My 19 years of expereince and research on this topic, including 3 years of Expert level roadracing, and more motorcycles and cars than I can count, has me landed on a modified break in schedule.
I take it easy for the first few times out or ~300 miles. This allows the engine to go through a few heat cycles and smooth any rough surfaces. Also, it is important to note that my approach is both heat cycle and miles based...it does much less good just to drive your vehicle on the highway for 300 miles than to let it warm up and then all the way down a few times.
The next 2-300 or so, I allow myself a few 5-10 second sprints to redline. This allows the rings to seat and lets the engine generate some heat, but not for an extended period of time. Extended temperatures of high heat is the real enemy.
The next 2-300 or so, I allow myself some progressively longer high RPM usage.
Change oil and filter, and let it rip. I know this is much earlier than recommended for the 1st oil change, and I'm NOT an oil change junkie by any stretch...but if you believe the 1st 1200 miles smoothes surfaces and lets the engine break in, where do you think the shaved particles go? In your oil and filter! Now, some argue that the filter should capture it all, I'm not sold on that based on post break in oil analyses I've seen. Yes, you can send your oil away for an analysis for pretty cheap.
If it is a leased car and you don't plan on keeping it for a long time or past warranty, does it really matter? Well, some argue that properly heat cycling seals the rings better and smoothes irregularties better, thus leading to better performance, and have dyno results to back that position up. Now, in the case of road race cycles, 1-2 HP can mean a lot in a Supersport class, and we dyno our engines regularly, sometimes dozens of times per season...does the same pursuit of break in perfection apply in road cars? You have to decide for yourself.
It's funny that you should say that about the newer E, CLS and S's skipping the pre-sets with the steering wheel controls. My 2000 S500(the one I traded for the M45) didn't skip the pre-sets, but my father told me his 2004 E500 does. I thought it was just old age operator error on his part and that he hadn't configured it to hit the pre-sets, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It seems possible I was too harsh in my judgements of his lucidity...(on that subject). Agreed. Total deal killer.
I think we may agree more than not. On the few winding roads I have travelled with the M I chose not to use the cruise control because I like to control my speed in and out of curves.
I believe what you say because the ICC has no way to anticipate curves and could easily detect a car in another lane around a curve as being in front of you. I saw this once when a car in front of me braked to take an exit ramp and the ICC slowed until the other car was a good 5 or 6 feet off to my right before resuming speed. The gas pedal does appear to override the ICC in these instances and in passing.
I think that if you took a long cross-country trip on typical highways and interstates you opinion of the ICC in that environment might be different.
I am getting a M35. But in bay area nobody has the diamond graphite exterior color. The closest I could get is liquid platinum. Does anybody know how it looks in liquid platinum or have a pic to share?
about the newer E, CLS and S's skipping the pre-sets with the steering wheel controls. My 2000 S500(the one I traded for the M45) didn't skip the pre-sets, but my father told me his 2004 E500 does. I thought it was just old age operator error on his part
They "upgraded " the optical bus and ended up losing that feature as of 2004. There have been many, many complaints on the Mercedes forums, but all the newer models continue to have the problem; even the newest CLS. It's really hard to imagine, but then again it's the kind of thing they've done many times done before.
Similar to keeping their CD changer in the trunk under the floor mats, for 10 years after competitors started offering in-dash changers; or many years of NAV with no street names on their maps.
As USA Today says, the M just doesn't have any of those German privations.
I have also accidentally hit the up/down button on the steering wheel when turning the steering wheel with one finger. It takes conscious effort and thought to remember not to do it - I'm sure it will be a distant memory real soon as I continue to get more familiar with the car and form lasting habits.
Overall love the car and I am soon to finish the 1,200 mile break-in period. I will have the oil changed and the "let it rip" as one other poster said so eloquently.
As to other German privations, I bought a jumbo Diet Coke at McDonald's (don't ask) the other day and guess what...IT FIT EASILY INTO THE CUPHOLDER!!! 5 1/2 years of nothing bigger than a can of pop in the Mercedes cupholder comes to an end! Oh, the humanity...
