for $24k. It'll depend on location. It is not out the door, since it doesn't take into account taxes, title, registration, etc., but the same can be said for any car when comparing prices.
who are you talking to? I didn't see anyone say that. Maybe a post was deleted? I dunno.
oh, unless you interpret me saying "some of the supercars..." as meaning most don't. Well, I didn't want to get into an argument about semantics, so I was being conservative. Fact is, not all are RWD, so, obviously, high-end manufacturers don't necessarily believe RWD is the end-all-be-all of performance. That's all I was saying.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I was thinking the same thing, but then looked up the G35 sedan in both RWD and AWD, and Motortrend lists 65.1 mph slalom for AWD and 65.9 mph slalom for RWD. Still extremely close and could easily be attributed to being tested on different days and maybe even different locations and maybe even by a different driver, but not provable, so there is really no arguing it. Given 2 identical cars in every other way accept drivetrain configuration, the extra weight of AWD will most likely lose, but, again, on a dry course. Oh, and also as long as its a car that doesn't have so much power that it would merely smoke the rear wheels while powering out of the turns.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"Oh, and also as long as its a car that doesn't have so much power that it would merely smoke the rear wheels while powering out of the turns."
The new to be E60 M5 3.9 to 60 RWD. You don't need AWD to do it. It's just another option, just like FWD. But it does add extra weight, reduce gas mileage. Sure manufacturers have used it to lay power down 4 wheels at a time.
I was not talking about driving in snow or in the have traffic, I was talking about driving at the high speed and passing cars left and right.
I also think that you will not be able to achieve more in RWD over FWD. I was also asuming that one should have the same experience driving both FWD and RWD, you clearly don't have that. For example, I passed 330 on the I95 the other day, and guess what he almost killed himself trying to catch me, I was driving my friend RAV4. Does it mean RAV4 is a better car that 330, no, it means the guy can't drive. With that said I think that 99% of the population will not be able to take advantage of RWD, and another 1%( Race car drivers) will be smart enof not to do it.
If you live in the north east, should you get awd 330 over a rwd 330. If soemone was given a choice what is the downside to choosing the awd if there is any. (obviously the downside to the rwd is handling in less then clear dry conditions)
All other things being equal, AWD adds weight, complexity, (usually) price, and (often) eats up some interior or trunk space (e.g., see VW Passat). Of course, it can improve traction.
But TIRES are the single most important component for traction. Get the best tires money can buy.
When looking at test results, you have to look at what track, track conditions, drivers, tires, methodology, etc.
Keep in mind that F1, NASCAR, etc. all have arbitrary rules. NASCAR uses live axles and carburetors (I can't hardly spell this archaic word). Much more powerful F1 cars have various restrictions on engine size, etc. F1 cars in early 1980s put out 1,200 HP. Today they are more like 900 or so HP. There is no racing series I know, reputable and offical, that allows an absolute free-for-all for cars--any size, weight, engine size, any engine configuration, turbos, superchargers, nitrous oxide or other performance enhancers, AWD, etc. Would be fascinating.
If you live in the north east, should you get awd 330 over a rwd 330. If soemone was given a choice what is the downside to choosing the awd if there is any. (obviously the downside to the rwd is handling in less then clear dry conditions)
I'm fairly certain I would have passed on a 330i with AWD. I don't like the understeer then neutral then oversteer drive feel of an AWD car. My friend's WRX is a fun, highly modded car but the AWD system makes me VERY happy to get back into my RWD 330i.
Additionally, I'm not impressed by the higher maintenance costs, lower mileage and added weight. BTW, I live in southern california, so AWD is really only for the snowboarders and the...rock climbers? Not many of us face weather that needs AWD.
I agree that a well built well designed performance car with RWD is the best handling sedan out there ON NON-SNOWY ROADS.
In 2002 in the Northeast when there were a lot of snowstorms, RWD cars without snowtires got stuck on the road. If my ride were a BMW 330 (not an all wheel drive), I'd have to buy at least 2 snow tires for the rear wheels and hang on to them. Then I'd have to go to the mechanic to get them installed before the snowstorm hits.