In all the comparisons I have read so far, I have not yet seen a full-blown STS luxo sport (1SG) tested against the M45. The comparos always seem to have either the V6 STS or at best the 1SE model with the low (numerical) axle ratio more suited to economy than acceleration. Part of the problem is that Caddy has their sportiest model as an option package that adds 10K or so to the price of the base V8 model, so they "break the bank" on some of the dollar ceilings that the automags set for the comparison. Cadillac needs to fix this ASAP, unless they always want to finish sixth in these tests. An easy "fix" would be to offer a "sport package" for the 1SE STS entry V8 model which could add a stiffer suspension, bigger wheels/tires and a higher numerical rear axle ratio - this could probably be done for a relatively small sum (e.g. maybe $1000-1500 or so). Back in the Day, GM, Ford and Chrysler did this sort of thing routinely. It was not uncommon to see some Plymouth Belvedere (cheapo) optioned with a Hemi, manual tranny and 'heavy duty' suspension, but no stereo, A/C, etc. This was to satisfy the element that didn't want luxo goodies, but did want low weight, high power and blazing speed. As for the Infiniti VQ, that is a V6 - and a good one - but not likely to outrun the Northstar V8 if the latter is connected to either the 1SF or 1SG axles (i.e. at least 3.23).
Try these steps: 1. Have a DVD-Audio disc in the drive and let it play for a while. 2. Then switch to the satellite radio or play a CD in the changer. 3. Press the speech recognition button on the steering wheel and wait for the voice prompt (unless it is switched off). 4. Say "DVD play track 2" and the system will repeat the command, and will say and even briefly display "DVD mode" as if switching to that source.
Nothing happens -- you are still listening to the radio or CD. Now in step #4 say "DVD play" instead and it does play the DVD where you left off. You can now say "DVD play track 2" and it will change to that track.
However: 2a. Press the Disc button and manually re-start the DVD playback. 3. and 4. Now these steps work as intended.
Is it a bug or a feature or am I doing something wrong? I would expect that switching between sources and selecting a particular track should be accomplished in one legal (because it is recognized and partially executed) command.
P.S. Have not tried it with a regular CD instead of the DVD because all of CDs I have in the changer are MP3, so the track number does not apply. Suspect a similar outcome.
I'm a mechanical engineer & have driven several different (motorcycles, sports cars, 855 CID Cummins) vehicles bought new & your approach makes more sense than anything I've ever read in a manual. It requires keeping track of the things that matter, rather than doing something stone simple. Anyone want to guess why it's not standard procedure?
Oh, and it's quite similar to what I do. Imagine that.
Just passed 1,200 miles on the M35x and have grown increasingly weary of the gearing ratios and mileage. Basically, under moderate acceleration (say up to 3,500 rpms) from standstill, transmission switches to the 3rd gear by the time the car reaches low-30s mph. Yes, I know about the "learning" tranny electronics and all that but all other sedans I had would extend until at least the low-40s under these conditions. The only other vehicle that does this for me is an underpowered MB SUV. While this is well known and somewhat accepted on this forum, I am beginning to think these gearing ratios need major re-engineering. The 270lb-ft of torque claimed over a wide rpm range should be more than enough to get a better acceleration. Or, give me an M45x.
In regular highway driving the rpms are around 3k plus minus a few hundred almost all the time. My usual commute is approx. 9 miles one way, with about 2 miles in the city and the rest on the highway. Even taking the break-in period into account, 17.8 mpg on average was very low given that my first ~450 mile trip out the dealer yielded 24.8 mpg (both with A/C on). Now stepping a bit harder on the gas, say up to 4krpm but only during accelaration, lowers the mpg down to 17.1 or so.
Now compare the power/torque/efficiency specs to a similar 3.5L Toyota engine, say the one used in the Avalon or the new IS350 (yes, these cars are not AWD but AWD is not engaged all the time in the M35x--"rear bias"). How can the Nissan engine be touted as the "one of the best 10 engines ever" with such performance? Can a couple hundred pounds of car weight make such a big difference?
[Hope this will spawn a healthy discussion not just shooting me down as a "renegade" M owner. I admit I may not know/appreciate all design trade-offs that were made.:) ]
I dutifully managed to respect the 4k RPM limit, although at times (after 600 mi) I pushed it around 5-6k and let it down. I drove it a lot of the highways at night while constantly accelerating, decelerating, downshiftingto 4th, upshifting, etc. At 1200 mi, I changed the oil & filter, and started to open it up much more. I started to floor it a few times (for the quick of it) toward 1800+ mi, where I'm more confident the break-in is mostly completed. All sound mechanics I've come across in the past years have always told me to add 50% to the manufacturer's recommendation in terms of break-in if you want a healthy engine/tranny for the long run (100k mi). Not really important for those who lease...
I was similarly surprised when I first discovered that with the voice command on my Q45, but that's how it's designed. Here's an excerpt from the M manual:
Note: DVD commands are available while a DVD is being played. DVD [ON/PLAY/ PLAYER] and DVD HELP are available anytime.
Like Democracy, the M isn't perfect. It's just much, much better than any alternative.
Couple of things: first, the Nissan VQ engine is a very good one, but not the most modern out there. Many of the newest 6 cylinder engines now available have a number of features missing in the VQ. For example, the Lexus 3.0L V6 and the Toyota 3.5L V6 feature continuously variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust cams - Infiniti has it only on the intake cam. Both the Toyota engines also have some sort of managed intake air flow system (Mercedes has it on their new 3.5L V6 and they call it a "tumble flap" design). All of the aforementioned competitors also have direct injection, Infiniti does not. These new features help provide lower emissions and better mileage while increasing power. Nissan could probably make these changes to the VQ and create an awesome engine which would give you more power and mileage, but they haven't done it yet. Instead, they have chosen to put a relatively high (numerically) rear axle ratio in the M35 to help with acceleration - works, but creates higher RPM while cruising and less mileage than some of these competitors. Let's see how long it takes for Nissan to improve the VQ (and do the same thing to their V8 while they are at it - Lexus will put all these goodies on their upcoming 4.6L V8).
POSTSCRIPT - Apparently, the reverse scrolling of the presets when using the steering wheel toggle switch only occurs while the presets are being programmed! This morning, after starting my M35x, I was surprised to find that the toggle switch arrows are now aligned with the numbering of the station presets! Scrolling the toggle switch up steps down the preset numbers and vice versa. All is now right in my M35x world!
While I'm all for competition and improvement, there is little direct evidence for saying the Toyota engines offer more power and better fuel economy. The Infiniti VQ's are tuned for (much) more power and torque than either the Lexus 3.0 or Toyota 3.5. When you look at the tuning of the VQ in Nissan form, which is much closer in power output and put into vehicles with similar weight, rated fuel economy is about the same.
Infiniti has made tuning decisions to offer more power and performance at the expense of fuel economy in their VQ offerings. Will more technology make it better? Yes, but the VQ is holding it's own 'as is' and still deserves its spot on the list of great engines.
FWIW, I think the biggest enemy of the M is weight. Getting back to Lexus GS, the weights are about 250 lbs, apples for apples, less than the Infiniti M. If memory serves (Iron Chef reference), the 5 series holds about the same weight advantage. I must be hungry right now, I would like to know, "Where's the beef?"
I agree with Pearl. My Lexus LS 4.3L V8 was bigger and heavier than my M35x Premium and it gets to 60 a tad faster while getting 2 mpg better. IMO that means the 6 speed and other Toyota technology are a good thing. I'm hoping Infinity will work on improving MPG. Maybe a new button for Performance/Econony which directs the computer to push for Performance or fuel economy.
That said, I have zero regrets trading the LS for the M. The LS is flawless, but bland. The M is so much more fun to drive and has a number of other features that outperform the LS. I'm just suprised I lost 2 MPG in the deal. And $3 a gallon isn't helping that.