Oh no, everyone else is on line doing the same thing and the mechanic can't get to me, too bad. Now I'm stuck on snow roads with regular tires in a RWD car. Oh damn, now I just got stuck and have to walk home in 2 foot snow while getting snowsprayed by all the FWD cars going through no problem. Or better yet, I just spun out but before I crashed I was thinking "Well this is a small price to pay for having a RWD performance car."
In NY, I drive a FWD car out of choice b/c I have gotten stuck in snow in RWD cars, but I have never gotten stuck in a FWD car. And yes, I did have an AWD Audi but the extra weight on the car made the car really slow and a gas hog.
And what happens if I trade in the car and it uses different size tires? Now I have to get new snow tires and try to sell the old ones. Good luck getting value for those old snow tires.
In sum, RWD in a good performance car gives best performance but that don't mean much in snow.
AWD gives best snow performance but on dry roads it's slower, the heavier weight of the car affects its turning ability and when you have to do a lot of turning the software on the AWD system gets confused so the car acts schizophrenic.
FWD doesn't give as good a performance in snow as AWD, but it's usually good enough and its performance on dry roads is second to RWD but better than AWD, and it usually has the best gas mileage.
I think that manufacturers will continue to make FWD, RWD and AWD cars to suit different tastes and climates. Since the CamCord are the best selling cars and they're FWD (plus they show no signs of giving up the sales crown), I disagree with your contention that FWD cars are a thing of the past.
...as they put it, most of their favorite V6 family sedans like the Accord, Camry, and Passat "scored higher in our tests than most of the vehicles in this category, and they cost about $3,000 to $9,000 less."
If you want to see how the 330i and IS300 stack up, you have to pull out the May 2001 issue of CR.
Speaking of tires...
330i was non-Sport Pkg and rode on 205/50R17 93V (mediocre) Continental ContiTouringContact tires.
TL rode on Bridgestone Turanza EL42 P235/45R17 93W tires.
IS300 rode on Goodyear Eagle GS-D 215/45ZR17 87W tires.
For those who love numbers, with each being tested with an automatic transmission...
60-0 mph dry braking: IS300 128 ft, TL 130 ft, and 330i 131 ft
Predicted reliability: IS300 best rating with TL and 330i getting next best rating (in original test). In today's data, IS300 retains best rating and 330i has fallen to only average reliability.
Interesting that of the 15 cars in their "upscale sedan category", the FWDers finished 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th. The RWDers finished 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 12th. The AWDers finished 7th and 13th. Say the RWDers win this one.
FWD is inherently front heavy. And it asks the drive wheels to steer. FWD cannot overcome the laws of physics. Which is one reason there is no FWD supercar.
A FWDer and RWDer of the same total weight will NOT have that weight evenly distributed. That weight distribution penalty causes an inherent disadvantage.
And since the best tires can go on any vehicle, the FWDer cannot overcome its limitations by using better rubber.
Were all of the vehicles equipped the same ( as in all had manual trans? ) The car and Driver test of the TL showed much better 0-60 times ( 5.7 as I recall and I know it was the manual trans )..much worse braking ( 180 some feet I think ). A nice set of comparison numbers you put together however
The number are based on 10 point system and taken from tire rack.
As you can see TL has the worse tires by far. This is why TL scored marginally lover in handling and accelerations tests, plus as somebody mentioned TL is also heavier.
With that said , if you put the same tires on all three vehicles you will get almost identical numbers in handling.
raher... I wrote, "For those who love numbers, with each being tested with an automatic transmission..." They were all tested by CR with 5-speed automatic transmissions.