Just got back from a long drive on very wet roads and and a fair amount of rain yesterday. No problem with overall handling. I noticed less of that 'stuck to the road' feeling that I have with my M45 ( and Goodyears) on dry pavement, but I think that's to be expected. I felt the car was better than several RWD MB's I driven.
With premium unleaded over $3 bucks a gallon in most places, at least in Chicago, I'm just curious if anyone has started/is using regular unleaded and what their experience is using it? So far, I've stuck with the premium stuff, but I'd be curious as to what others are using and if they notice any difference in performance. One of my friends used to work for Amoco a while back and he said that the premium gas is not much more than marketing fluff and that the regular unleaded isn't any different than the higher priced fuel.
Question for all you M35/x/45 drivers without navigation: I was told that even the non-nav Ms have voice recognition for the climate control and radio.
1. Is that true? 2. Is anything else integrated in addition to the radio and climate controls (admittedly, I can't think of what else could be integrated)?
I don't know much about the physics/mechanics of ICE's, but if a certain grade is listed in the owner's manual (based on compression ratio), you should use that grade. In the V8, I would stick with premium. Using regular should not hurt the engine, but the compensation that the engine would then make would reduce mileage--making the switch to regular a wash from an economic standpoint, and reducing performance in the bargain. I am unclear as to whether the minimum recommended rating for the VQ in the M35 is 87 or 92. The insert seems to indicate that it is made to run on regular.
I, too, am hoping to hear from people driving the V6. Has your mileage suffered?
Yes, it is true. Merely "press" the voice button on your steering wheel, wait for the prompt, then clearly state "temperature 72" or "tune 102.7" and it will do so.
Your CD player also responds to voice command as well.
The engine in the M35 is almost identical to that found in the G35 and FX35. Both can run on regular. I agree, however, that the V8 should be fed premium (335 hp) and to realize optimum fuel economy premium should be used.
The V6 can run quite well on regular. Infiniti only "recommends" premium in the V6.
As with any grade of gasoline, if you hear the slightest knocking noise from the engine, first try another brand of gas, and if that doesn't work, move up one grade to mid-grade.
The "knocking" test is not as reliable as it used to be, modern engine computers make adjustments to timings that retard perfromance but mitigate knocking. As was said before, in a pinch the VQ can run regular, but the V8 has always been premium only.
If you do the math, let's say you drive 15K miles/year and premium is 20 cents/gal higher and you are getting 18mpg, you save $167 year with the regular unleaded, and not even really that since theoretically your car gets better gas mileage with the good stuff.
Not worth it in my book, and if $167/year is worth it, I'd make another sacrifice and re-evaluate my debt-income ratio.
The "is there really a difference" debate has gone on since internet auto blogs, search google to find them, and almost all independent testing I've seen shows that yes there is a difference. Here is one such test that concluded that buying cheap gas in an engine designed for premium reduced fuel economy by about the same amount as the difference in price: http://www.baileycar.com/gasoline_html.html
Great post hihomike. I will check out the link you sent. It's not a debt-income ratio issue for me anyway, it's more just trying to rationalize things I've heard and read, but scientifically I haven't been able to nail any one viewpoint down as gospel. In the end it's very likely a six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I own the 6 cylinder M35x so perhaps it is less an issue to use the regular than the v8 owners, but I wanted to see what others were doing. So far I've kept my car "virgin" by only using the premium stuff. It's interesting to see by the responses so far with the V6 engine that they're using regular unleaded.
Does the bourbon leather come with black carpet? I can't remember from the dealership last week. I like the two-tone look, but I'm not sold on the bourbon leather yet. The only other two-tone option I believe is the grey leather (with black floors), which is only in sport models, with the aluminum trim. I posted on the performance board that I may have a trim expert the dealer works with add a dark wood, gloss finish wood to the sport model. Any thoughts?
Yes, all M35/45 have voice recognition of the: 1. Climate Controls (can tell it to set driver and passenger temps different also!) 2. Bluetooth telephone interface 3. Audio system ("play disk 3, track 5" for example) 4. Almost anything that can be controlled manually from the center control panel.
Very powerful system, but can be a little tricky sometimes. My wife is from Kentucky and the system has problems with her accent. And for some reason I cannot get the Bluetooth system voice tag to work for "call home." But, other than these minor things it works very well. Great demo to show your friends.
Interesting that you, too, have trouble phoning "home", E.T. I was having the same problem until I (counterintuitively) decided to try enunciating LESS and speaking the command more quietly. Prior to that I would always get 'Dial 0" when I wanted it to "Dial Home". Go Miesian...less is more. Let me know if it works for you.
Yes, the bourbon has black carpeting, mats, and dash. Some don't like the multiplicity of colors in the bourbon (bourbon, matte wood, black, and light grey headliner). I don't see it as a problem whatsoever. Everyone who sees the car thinks it's gorgeous (black exterior, bourbon interior).
Bart: I agree about the relative cost of gas to the cost of the car, but if there is no penalty from an mpg or performance standpoint (for the V6 at least), why pay the equivalent of an extra latte every week?
A definite no-no. Octane rating is a measure of how resistant gasoline is to premature detonation (knocking). It's not "better", it just blows up when it's supposed to. Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine be run at a higher compression ratio without having problems with knock. High-performance engines are designed to operate with a compression ratio associated with high octane numbers, and thus demand high-octane gasoline. Expect less performance (because of premature detonations), hence lower gas mileage, and possibly engine damage on the long run. There's really no point to it, especially with sport-luxury cars...
IS350: 306hp; 277lb-ft (@rpm and mpg not available) [yes, direct injection and dual VVTi] With an estimated combined city/highway fuel economy in the high twenties, the IS 350's fuel efficiency is similar to the EPA average for compact cars with 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines. Low-friction engine design and carefully matched drivetrains also make significant contributions to fuel efficiency. And all of the new IS models are expected to carry the ULEV-II emissions rating.
It's good to see someone else with same opinion. Any new car, especially luxury, should have automatic locks when the car begins to move. I had this on my 1985 Buick Park Ave. I was fortunate enough to find an M45 that did not have the LDW nor the intelligent cruise control. Didn't want it. I would have preferred a passenger seat with more adjustments, and another 6 inches of leg room in the back. The huge trunk could have been a bit smaller in order to install a larger gas tank. I'm spending too much time at the pumps.
I traded a 740IL BMW. The M45 is a very nice car, but it's not there yet.
My bother, a diehard BMW driver, noted the lack of a wood steering wheel in my M35X and was pleased to see it. I have always wondered if a wood wheel, which I see in the trim of many luxury cars, makes sense. Isn't it hard, cold/hot, or slippery when handling the car with moist hands? I even find my M's wheel a bit "firm" after a prolonged driving session. How soft or firm should a wheel be? Does the M's steering wheel seem a bit "hard" to anyone else? I do like the "bumps" on the wheel just above the cross bar though. Not quite like the scalloped plastic wheels and metal horn rims of my Dad's old cars, thank God!
Full disclosure: I work for Bose ... specifically in the division responsible for the M's audio system. Previously, I worked for one of the most well respected audio consultancies in the worlds (concert hall design, noise control, sound quality, etc.). Some days I actually think I know something about sound. One of my home systems is built up around Aerial 10T's so some days I actually think I know what good sound might be. The opinions in this post are entirely mine, and are in no way meant as an "official" representation of the position of Bose Corporation.
I sympathize with your "issue" regarding Bose's lack of specs.
Back when I was a younger man, I "needed" specs for my audio equipment. By the time I earned a PhD studying how humans perceive sound, I'd realized that most of the specs used in the audio industry are meaningless or worse yet misleading.
Take frequency response. What degree of spectral smoothing was applied? How often do you see the acoustic parameters of the room in which the FR was measured? Anechoic room ... that's nothing like your listening room. And so forth .... Without this additional info, two systems with the same published FR can sound signficantly different in their tonal balance. The same is true of specs like distortion, SNR, and so forth.