Do keep in mind that you have to pay careful attention to the test methodology. If you study the fine print of R&T, MT, and C&D, you'll see how they do theirs. Tells how they achieve maximum 0-60 mph times (e.g., high RPM drop clutch) and whether they publish actual results (what they did that day on that track at that altitude at that temperature) or adjusted results (mathematically altering the data for temperature, etc.). Thinking C&D and MT publish adjusted results and R&T publishes actual results. Also thinking R&T discusses how results within a certain range are essentially statistically not different. (I prefer their methodology, even though C&D is much more enjoyable to read.)
pg48477... Not familiar with these numbers. What is their methodolgy? Are these "objective" numbers (e.g., each tire is tested on the same car with the same driver on the same track at the same temperature, etc.) or "subjective" guestimates?
Do you happen to know the DOT grades (temperature, wear, and traction) for each of these tires?
The ContiTouringContacts are NOT a performance tire. Continental ContiSportContacts and ContiSportContact 2s are Continentals highest performing tires. My wife's '00 323ia had the Tourings; I put a set of SportContact 2s on my '98 540i6. World of difference.
CR's 330i would have handled and braked much better if it had had the optional Sport Pkg, which it did not. The Sport Pkg provides improved suspension setting and better tires (e.g., a tire like the SportContact).
You'll notice that the TL rode on the widest tires (235 mm). Much, much wider than the 330i's (a mere 205 mm) and much wider than the IS300's (just 215 mm). Tire width means bigger contact patch. All other things equal, a wider tire should improve braking and (most) handling-related numbers.
In the realm of tires, a 30 mm width difference is like the grand canyon. Thinking 25 mm is approx. 1 inch.
You right TL has wider tires, but it's not always good, why you think most powerful RWD cars have thinner tires on the front wheels. It gives some but it also takes some.
As for Tire Rack data, I don't know how they came up with it, but I know that tire rack is one of the best stores when it comes to tires. If you want, go to tirerack.com and get all details you need.
...CR judged the TL to be better than BMW 330i, Lexus ES and IS, MB C320, Infiniti G35 and a host of others cars...period. Why are you wasting our time with 3 year old data?
CR may have given the overall nod to the TL, but every other magazine in the world, says the BMW 3-series sets the benchmark for it's combination of of performance and luxury. There ARE no buts about that. The TL still cannot match the BMWs overall performance, and as C&D notes, the braking from 70 is way behind the 330i. So while I don't begrudge the TL top spot in CR, it doesn't mean it's really best in class, just best in VALUE.
The 3 series redesign is now a few years old, to have every other magazine, still note it's the benchmark except for one, says mountains about the car. Do you think the Acura will remain on the top for 4 years in a row?
And while nobody needs an BMW, Acura or even an expensive Honda or Mazda, they also note the Accord is almost as good as the TL for $7K less. That does not say a lot about the TL.
So they say the Accord is almost as good as the TL for $7K less and the TL is almost as good as the Bimmer for $8K less. I think it says ALOT about the TL.
And, sorry, but based on the numbers provided here by bimmer lovers, the TL is MUCH closer to the BMW than the TL is to the Accord.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"With that said I think that 99% of the population will not be able to take advantage of RWD, and another 1%( Race car drivers) will be smart enof not to do it. "
Have you ever driven a RWD car that atually rocks. Without reading back I would guess if you own a RWD it must be a lincoln.
You dont have to be on the edge of the traction envelope to enjoy RWD or benefit from it, shall we say. That assertation above is hilarious. The two platforms are so different in fundamanetal and basic engineering that they are entirely different beasts. Just because FWD works well 99% of the time (more like 85-90) does not mean it works as well.
You dont have to be Andretti to take an apex with enough velocity to enjoy the line and balance that only comes in RWD. If 99% cant enjoy the benes than why are they demanding every manufacturer in the US put a RWD sedan in thier lineup?????
Are you kidding?! Most of us are stuck in traffic every day. And what do you do when the snow falls? At what speed is your RWD traction envelope then? Less than the TL's for sure.
"Are you kidding?! Most of us are stuck in traffic every day. And what do you do when the snow falls? At what speed is your RWD traction envelope then? Less than the TL's for sure."