So, are there important and useful audio specs? Absolutely. Can the average consumer interpret them correctly and use them wisely ... rarely. Given this situation, Bose could either join the largely meaningless specification wars or say to everyone, "listen and judge based on what you hear." After all, all the specs in the world won't make a bad system sound good or vica versa (well, specs CAN bias your perference and satisfaction ... so maybe this is another reason we should close our eyes and just listen).
The M35 is designed to be used with an Octane rating of 91 or better as recommended but will run on regular with some loss of performance. For the M45 the octane rating is required however in emergency situations can still use regular gas with significant loss of performance. Infiniti recommends that if regular should be used on the m45 it should not be used to fill the tank completely due to this significant loss of power. The manual has any other available answers regarding this on fuel recommendations.
Watt's are one of those specs that can be meaningless or pretty useful.
Here's my take. 100watts with an inefficient speaker is not as good as 50 watts with a speaker that has triple the efficiency. I'm saying watts don't matter as much as how loud it plays cleanly.
Go listen, and if it plays loud enough then don't worry about the watts.
If I'm going to worry about saving 50 cents/gallon I shouldn't be driving a $40 - $55K car. Period.
Well unlike some people the only way I can afford a $40K car is to be wise with my money. I have always been wise and prudent with my resources and do not believe in tossing money away frivolously even when I can afford to. Period! :shades:
Comments
I take it easy for the first few times out or ~300 miles. This allows the engine to go through a few heat cycles and smooth any rough surfaces. Also, it is important to note that my approach is both heat cycle and miles based...it does much less good just to drive your vehicle on the highway for 300 miles than to let it warm up and then all the way down a few times.
The next 2-300 or so, I allow myself a few 5-10 second sprints to redline. This allows the rings to seat and lets the engine generate some heat, but not for an extended period of time. Extended temperatures of high heat is the real enemy.
The next 2-300 or so, I allow myself some progressively longer high RPM usage.
Change oil and filter, and let it rip. I know this is much earlier than recommended for the 1st oil change, and I'm NOT an oil change junkie by any stretch...but if you believe the 1st 1200 miles smoothes surfaces and lets the engine break in, where do you think the shaved particles go? In your oil and filter! Now, some argue that the filter should capture it all, I'm not sold on that based on post break in oil analyses I've seen. Yes, you can send your oil away for an analysis for pretty cheap.
If it is a leased car and you don't plan on keeping it for a long time or past warranty, does it really matter? Well, some argue that properly heat cycling seals the rings better and smoothes irregularties better, thus leading to better performance, and have dyno results to back that position up. Now, in the case of road race cycles, 1-2 HP can mean a lot in a Supersport class, and we dyno our engines regularly, sometimes dozens of times per season...does the same pursuit of break in perfection apply in road cars? You have to decide for yourself.
I believe what you say because the ICC has no way to anticipate curves and could easily detect a car in another lane around a curve as being in front of you. I saw this once when a car in front of me braked to take an exit ramp and the ICC slowed until the other car was a good 5 or 6 feet off to my right before resuming speed. The gas pedal does appear to override the ICC in these instances and in passing.
I think that if you took a long cross-country trip on typical highways and interstates you opinion of the ICC in that environment might be different.
In my opinion Liquid Platinum is simply a fancy name for silver. It is a bright metallic silver color.
They "upgraded " the optical bus and ended up losing that feature as of 2004. There have been many, many complaints on the Mercedes forums, but all the newer models continue to have the problem; even the newest CLS. It's really hard to imagine, but then again it's the kind of thing they've done many times done before.
Similar to keeping their CD changer in the trunk under the floor mats, for 10 years after competitors started offering in-dash changers; or many years of NAV with no street names on their maps.
As USA Today says, the M just doesn't have any of those German privations.
Pete
I mean in terms of room and power?
Is the Northstar V8 as powerful as the VQ in real world driving?
Thanks...
Overall love the car and I am soon to finish the 1,200 mile break-in period. I will have the oil changed and the "let it rip" as one other poster said so eloquently.
Thanks for two good laughs today.
Pete
1. Have a DVD-Audio disc in the drive and let it play for a while.
2. Then switch to the satellite radio or play a CD in the changer.
3. Press the speech recognition button on the steering wheel and wait for the voice prompt (unless it is switched off).
4. Say "DVD play track 2" and the system will repeat the command, and will say and even briefly display "DVD mode" as if switching to that source.
Nothing happens -- you are still listening to the radio or CD. Now in step #4 say "DVD play" instead and it does play the DVD where you left off. You can now say "DVD play track 2" and it will change to that track.
However:
2a. Press the Disc button and manually re-start the DVD playback.
3. and 4. Now these steps work as intended.
Is it a bug or a feature or am I doing something wrong? I would expect that switching between sources and selecting a particular track should be accomplished in one legal (because it is recognized and partially executed) command.
P.S. Have not tried it with a regular CD instead of the DVD because all of CDs I have in the changer are MP3, so the track number does not apply. Suspect a similar outcome.
Oh, and it's quite similar to what I do. Imagine that.
In regular highway driving the rpms are around 3k plus minus a few hundred almost all the time. My usual commute is approx. 9 miles one way, with about 2 miles in the city and the rest on the highway. Even taking the break-in period into account, 17.8 mpg on average was very low given that my first ~450 mile trip out the dealer yielded 24.8 mpg (both with A/C on). Now stepping a bit harder on the gas, say up to 4krpm but only during accelaration, lowers the mpg down to 17.1 or so.
Now compare the power/torque/efficiency specs to a similar 3.5L Toyota engine, say the one used in the Avalon or the new IS350 (yes, these cars are not AWD but AWD is not engaged all the time in the M35x--"rear bias"). How can the Nissan engine be touted as the "one of the best 10 engines ever" with such performance? Can a couple hundred pounds of car weight make such a big difference?
[Hope this will spawn a healthy discussion not just shooting me down as a "renegade" M owner. I admit I may not know/appreciate all design trade-offs that were made.:) ]
You're welcome and it's my pleasure.
Note: DVD commands are available while a DVD is being played. DVD [ON/PLAY/
PLAYER] and DVD HELP are available anytime.
Like Democracy, the M isn't perfect. It's just much, much better than any alternative.
Pete
Infiniti has made tuning decisions to offer more power and performance at the expense of fuel economy in their VQ offerings. Will more technology make it better? Yes, but the VQ is holding it's own 'as is' and still deserves its spot on the list of great engines.
FWIW, I think the biggest enemy of the M is weight. Getting back to Lexus GS, the weights are about 250 lbs, apples for apples, less than the Infiniti M. If memory serves (Iron Chef reference), the 5 series holds about the same weight advantage. I must be hungry right now, I would like to know, "Where's the beef?"
That said, I have zero regrets trading the LS for the M. The LS is flawless, but bland. The M is so much more fun to drive and has a number of other features that outperform the LS. I'm just suprised I lost 2 MPG in the deal. And $3 a gallon isn't helping that.
1. Is that true?
2. Is anything else integrated in addition to the radio and climate controls (admittedly, I can't think of what else could be integrated)?
I, too, am hoping to hear from people driving the V6. Has your mileage suffered?
Your CD player also responds to voice command as well.
The V6 can run quite well on regular. Infiniti only "recommends" premium in the V6.
As with any grade of gasoline, if you hear the slightest knocking noise from the engine, first try another brand of gas, and if that doesn't work, move up one grade to mid-grade.
Hope this helps
If you do the math, let's say you drive 15K miles/year and premium is 20 cents/gal higher and you are getting 18mpg, you save $167 year with the regular unleaded, and not even really that since theoretically your car gets better gas mileage with the good stuff.
Not worth it in my book, and if $167/year is worth it, I'd make another sacrifice and re-evaluate my debt-income ratio.