Correct, but my AWD SUV has a higher threshold than the TL, and over 2.5 feet of snow on the ground won't stop it. So what is the point? How fast we can all drive through snow?
"Are you kidding?! Most of us are stuck in traffic every day. And what do you do when the snow falls? At what speed is your RWD traction envelope then? Less than the TL's for sure. "
I take the train to wrok. Traffic makes me crazy so I choose sanity if I can. I live in this horrible infrastructure in Philly and work in the city so driving happens elsewhere. And when it snows I use the AWD suv we just purchased...Living in canada you may have to make these compromises to get an all season car. Not really so bad here in fact the G with Turanzas is fine in upto 3 inches or so. That means I cant drive the G about 1 day -4 days a year.
I still put 12k a year on my car on trips to NC and trips to the mountains and on my infamous 4am speed runs to a WaWa off the NE extension. If it snows tho those will be performed using the SUV and will feauture a run or two at Blue Mountain.
Comments
It's very interesting to me that the accord popped up a few times in this thread about near luxury cars.
I must say that the 240hp accord seemed more powerful than the BMW, with only marginally worse handling. granted I was not on a race track, but this is everyday driving.
I also must say that this accord had every possible option and is $4,000 cheaper than the BMW that has almost no options (not even power seats!) I was amazed that you could actually talk to the navigation system.
Finally, I was amazed at how plush the honda was and how spartan the BMW was. the BMW was almost embarassingly uncomfortable on the inside.
All this being said, can anyone really justify goping with the BMW here? Also, can anyone justify spending $4k more for the Acura TL.
Maybe go for the BMW because of 1) all wheel drive and 2) prestige of driving a BMW?
Please let me know, Thank you.
riez and kd, I wonder how far you two push you RWD cars. I have a TL and I really in to cars so I have driven quiet a few RWD and FWD cars. With that said do you really know your cars limits, I bet you don't, because if you do you must of crash it a few times (or be really close to it) to understand were exactly the limit is. In order to compare RWD and FWD you really have to spend alot of time driving each one and really push it to the limit, and that would only be possible only on the race trace or on the empty road at night. I don't think any of you two had this kind of experience and for this meter so as anybody else on this side including myself. So if you think that RWD is better than FWD that is your opinion, not a fact, and it varies from car to car. While 330 in my opinion has a slight advantage over TL in handling, there is no way you can take advantage of it. As for IS, in my opinion it does not even handle as good as TL, so just leave it a that.
But to answer the question, I push the car pretty darn hard. I don't drive to smash 'er up or to race it, but the predictable response, smooth drivetrain and communicative steering let's me do almost anything. Now could a professional push it harder, absolutely.
Honda Accord V6 to a BMW 325 for $28,000. To me it's no contest, the Honda is very nice at that price. I never go for loaded cars, but there is a certain level of options that I want. A $28,000 BMW does not have it. Having just driven a loaded Honda Accord, I can say it drives very nicely. Could I see myself driving it? Absolutely? Does it handle anywhere close to my 330i. Not a chance. But if the sport in sports sedan doesn't matter, it's a compelling choice.
"I have a TL and I really in to cars so I have driven quiet a few RWD and FWD cars."
Me too, including a 911.
"So if you think that RWD is better than FWD that is your opinion, not a fact, and it varies from car to car. While 330 in my opinion has a slight advantage over TL in handling, there is no way you can take advantage of it."
pp - I agree. If you're idea of handling is to plow threw snow with all-seasons a FWD will outdo a RWD. But I can feel the difference between a great FWD and a great RWD. It is no contest. Does it make a difference going to work on traffic clogged streets. No. But that is not what this conversation is about, or else we would all be driving Hyundais (sorry shenkar that's the last of it). A great RWD will be able to outperform in the aggregate a great FWD, because of the balance and power delivery. As I said it doesn't make a difference in traffic cloggeds streets, but that is not what this conversation is about. What drive-train one chooses is a personal preference. They each have their advantages and limitations.
But let's not confuse the ability of the car with the ability of the driver or amount of traffic on the road.
Anything beyond that is for the "fun" and "prestige" factor. How much that fun and prestige are worth is up to you.
If you're considering the Accord, you might also want to give the TL a shot. If you don't want the Nav, the TL can be had for up to $2k off MSRP in some areas at which point it doesn't cost more than a comparable Accord.
That $7K represents the difference between the TL and the 330i. The same $7K that has been "beat to death" as part of the value equation.
You've found a ride you really like. We're all glad for you. Why spoil it for everyone else who may like something different. Can't both decisions be valid???"
There is no voodoo or gospel here and no marketing hype. Marketing hype is what got FWD to suceed. RWD platfroms offer a lot of good things to a paltform and it makes sense to improve the design of auto's. FWD is a thing of the past I would bet by 2010. RWD with traction control is great for 60% of the country and the rest will be offered AWD or ATEESA type systems.
The argument that FWD is a good decision isn't invalidated yet neither can you say that it's hype that gets people demanding RWD cars. Balance is not just weight distribution..it's also which way the weight shift when you floor it. RWD is not bad - in fact it's merit's, I believe, and not hype got it on the comeback trail.
Has a car ever competed with BMW before 02 in the entry lux arena. There were plenty of attempts with FWD but none suceeded until G35 out RWD sedan.
That $7K represents the difference between the TL and the 330i. The same $7K that has been "beat to death" as part of the value equation.
______________
The Accord I can get for $26-26.5k fully loaded.
The BMW will be $30k minimum.
The point is that if I am going to spend the extra money on a car, I want it to be a BMW, not an Acura.
To me, the whole point of the Accord is saving the $$$ and getting the options. My whole point of a BMW is the fact that it has the prestige of BMW.
Therefore it makes no sense to me to spend $30k on an acura, thereby not getting the prestige but still spening the $$$.
Specifically the 3-series though. It's ironic above $40K there is not a lot of competition in the FWD space. Aside from the Acura RL, what other vehicle is FWD? The IS is a competitor and was not overlooked. However, I still think the styling of the IS300 is racer-like and not really world class. That would keep me from getting it (although riez loves his). Certainly not as nice looking as the SC430.
Thank you for you attention (as he steps down off his soap box...) (:^())
Notice that premium marques like BMW (excluding the Mini brand, but that is a unique situation) and MB don't use FWD. Guess their buyers are just uneducated about the benefits of FWD?
Notice that supercar manufacturers like Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lambro, etc. don't use FWD. Guess their buyers are just uneducated about the benefits of FWD?
Does Honda use FWD in its NSX supercar? Honda knows the difference between FWD and RWD.
Do Mazda and Toyota use FWD for performance cars like Miata or MR2? They know the difference between FWD and RWD cars.
With NAV? Tell me where and I'll be there in a flash to purchase it. New? 0 miles? Out the door? Even Edmunds TMV estimates about $27.5K
"BMW is the fact that it has the prestige of BMW."
Let's see Honda has value, BMW has prestige. Sort of ignored the equation in the middle. Why someone would want to purchase any car. I could purchase a car much less expensive with much more value than a Honda and equal reliability.
Let's try it this way. Honda has a reputation for providing value in it's cars. BMW has a reputation for building cars with a level of luxury and performance. That's a much better way of saying Honda has value, BMW has prestige.
I still say, for most people, driving on public roads in America, the real-world performance differences are negligible at best...non-existent at worst.
I currently own both FWD and RWD vehicles, and I love them all. They all do exactly what I need them to do. So does that mean that my RWD Mercedes sedans are superior to my '04 FWD Nissan Quest van? Certainly not based on drivetrain configuration alone.
There are a very few situations where one or the other will clearly be preferrable, but in most other situations they will be interchangable. I just don't believe there are absolutes when discussing the average driver, on the average road here in America. And I'd be so bold as to say that includes every single one of us (unless you reside in Nevada or Utah or the like).
We're fundamentally arguing our preferences and prejudices, in the main, and I don't see the need for that since they both are valid in MOST situations.
The rear drivers will never let this go. The driving dynamic is desirable and evident all the time - and I would suggest most of on this board would be above average in our expectations for performance and platform. You dont have to go to Utah to enjoy the dynamics. There may be no merit in arguing which is better F or R drive but there is no way you can say a RWD car is never enjoyed or worth it or needed. The cars may be interchangable most of the time if you want to get there but the desirable charachteristics of RWD are there to enjoy all the time and the preference is more than fluff.
Change PA to NY or NJ and here's my take. The handling will be compromised at best without snow tires. This applies to any RWD vehicle. Preferably 4 good snows will make a big difference.
since it is cheaper for manufacturers to use FWD and serves to make smaller and lighter cars (which translates to better gas mileage), then, no, you won't see that happen. But, if I were to entertain your idea for a moment and throw away all benefits to a manufacturer, I'd have to say BOTH RWD and FWD will be in the past and everything will be AWD.
As far as the RWD vs. FWD, I'd like to do as I say above and jump on the side of AWD! If its good enough for some top supercars and exotics, its good enough for me!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
AWD does add weight, lower fuel efficiency and compromise handling. The trade-off is the ability to handle torque with the loss of balance posed by the additional hardware. But to some the trade-off is worth it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"With NAV? Tell me where and I'll be there in a flash to purchase it. New? 0 miles? Out the door? Even Edmunds TMV estimates about $27.5K"
$26.5k is the street price of a new EX-V6 NAV. Check the Accord Prices board. Edmunds TMV tends to be conservative. The EX-V6 can be had for $24k. It'll depend on location. It is not out the door, since it doesn't take into account taxes, title, registration, etc., but the same can be said for any car when comparing prices.
oh, unless you interpret me saying "some of the supercars..." as meaning most don't. Well, I didn't want to get into an argument about semantics, so I was being conservative. Fact is, not all are RWD, so, obviously, high-end manufacturers don't necessarily believe RWD is the end-all-be-all of performance. That's all I was saying.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The new to be E60 M5 3.9 to 60 RWD. You don't need AWD to do it. It's just another option, just like FWD. But it does add extra weight, reduce gas mileage. Sure manufacturers have used it to lay power down 4 wheels at a time.
I also think that you will not be able to achieve more in RWD over FWD. I was also asuming that one should have the same experience driving both FWD and RWD, you clearly don't have that. For example, I passed 330 on the I95 the other day, and guess what he almost killed himself trying to catch me, I was driving my friend RAV4. Does it mean RAV4 is a better car that 330, no, it means the guy can't drive. With that said I think that 99% of the population will not be able to take advantage of RWD, and another 1%( Race car drivers) will be smart enof not to do it.
But TIRES are the single most important component for traction. Get the best tires money can buy.
When looking at test results, you have to look at what track, track conditions, drivers, tires, methodology, etc.
Keep in mind that F1, NASCAR, etc. all have arbitrary rules. NASCAR uses live axles and carburetors (I can't hardly spell this archaic word). Much more powerful F1 cars have various restrictions on engine size, etc. F1 cars in early 1980s put out 1,200 HP. Today they are more like 900 or so HP. There is no racing series I know, reputable and offical, that allows an absolute free-for-all for cars--any size, weight, engine size, any engine configuration, turbos, superchargers, nitrous oxide or other performance enhancers, AWD, etc. Would be fascinating.
I'm fairly certain I would have passed on a 330i with AWD. I don't like the understeer then neutral then oversteer drive feel of an AWD car. My friend's WRX is a fun, highly modded car but the AWD system makes me VERY happy to get back into my RWD 330i.
Additionally, I'm not impressed by the higher maintenance costs, lower mileage and added weight. BTW, I live in southern california, so AWD is really only for the snowboarders and the...rock climbers? Not many of us face weather that needs AWD.
In 2002 in the Northeast when there were a lot of snowstorms, RWD cars without snowtires got stuck on the road. If my ride were a BMW 330 (not an all wheel drive), I'd have to buy at least 2 snow tires for the rear wheels and hang on to them. Then I'd have to go to the mechanic to get them installed before the snowstorm hits.
Oh no, everyone else is on line doing the same thing and the mechanic can't get to me, too bad. Now I'm stuck on snow roads with regular tires in a RWD car. Oh damn, now I just got stuck and have to walk home in 2 foot snow while getting snowsprayed by all the FWD cars going through no problem. Or better yet, I just spun out but before I crashed I was thinking "Well this is a small price to pay for having a RWD performance car."
In NY, I drive a FWD car out of choice b/c I have gotten stuck in snow in RWD cars, but I have never gotten stuck in a FWD car. And yes, I did have an AWD Audi but the extra weight on the car made the car really slow and a gas hog.
And what happens if I trade in the car and it uses different size tires? Now I have to get new snow tires and try to sell the old ones. Good luck getting value for those old snow tires.
In sum, RWD in a good performance car gives best performance but that don't mean much in snow.
AWD gives best snow performance but on dry roads it's slower, the heavier weight of the car affects its turning ability and when you have to do a lot of turning the software on the AWD system gets confused so the car acts schizophrenic.
FWD doesn't give as good a performance in snow as AWD, but it's usually good enough and its performance on dry roads is second to RWD but better than AWD, and it usually has the best gas mileage.
I think that manufacturers will continue to make FWD, RWD and AWD cars to suit different tastes and climates. Since the CamCord are the best selling cars and they're FWD (plus they show no signs of giving up the sales crown), I disagree with your contention that FWD cars are a thing of the past.
...as they put it, most of their favorite V6 family sedans like the Accord, Camry, and Passat "scored higher in our tests than most of the vehicles in this category, and they cost about $3,000 to $9,000 less."
If you want to see how the 330i and IS300 stack up, you have to pull out the May 2001 issue of CR.
Speaking of tires...
330i was non-Sport Pkg and rode on 205/50R17 93V (mediocre) Continental ContiTouringContact tires.
TL rode on Bridgestone Turanza EL42 P235/45R17 93W tires.
IS300 rode on Goodyear Eagle GS-D 215/45ZR17 87W tires.
For those who love numbers, with each being tested with an automatic transmission...
60-0 mph dry braking: IS300 128 ft, TL 130 ft, and 330i 131 ft
Avoidance maneuver: IS300 57 mph, 330i 55.5 mph, and TL 52.5 mph
0-60 mph: 330i 6.6 secs, TL 6.7 secs, and IS300 7.4 secs
45-65 mph: TL 4.2 secs, IS300 4.4 secs, and 330i 5.3 secs
1/4 mile: 330i 15.1 secs, TL 15.2 secs, and IS300 15.7 secs
CR clearly points out that the TL cannot handle like the 330i or IS300.
Overall fuel economy: TL 23 mpg, 330i 22 mpg, and IS300 21 mpg
Predicted reliability: IS300 best rating with TL and 330i getting next best rating (in original test). In today's data, IS300 retains best rating and 330i has fallen to only average reliability.
Interesting that of the 15 cars in their "upscale sedan category", the FWDers finished 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th. The RWDers finished 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 12th. The AWDers finished 7th and 13th. Say the RWDers win this one.
A FWDer and RWDer of the same total weight will NOT have that weight evenly distributed. That weight distribution penalty causes an inherent disadvantage.
And since the best tires can go on any vehicle, the FWDer cannot overcome its limitations by using better rubber.
( 5.7 as I recall and I know it was the manual trans )..much worse braking ( 180 some feet I think ). A nice set of comparison numbers you put together however
riez, I think we all agree that tires men a lot when it comes to handling.
Here is some stats. for you:
Bridgestone Turanza EL42 P235/45R17 93W : handling rating - 5.80, dry traction - 6.30, wet traction - 5.1
Goodyear Eagle GS-D 215/45ZR17 87W tires: handling rating - 8.80, dry traction - 9.20, wet traction - 9.10
ContiTouringContact 205/50R17 93V tires: handling rating - 8.30, dry traction - 8.70, wet traction - 7.7
The number are based on 10 point system and taken from tire rack.
As you can see TL has the worse tires by far. This is why TL scored marginally lover in handling and accelerations tests, plus as somebody mentioned TL is also heavier.
With that said , if you put the same tires on all three vehicles you will get almost identical numbers in handling.
Do keep in mind that you have to pay careful attention to the test methodology. If you study the fine print of R&T, MT, and C&D, you'll see how they do theirs. Tells how they achieve maximum 0-60 mph times (e.g., high RPM drop clutch) and whether they publish actual results (what they did that day on that track at that altitude at that temperature) or adjusted results (mathematically altering the data for temperature, etc.). Thinking C&D and MT publish adjusted results and R&T publishes actual results. Also thinking R&T discusses how results within a certain range are essentially statistically not different. (I prefer their methodology, even though C&D is much more enjoyable to read.)
Do you happen to know the DOT grades (temperature, wear, and traction) for each of these tires?
The ContiTouringContacts are NOT a performance tire. Continental ContiSportContacts and ContiSportContact 2s are Continentals highest performing tires. My wife's '00 323ia had the Tourings; I put a set of SportContact 2s on my '98 540i6. World of difference.
CR's 330i would have handled and braked much better if it had had the optional Sport Pkg, which it did not. The Sport Pkg provides improved suspension setting and better tires (e.g., a tire like the SportContact).
In the realm of tires, a 30 mm width difference is like the grand canyon. Thinking 25 mm is approx. 1 inch.
As for Tire Rack data, I don't know how they came up with it, but I know that tire rack is one of the best stores when it comes to tires. If you want, go to tirerack.com and get all details you need.
The 3 series redesign is now a few years old, to have every other magazine, still note it's the benchmark except for one, says mountains about the car. Do you think the Acura will remain on the top for 4 years in a row?
And while nobody needs an BMW, Acura or even an expensive Honda or Mazda, they also note the Accord is almost as good as the TL for $7K less. That does not say a lot about the TL.
And, sorry, but based on the numbers provided here by bimmer lovers, the TL is MUCH closer to the BMW than the TL is to the Accord.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Have you ever driven a RWD car that atually rocks. Without reading back I would guess if you own a RWD it must be a lincoln.
You dont have to be on the edge of the traction envelope to enjoy RWD or benefit from it, shall we say. That assertation above is hilarious. The two platforms are so different in fundamanetal and basic engineering that they are entirely different beasts. Just because FWD works well 99% of the time (more like 85-90) does not mean it works as well.
You dont have to be Andretti to take an apex with enough velocity to enjoy the line and balance that only comes in RWD. If 99% cant enjoy the benes than why are they demanding every manufacturer in the US put a RWD sedan in thier lineup?????
I'm not sure I walked away with that impression. So you have a car that doesn't handle nearly as well, yet a better entry sports sedan?
I bought the 3-series for it's handling, ride, luxury, spot-on-steering. Not for the Mark Levinson stereo.
Correct, but my AWD SUV has a higher threshold than the TL, and over 2.5 feet of snow on the ground won't stop it. So what is the point? How fast we can all drive through snow?
huh?? I didn't say it was better.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I take the train to wrok. Traffic makes me crazy so I choose sanity if I can. I live in this horrible infrastructure in Philly and work in the city so driving happens elsewhere. And when it snows I use the AWD suv we just purchased...Living in canada you may have to make these compromises to get an all season car. Not really so bad here in fact the G with Turanzas is fine in upto 3 inches or so. That means I cant drive the G about 1 day -4 days a year.
I still put 12k a year on my car on trips to NC and trips to the mountains and on my infamous 4am speed runs to a WaWa off the NE extension. If it snows tho those will be performed using the SUV and will feauture a run or two at Blue Mountain.