The "is there really a difference" debate has gone on since internet auto blogs, search google to find them, and almost all independent testing I've seen shows that yes there is a difference. Here is one such test that concluded that buying cheap gas in an engine designed for premium reduced fuel economy by about the same amount as the difference in price: http://www.baileycar.com/gasoline_html.html
I own the 6 cylinder M35x so perhaps it is less an issue to use the regular than the v8 owners, but I wanted to see what others were doing. So far I've kept my car "virgin" by only using the premium stuff. It's interesting to see by the responses so far with the V6 engine that they're using regular unleaded.
I'm sure the debate will continue.
1. Climate Controls (can tell it to set driver and passenger temps different also!)
2. Bluetooth telephone interface
3. Audio system ("play disk 3, track 5" for example)
4. Almost anything that can be controlled manually from the center control panel.
Very powerful system, but can be a little tricky sometimes. My wife is from Kentucky and the system has problems with her accent. And for some reason I cannot get the Bluetooth system voice tag to work for "call home." But, other than these minor things it works very well. Great demo to show your friends.
If I'm going to worry about saving 50 cents/gallon I shouldn't be driving a $40 - $55K car. Period. :shades:
Bart: I agree about the relative cost of gas to the cost of the car, but if there is no penalty from an mpg or performance standpoint (for the V6 at least), why pay the equivalent of an extra latte every week?
P.S. I have yet to put regular into my M35x...
3.5L engines:
M35: 280hp @ 6,200rpm; 270lb-ft @4,800rpm; 18(sticker) or 17(brochure) / 24mpg
Avalon: 268hp @6,200rpm; 248lb-ft @4,700rpm; 22/31mpg
IS350: 306hp; 277lb-ft (@rpm and mpg not available) [yes, direct injection and dual VVTi]
With an estimated combined city/highway fuel economy in the high twenties, the IS 350's fuel efficiency is similar to the EPA average for compact cars with 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines. Low-friction engine design and carefully matched drivetrains also make significant contributions to fuel efficiency. And all of the new IS models are expected to carry the ULEV-II emissions rating.
Avalon = 3545 lbs 22/31 268/248
Maxima = 3467 lbs 20/28 265/255
Now the IS350 in the high 20's average, with that power output, if true, would be sweet. Are they still vaporware, or can you actually get one yet?
I traded a 740IL BMW. The M45 is a very nice car, but it's not there yet.
Full disclosure: I work for Bose ... specifically in the division responsible for the M's audio system. Previously, I worked for one of the most well respected audio consultancies in the worlds (concert hall design, noise control, sound quality, etc.). Some days I actually think I know something about sound. One of my home systems is built up around Aerial 10T's so some days I actually think I know what good sound might be. The opinions in this post are entirely mine, and are in no way meant as an "official" representation of the position of Bose Corporation.
I sympathize with your "issue" regarding Bose's lack of specs.
Back when I was a younger man, I "needed" specs for my audio equipment.
By the time I earned a PhD studying how humans perceive sound, I'd realized that most of the specs used in the audio industry are meaningless or worse yet misleading.
Take frequency response. What degree of spectral smoothing was applied? How often do you see the acoustic parameters of the room in which the FR was measured? Anechoic room ... that's nothing like your listening room. And so forth .... Without this additional info, two systems with the same published FR can sound signficantly different in their tonal balance. The same is true of specs like distortion, SNR, and so forth.
So, are there important and useful audio specs? Absolutely. Can the average consumer interpret them correctly and use them wisely ... rarely. Given this situation, Bose could either join the largely meaningless specification wars or say to everyone, "listen and judge based on what you hear." After all, all the specs in the world won't make a bad system sound good or vica versa (well, specs CAN bias your perference and satisfaction ... so maybe this is another reason we should close our eyes and just listen).
Cheers,
B
to "dial home"
Here's my take. 100watts with an inefficient speaker is not as good as 50 watts with a speaker that has triple the efficiency. I'm saying watts don't matter as much as how loud it plays cleanly.
Go listen, and if it plays loud enough then don't worry about the watts.
B
(Bose employee).
Well unlike some people the only way I can afford a $40K car is to be wise with my money. I have always been wise and prudent with my resources and do not believe in tossing money away frivolously even when I can afford to. Period! :shades: