Test drove the TL today and looked at a number of color combinations. My thoughts...
Car looks better in person than it does in pictures. Handsome, athletic, smart were the first words that came to mind. Interior is nicer than the G, but it's got some strange areas as well -- i.e., how the aluminum trim just stops at the top of the dash; the black door handles carved out of the parchment/camel interior really stick out; has the same design as the Accord; even the same steering wheel. On the positive side, the seats were a bit firmer than the G, and looked a bit thicker/more luxurious.
As for the drive, I thought it was fantastic. Couldn't feel any torque steer, and the tranny was smooth with just the right amount of noise.
One negative...huge blindspot on the drivers side as you move (or try to move) into the left lane.
Will drive the G as soon as AWD comes out...but have spent much time sitting in one. Not as nice materials as the TL, but certainly fine. The exterior stands out a bit more to me as well.
One other point re: cost. Loaded TL is 35K and change...whereas an apples-to-apples comparison of the G35x (yes, I know one has awd and one doesn't - but I'm comparing snow capable versions) - is $38K and change.
Maxima never handle as good as TL, that is why you are under the impression that G35 is so superior. Maxima dose not even have an independent rear suspension.
You are right, it was the CL-S and not the TL-S, my bad. The TL-S rankings in the magazines are accurate though.
With the CTS - totally agree with Chrisboth about the CTS-V. While the CTS has been hammered in reviews as lethargic and cumbersome in handling (just check the Edmunds comparison test!), the CTS-V seems to be completely the opposite of this! Amazing what a stiffer suspension, chasis, and a 400 hp engine can do!
Finally,
chrisboth said - "and clearly honda has overcome some issues with front drive cars that had many skeptics won over.."
- Sounds like you are starting to come around to my side that platform is not the only factor in determining the sportiness in the handling of a vehicle. I will agree that RWD is generally a better set-up for better handling and the twisties, but still maintain that it is not the only factor. Thus the TL-S might be a better-handling vehicle than the G35. When all the reviews and comparisons are out, we will know.
Kevin - There have been several reviews published which give the nod to the G35, though none are head to head "comparos". Here's one...
"As we drove our TL prototype on various back roads, it did indeed feel tight around the turns with plenty of road information transferred to the driver seat. Although we found it to be an easy car to drive aggressively, we're not ready to call it an equal of the 3 or 5 Series, A4 or G35 in terms of handling."
I drove the G35 in four seperate test drives before I bought my TSX. I loved the exterior styling, the engine and the ride, but I couldn't live with the cheap interior and lousy ergonomics. It feels like a $20,000 family sedan, not an upscale sport sedan.
The materials in the new Acura sedans just scream quality, and you always feel like you are in a much more expensive car (as long as you stay out of Audis, which have interiors that are a few notches above Acura).
The Acura TL will offer accceleration, ride, and handling that is competitive with the Infiniti. Exterior styling on both vehicles is nice, but the interior comfort of the TL is lightyears beyond the G35.
Yeah, at the limit, the a rear wheel drive vehicle may offer better balance in handling. But, how many of you will get to that limit? Besides, several sources have noted the athe G35 tends to have so much oversteer that handling can sometimes be a bit tricky.
Oversteer comes from crappy all seasons. Good tires will fix that as will the VDC. AS far as limits go I cant help but reiderate that the balance and joy of RWD does not have to be a "limits only" experience. Those two statements you made toghether are contradictory. In fact, because the car tends to oversteer, I don't have to take it to the limit to get the fun out of it.
As far as interior setups the acura is great - but the audi is tops and was easy still to walk away from. The best G interior in my opinion is willow on premium. The combo of the aluminum look with the leather is class. The base car with black console bits and graphite looks cheap. As far as ergonomics...it takes 2 weeks to get everything to be second nature and then your like, "it finally makes sense".
varmint - Would agree on the previous TL-S, not yet on the '04 (though Edmunds' review seems to be pointing that way).
chrisboth, just curious about your opinion on AWD vs. RWD in driving dynamics? Also, if you are looking to keep your vehicle past its warranty, you did a very smart thing in taking the G35 vs. the Audi. Infinity has a much better reputation for durability. Best regards and best of luck with your car. The G35 is a very good one. Was just questioning the RWD matters above all else for handling dynamics.
"Yeah, at the limit, the a rear wheel drive vehicle may offer better balance in handling. But, how many of you will get to that limit?"
If people really thought like that a Honda 4 cylinder would lose every time to a Hyundia Excel. After all why buy a car for twice as much when you drive it like a "granny" and nowhere near the capabilities? I would like to point out the "use of the capabilities" discussion is hackneyed and trite at this point.
This comparison begs the question, is one comparing cars, or sedans more specifically or sports sedans specifically. If one is looking for a nice car both will do. If one is looking for a nice sedan, the TL wins out; styling, efficiency, interior IMO. If one is comparing sports sedan where the sports aspect of the cars is a priority, the G35 wins hands down with RWD, due to FWDs compromise. If I were in the market for the G35 AWD, I wouldn't buy it until the second year of production to make sure the bugs were ironed out.
Because the difference between the Accord and the Excel is likely to be experienced in day-to-day driving. But, under most circumstances the FWD TL is apt to handle just as well as the RWD G35. In ordinary driving about town, the TL is going to handle quite well.
I have not driven the new 2004 TL but my 2002 TLS is just as good as G35. I never felt lack of handling and I drive fast, 2004 TL shuold be even beter. In my opinion G35 is just an average car, if you want to have a great handling get S4 or M3. TL on the other hand has a total package, it's fast, handles well and looks very expensive in and out.
"Because the difference between the Accord and the Excel is likely to be experienced in day-to-day driving."
Disagree in my morning commute I could get there using a rickshaw in less time than a car. I just doesn't matter what I drive. I suspect most people will not be able to tell the difference between the capabilities, note I said capabilities and not accutrements, between an Excel, Honda 4 cyl, G35, Acura TLS and 330i. For the 95% of the people, on capabilities alone, the Excel would be fine. People that can tell the difference if they were serious about sports sedans would opt for the G or 3 er.
Nothing comes close to the TL sound system. As quoted in 'The Car Connection', "...if you want the very best sounding automotive audio system around, you have no choice but to buy a 2004 TL to get it...by John Pearley Huffman"
"This rear-drive model is a pleasant car, but has some drawbacks. The G35 draws abundant power from its strong 3.5-liter, 260-hp V6 and exceptionally smooth automatic. Routine handling is agile, but when pressed the tail can slide out unexpectedly--even with stability control. Expect a well-controlled ride and nicely suppressed noise levels. The front seats are comfortable, but a bit short on thigh support for tall drivers, and the power-seat controls are poorly marked and confusing to use..."
A true sports sedan will always give the driver a feeling of full control, even when pushed. But, as the article said, "...when pressed the tail can slide out unexpectedly--even with stability control...", you've got a serious problem.
I say "maybe" b/c believe it or not, some people may prefer the boomy bass of the G. Plus, this John Huffman guy is not the ultimate authority on car stereos. I personally like the TL's stereo over the G's. But I like the ES330's ML stereo over the TL's stereo.
All sedans have limits, VDC or not. There is no car in the world that will always give the driver full control, if driven sufficiently hard.
Some drivers (myself included), like to have the rear slide out a little bit. That is why I sometimes like to drive with the VDC off.
For driving around town the TL will be more comfortable and has better set of toys especially the stereo. (PS a $60 tweeter upgrade made my 220 watt bose go from a 6 to 9 in sound quality)
Acuras philosphy is to give the most for the $ and to have the most toys on its sedan. I'll give them that and they do it well. Honda accomplishes what it sets out to do every time seemingly. Nissan's philosophy is to give you power in a cutting edge package with less than the most accutruments. I dont even want nav so to me the 5.1 and nav options are too pricey and getting in the way of why I want a rocking sports sedan.
RE:
"just curious about your opinion on AWD vs. RWD in driving dynamics? Also, if you are looking to keep your vehicle past its warranty, you did a very smart thing in taking the G35 vs. the Audi. Infinity has a much better reputation for durability"
I had a new passat in 01.5 form that was a lemon and I got all my cash back. Germany is not on my car maker map right now. Audi looks good but the lack of sportiness for less than 40 something was bad news. Infiniti should last me 10 years.
Never take a quatrro or turbo out of warranty and expect peace of mind. AS far as AWD vs RWD...I wouldn't want full time awd unless it was an SUV. The G has a system that has up to 100% RWD and up to 50/50 and anywhere in between dpending on grip. This is like the Porsche system and allows that RWD fun to happen until you lose it or traction fails at any of the wheels. I would avoid the 300# increase as a someone who wants every oz. of fun out of it. The car is VERY light for it's size and I wouldn't want to give that up, at least until I move to Utah someday.
And don't worry too much about the sliding rear end. These tires have limits as all seasons that can not be overcome and if you put the G on curve at 100 and floor it, I hope you are not high in a canyon. Reminder to self - dont take any car to those limits in all seasons EVER. Many are upgrading to a 225/235 50/45 sport tire. Throttle application at these limits is touchy and I'd prefer a bigger tire as well. It's not an issue for anyone in the G forum and the car was documented in a TV R&T report against the A4 and 330i to kill both in the slalom and skidpad by serious margins. I'll take the G anyday in the worst situation. Traction contol/VDC has saved my rims so many times it's a waste to buy the hazard insurance.
"It's not an issue for anyone in the G forum and the car was documented in a TV R&T report against the A4 and 330i to kill both in the slalom"
Yes and there are other comparos with the other way around. So take the comparo that shows off your favorite marquee the best. Buying a car still comes down to a personal preference. You can read the mags, read the comparos and believe what you want, but in the end you get the car you want. Not the car anybody wants you to get.
"And don't worry too much about the sliding rear end."
That is until you bang the car, hurt yourself or hurt others.
There's no doubt that the G35 is a great ride and so is the TL. Both cars have a lot to offer and they both have some shortcomings. The point is that it does come down to personal preference, as 'kdshapiro' stated. I love to drive sports sedans with manual transmission but the RWD setup on the G35 was not enough incentive for me to put up with the unappealing and ergonomically challenged interior of the Infiniti. The 2004 TL simply offered a better overall package for the money.
I don't think there is a single reader of this forum who is going to find that the FWD setup of the TL impairs their day-to-day driving. The TL will be a lot of fun to drive, just like the G35.
I'll predict anything that, at this time next year, the TL is badly outselling the G35. It offers similar levels of performance without all the tradeoffs in interior comfort.
One last comments on G35 vs. TL: Those of you who opt for the Acura should know ahead of time that you are involving yourself with a car company that has a horrible record as far as consumer service is concerned. My TSX has not had any real problems, so I haven't had that much contact with Acura. But, every contact I have had has left be annoyed. In fact, I think Honda dealers have treated me better over the years. Infiniti, on the other hands, pampers owners at every turn.
"I don't think there is a single reader of this forum who is going to find that the FWD setup of the TL impairs their day-to-day driving."
I'd like to expand on that comment by saying there is virtually no car user anywhere that will find almost any FWD setup on any car impairing their day to day driving. The only exception would be those who do their day to day driving on a racetrack. However, if the sports aspect of sports sedans is a priority than RWD is a must. If you are looking for a decent ride, than than both cars are up to task. It depends on where you place the priority of "sport" in sports sedans.
"That is until you bang the car, hurt yourself or hurt others"
Call the NTSB these G cars are flying out of control everywhere eh. Watch the test and watch the 330 get owned and get handed #2 with 3mph faster slalom times performed by G sedan. I've never heard of anyone other than 1 CR test driver having this problem and he didn't even have the sports suspension and had the all seasons. Dream on my bro the 3 is coming out with some new materials (V8 and a lower price since sales are falling out of the sky) to try and keep up with the G so try again when the 338i comes out. Until then I'll just keep blowing by you 3 guys in my soon to be declared unlawful to drive unsafe in turns (yet with better numbers than anything in class) G.
When cosumer reports actually matters in toaster reviews i might give them more credence than Road and Track and Motor trend at shopping time. Read em and weep the G owned the 3 in 5/6 mags I've read or seen.
My wife currently owns a 2001 TL, and we're switching to the G35. Now, keep in mind, this is my wife, not me the sports car fanatic. My wife loves cars like me, but loves her comfort too.
Her current TL is too "luxo-barge" as she puts it. It is a fantastic car, and we both love it. But it's a little soft around the edges.
We test drove the new '04 Acura TL twice, as well as the G35. No doubt, the TL interior is laid out much better, it's stereo is just jaw dropping and the overall car is smooth as can be. There's really little to nit pick about the car. Maybe a little strange steering. It does everything so well. Probably one of the best engineered and refined cars anywhere at any price. Simply awesome. But, it still leaves her with a bland feeling. The car is still slightly soft riding, and seems to lack a "personality". It's just the feel of the car. That's the problem. It doesn't have much feel.
The G35 may have some oddly placed interior controls, but for a fun driving experience it beats the TL hands down. The steering is go-cart direct, throttle response great, brakes (while touchy) stop on a dime and has the driving experience only a rear drive car can have. I'm not too worried about the rear drive in bad weather. Our '01 TL is miserable in the snow. It'll go fine, but it won't steer worth a darn.
The way we see it...if we were looking for a car that a traveling salesman needed to chew up long highway miles, we'd pick the TL quickly. If we were picking a road course or autox car, the G35 is the easy choice, since it is essentially a 4 door Z. But for a moderate commuter car, which will also serve as part time chariot for our first child (due in March), it is so close. Both great cars, just get it done in different fashion. When it comes down to it, the G35 is just more fun. After her last 3 cars, a '95 Infinity G20, '97 Honda Accord and '01 TL, she's ready for a true sports sedan. And the fact that we're going to pay almost $3000 less for the G35, with all the bells and whistles of the Premium Package, sure doesn't hurt either.
I just pray the G35 is as rock solid reliable as the TL is. I know about the brakes issue, and am already planning what aftermarket pads I'll be putting in it.
I'll be suprised is the Infiniti isn't every bit as reliable as the TL. Infiniti builds some of the most reliable vehicles on the road.
I'll still dispute the suggestion that somehow RWD is always superior to FWD. I basically see that as an urban myth. There are lots of very sporty FWD vehcles out there (Audi, Acura, Honda).
"I'll still dispute the suggestion that somehow RWD is always superior to FWD. I basically see that as an urban myth."
I'll chalk your comment up to inexperience in driving a RWD for the long haul and repeat mine. For day to day both will do as well as a Hyundia. If you want to emphasize sport, RWD is the way to go. If sport is the first priority, I would think the TL wins. At least if I were buying with this line of thinking that is what I would do. Those asking the difference between the two cars usually decide on the feature/form/functions that are important to them.
chrisboth - Believe what you want about the G35, they ain't indestructible (and I hope you do not get seriously hurt like eaton53(?) who crashed/totaled his G35) and they do not handle as well as the 3 series, not on my say so anyway. The 3 series is still the benchmark. While the G in some comparos may have had better numbers, the 3 still wins almost every comparo hands down. Those that it loses factors in price as value, as if an SRT4 has better value because it's cheaper. If your worried about besting a 3 an Sti or Evo will do the trick to both cars quite handily for less or equal money than both and probably won't have warped brakes. The G suffers from over bloated engine, getting worse gas mileage for only marginally better performance (or not at all depending on the comparo) then 330i or 3 with performance package. One of the reviews I read had the ZHP with a .89 skidpad. The 5.6 to 60 for the ZHP are in the numbers, losing the 1/4 to a car with more than 35 more horsepower and torque by a whopping .1 second.
I agree w/ kdshapiro. Nothing can beat the 3 series w/ a sport package in the handling dept. Tried the G once just for curiosity, it sure has a lot of power but it's a bit bigger & it surely doesn't outhandle/outslalom the 3. It surely doesn't handle better than my IS300. Even the folks here at Edmunds have declared the 3 the best handling in its category & the IS as a close 2nd. The 2002 entry level lux comparo done by R&T or Motor Trend declared the G35 the overall winner but the best in handling & the most fun to drive on that comparo was the IS. NIssan is known for putting big poweful engines on their cars but they have some serious issues on the side like quality, gas consumption (my IS is guity on this category), etc. I haven't tried the TL yet. Acura dealers like someone I believe said here do not impress me, from the appearance of their delaership to customer service. They need to take lessons from the folks at Lexus.
"When consumer reports actually matters in toaster reviews i might give them more credence than Road and Track and Motor trend at shopping time."
Borrowing some words posted by 'talon95' recently who so accurately expressed my thoughts on the subject...
This is a common fallacy that's promoted by people who want to discredit CR's auto tests. CR doesn't have a single pool of staffers who test anything that comes up. Their staff for testing autos is dedicated to that purpose and hired with the necessary qualifications to perform those tests. Those folks have nothing to do with [toasters].
I'd agree that, given CR's lack of "enthusiast" leanings, they may not be the first and best source for tests of sporty cars. But the tests are certainly valid. After all, you have to look at all auto tests with some grain of salt... some of the gushing fanboy reviews that you see in enthusiast magazines are also pretty suspect.
Furthermore, no matter what you think of Consumer Reports, they are the world authority when it comes to rating cars based on their reliability.
CR auto tests. Not only do they have a dedicated staff, but they have a dedicated facility in Connecticut, with a skid pad, track and custom designed mountain with boulders and a mudhole. They can replicate every test, every result. When it comes to auto tests and toasters, I would rely on them more than the auto journalists from R/T whose magazines somehow accept advertising and test cars from the same companies whose cars they are reviewing (there are exceptions of course). While the automotive press is important to some degree, I'd rather read a review by a magazine, who buys their cars anonymously and tests them with complete independence. As far as their reliability ratings go, I don't factor them into buying decisions, but that's another thread.
Both of these cars are good in their class. Nobody can go wrong with either one. The difference in platforms (RWD,FWD) to me makes it easier to decide which vehicle, as the platform makes a difference in winter weather conditions.
I would agree that for 90% of people, they probably will not notice a whole lot of difference between a great FWD and RWD cars, because they usually only drive the car up to 7/10ths of its' ability. But when pushed hard, no matter how well done, FWD just can't keep up. It's asking the front wheels to do too much.
I think that's another thing to keep in mind with the TL and G35. Do you honestly think that Acura and Infiniti really think that many of the buyers of these cars will push them beyond 7/10ths? I would say no. 1/10 of a second on 0-60 is just a statistic for them to brag about (I'm talking about sedan buyers here, NOT the coupe). Most owners of these cars probably don't use all of it's ability. My wife will never push the G35 super hard. Nor will I on the street (but I'll give it all it can handle when I get it on the autox course).
I agree with kdshapiro that the 3 series is still the bench mark. But the problem with the 3 series is its' $$$$. Infinity and Acura offer better value. For the price of a 260 hp/260 lb ft. of torque, loaded to the gills G35, I'd only get a stripper 3 series with 184 hp. The Infiniti is probably 85% as capable as a 3 series, but again, if only pushed to less than its' limits, the Infiniti can keep up fine. It's only at the track that the 3 would put the G away. I disagree with the bloated engine opinion. The VQ series engine, while aging a little, is regarded as one of the best motors in recent memory. I love it.
As for CR, don't even get me started. I do agree that they are authorities on reliability, because they just gather info from consumers and put it together. But when it comes to their opinions on cars, I have a hard time respecting them.
Now, back to the TL vs. G35....
I think you won't go wrong with either one you chose. They are both awesome. Which do you value more? Comfort? Sport? Luxury? Then decide which car you want. I actually think the G35 has a bigger back seat and more interior room than the TL, so it isn't a small, tight sports car. The G is bigger than it looks. But the TL is probably the slickest car in this price range.
The 3 series handles a lot better than anything either Acura and Infiniti makes. And, personally, I do believe the BMW performance is enough to warrant the difference in purchase price. I just think the G35 and TL make better sense because they'll be far more reliable (which means less frustration in the long run).
Kdshapiro, I basically disagree completely with all of your remarks.
In day to day driving, you will notice a big difference between a Honda Accord and an Excel. Just try changing lanes at high speed. Even your typical family car driver will notice the difference.
However, as far as sporty cars are concerned, a excellent FWD will corner and handle just as well as a car like the G35. There will be a difference in handling characteristics (understeer vs. oversteer) and better balance of weight in a RWD, but a FWD car can still handle excellently.
And, btw, my comments don't come out of "lack of experience with RWD cars." My family has owned at least one RWD car as long as I can remember. We own two right now.
Instead, I suggest that the issue might be the other way around. You don't have much personal experience with FWD cars that handle well. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
uncledavid - All I'm suggesting is that there is a difference between your family owning RWD and you owning it and using it day to day. It takes more than a test drive to get to know your car. The test drive is the first date, after you bring it home, there is a period of acclimation until you know exactly how the car will handle in all situations. I have driven some high performance RWD cars in the past as well as the Acura. While I have not driven the '04 yet, the Acura I did drive did not feel anything like my RWD BMW especially when pushed. Yes these cars will do illegal speeds and brake just fine. But due to the dynamics they cannot have the same balance as a RWD car. Saying that people can't tell the difference between the cars isn't talking about the merits of the cars themselves, as you give people very little credit. However if your opinion is this cars are interchangeable that's your opinion. But if one is comparing sports sedans and a priority is a sports sedan, than the G would win. If not, the sports in sports sedan is not a priority, but a nice sedan would be.
Kdshapiro, comparing your BMW to other cars is not really the issue. Yeah, the BMW handles better than the just about any FWD car out there. That isn't surprising because the BMW handles better than most vehicles on the road. However, that doens't mean that all RWD cars handle better (or more sporty) than all FWD cars, or that RWD offers some sort of intrinsic advantage.
As far as the G35 is concerned, I see little reason to believe it handles better than the TL or the TSX, A4, or Saab 9-3 for that matter. And, I seriously doubt even most aggressive drivers will approach the limits of any of these vehicles or find the G35 to be a lot more fun to drive than the others.
In fact, if you saw the sports sedan comparo in the CR, the G35 did not handle as well as the Saab 9-3. The Saab 9-3 exceeded the G35 in every handling test. RWD does offer some advantages, but that doesn't mean that a RWD car will always be better than a FWD car. An excellent handling FWD car (like the Saab, A4, or TSX)could still out handle some rwd cars.
And, I agree, that driving my father's 3 series a week or two out of the year doesn't give me the day-to-day experience. But, by that logic, you shouldn't be commmenting on FWD cars. As far as I can tell, you own experience with such vehicles is limited to a 15-minute test drive or two.
Actually I have about 12 years driving FWD cars including a Prelude Si. And I agree most most over-engineered FWD cars can outpace badly under-engineered RWD cars. But in this very specific instance, the G is a well-engineered vehicle that probably will beat the TL in most comparos on a strict number by number basis. I would be very surprised if it didn't, given cars that were essentially equipped as similialy as possible. While CR may have had one result, there will be others. The G35 will spank the TSX in almost all categories.
Yeah, well I drove RWD cars on a daily basis for about 10 years before I started driving Hondas. Like I said, your own experience with FWD cars is no greater than mine with RWD cars. So, If you want to write off my arguments as lack of experience with RWD cars, I should write off your arguments as lack of experience with FWD.
I doubt the G35 is going to beat the TL in hard comparisons, but that remains to be seen. It lost out to the Saab 9-3 in CR's tests, and it lost out to the TSX in AUTOMOBILE's comparo. Now, I'm not trying to claim the TSX is superior to the G35, I'm only pointing out the weakness in your argument that the G35 will somehow be inherently superior to its FWD competitors. In fact, in head to head comparisons, the G35 has lost out to its FWD vehicles more than once.
I am not saying the FWD is better handling that RWD. Of course RWD G35 would have better handling that G35 FWD and RWD TL would have better handling that FWD TL, but it does not mean that RWD G35 is better than FWD TL, those are two different cars. RWD cars when pushed to the limit are lose and FWD are tight , but limit for every car is different. G35 is a nice car and I enjoy driving it and pushing it to the limit, but trust me it is not even close to 330 or even IS300. If you in the 99% of drivers, you will not see the difference between RWD and FWD even if you push your car, and if you push your RWD car you have a better chance hitting the wall than FWD. The only advantage RWD has if accelerating at the hill, FWD would spin tires too much. TL is a much better car that G35 in and out , don't forget you not buying WRX or EVOLUTION. Again I don't want to diss G35, I love this car, but when people say that it's better than TL just because its RWD, it's makes me sick. After all you can't find a better handling car in this segment that 330 or IS 300.
I have 2002 TLS and I love it , but if you in the market for MT, test drive IS300, it handles like a dream and has a better steering than both TL and G35, not enough power though.
Actually as stated I have 12 years of driving FWD, 3 years of 4WD, 1.5 years of AWD and about 17 years in total with RWD. I also have a lot of experience driving a RWD in locales where it snows 2-4 feet at a time.
But back on topic, in this specific instance I am making an assertion about these two vehicles. In almost every comparo, the G posts impressive numbers, even some beating the 3 series. But comparos don't always look at the numbers to see who wins, they look at the total package. The accruements of the TL are far superior to the G and that may be enough to win a comparo even with marginally worse performance by the T. But if we are talking sports sedans then my assertion that the G will be an overall better performer with most of the numbers than the T simply because it is a well engineered RWD (albiet seems to be taking a beating on Edmunds now) vehicle. The G lost a lost of comparos, not because of the numbers, some which were weaker than the 3 series with less hp, but because it's total driving experience was not in the same world class of it's competitors. You can read the Edmunds comparo to find out why it took a hit, but it had less to do with raw performance numbers than the total package.
Yeah, well I drove RWD cars on a daily basis for about 10 years before I started driving Hondas. Like I said, your own experience with FWD cars is no greater than mine with RWD cars. So, If you want to write off my arguments as lack of experience with RWD cars, I should write off your arguments as lack of experience with FWD.
I doubt the G35 is going to beat the TL in hard comparisons, but that remains to be seen. It lost out to the Saab 9-3 in CR's tests, and it lost out to the TSX in AUTOMOBILE's comparo. Now, I'm not trying to claim the TSX or 9-3 is superior to the G35, I'm only pointing out the weakness in your argument that the G35 will somehow be inherently superior to its FWD competitors. In fact, in head to head comparisons, the G35 has lost out to its FWD vehicles more than once. Your argument that RWD is inherently superior doesn't hold up in (relatively) objective tests.
I hope you guys are enjoying the verbal fight. You're both making good points. I don't know much about cars frankly because I only get interested when I'm getting ready to buy a new one.
I left a posted message in the 2004 TL room, but I'm posting it here also.
What do you think of car reviews?
My opinion is that Consumer Reports is the only unbiased source. They don't accept advertising and their experts buy cars anonymously.
How objective can a car reviewer be when his company's salespeople are soliciting the same car manufacturers that are spending advertising dollars in that magazine/newspaper. Additionally, the reviewers are invited to parties, given brand new cars to drive and coddled by the car manufacturers.
I do think that all reviews are a good guide and starting point. I like the specifications and especially appreciate the comparisons to other vehicles.
Okay, these are nice to read and a good jumping off point for what to look for, but... the key is getting out there and test-driving all of these cars back-to-back (well, as close as possible).
Personally, I can't stand just going on specs-- the G35 while a great car on paper, just didn't do a whole lot for me. Admittedly, my expectations may have been set too high (again, based on reading reviews and specs... 260hp? 260ft-lb of torque? sounds like a monster to me). Felt good, but not great to me.
I'm not bashing the car (as it's a real bargain) but it does come down to:
- driving these cars for oneself; and - personal preferences (in my case, I didn't like the top-end of the VQ engine, particularly when compared to Honda and BMW's engines which are more free-revving).
Good points. The final decision will always be made by the test drives, financials, dealer, needs/wants and compromises of a particular car. These forums are great for picking the brains of the posters to get information that ordinarly would be difficult to come by. Then going back into the car buying process with that additional information. These two cars are great, if they were both FWD or both RWD it perhaps would be simpler. But since a top-notch FWD is going up against a top-notch RWD the platform difference has to be taken into account and can't simply be dismissed.
And it doesn't matter that the Acura beat the Saab which then beat the G35 and then by default the Acura beat the G35 in ONE comparo, cause in another comparo it's the other way around. One get's what they feel is the right choice for them, not what a magazine says.
The G35 beat all your mentioned cars in both Road & Track and Motor Trend, including the old TL. Comparing the TSX to the G is no comparison, the G will smoke the TSX everywhere. In 0-6- times alone, the stick TSX needs 7.9 secs to 60, while the new 6 sp G needs just 5.9 secs. That is a 2 second difference, which in performance cars is like a millennium.
In Motor Trend's short take on the 2004 TL, while they praised it to have more driving ecxitement than the old TL, they did point out that it was nothing like the G.
Basically, in my post I just wanted to point out that different publications come up with different results, so it always boils down to taking a long test drive on your own.
Most publications have said that apart from the excellent 3 Series BMW (the best Bimmer ever), the G provides the best handling in the near luxury segment.
If your argument is that most drivers are never going to reach limits provided by these cars, then that logic means that you would be perfectly satisfied by a car doing 60 in 10-12 secs, and a maximum speed of around 85 MPH (since 65MPH is the legal speed limit in most states). Looks like a great candidate for a Hybrid car, the new Toyota Pruis does all this and achieves 45 MPG.
Coming back to publications, Car & Driver rated the old TL higher than the G, but while doing so timed the G to do 60 in 7.3 seconds with tha auto, when all other mags have achieved around 6.3-6.5 second times. Probably C&D's Acura bias had a lot to do with this, since it would be difficult for even them to rate the TL higher, had it been a second slower to 60. Handling wise, even CD felt the G was much better, right up there with the 3 Series.
great post - I only disagree with the assertion that C&D is biased toward Acura. They definitely are biased toward BMW. Wait let's start a debate to see which mags have which biases. Hopefully CR will come out neutral. Then again maybe Pat won't like the new direction of the thread.
especially the unexpected rear in slide out of the G35 when close to the limits and the high depreciation in value. These alone would make me stay away from the G35.
As far as the IS300 not having enough power; I tend to disagree. It is a very good highway cruiser. Most passing can be done in 5th gear without downshifting becuase it is geared fairly low about 22 miles per 1,000 rpm in fifth. The pnealty is fairly low actual mileage about 21 mpg. However any speed from 50 to 100 is very comfortable controlled and quiet. As far as IS300 RWD unless you diable traction control, it is far too intusive it significantly cuts the throttle with any slippage. If you live in snow, ice or slush forget the RWD IS300 even in "snow mode" the traction is terrible. Possibly could be improved with Bizzack snow tires. I previously had a BMW M3. Very good traction control and handling, but I actually liked driving a modified Acura Intgera GSR better and it was FWD. Most people who are comparing FWD and RWD, really don't have a clue from experential driving of how small the difffernences really are with good suspensions and good tires. YMMV
"they ain't indestructible (and I hope you do not get seriously hurt like eaton53(?) who crashed/totaled his G35) and they do not handle as well as the 3 series, not on my say so anyway. The 3 series is still the benchmark. While the G in some comparos may have had better numbers, the 3 still wins almost every comparo hands down. Those that it loses factors in price as value, as if an SRT4 has better value because it's cheaper. If your worried about besting a 3 an Sti or Evo will do the trick to both cars quite handily for less or equal money than both and probably won't have warped brakes. The G suffers from over bloated engine, getting worse gas mileage for only marginally better performance (or not at all depending on the comparo) then 330i or 3 with performance package. One of the reviews I read had the ZHP with a .89 skidpad. The 5.6 to 60 for the ZHP are in the numbers, losing the 1/4 to a car with more than 35 more horsepower and torque by a whopping .1 second"
There is a lot of subjective crud here that should be cleared up for the lux buying reader.
First: You got it right - The G only doesn't handle better according to YOUR say so. Who is eaton53 anyway and why do you assume he was not to blame for taking the car past it's limits...just like the M3 driver who left his friend to die in a burning back seat after taking his car too fast into a canyon run...oh maybe i'll assume for the sake of an argument with a 3 owner that is was the cars fault..blaming the car is ridiculious.
Second: since we agree that CR is the end all of road test mags, they rate BMW for having less than great reliability...wouldn't risk my family with that so I got the infiniti with #1 rankings after extended ownership. Also since BMW seems to be the standard (at least before 2002)they should look at why they FAIL the offset frontal crash test as rated by the NHTSB. Again, too much risk for my family. The g gets top score in class and has 7 airbags, and brake force distribution. These issues far outwieght the one where one guy created a too much oversteer in a RWD car while on the envelopes edge...especially since oversteer is a better problem than understeer and can be controlled with proper throttle control.
Show me some magazines that have the 3 besting the G. I know of 1 and the rest give up the credit you seem to for a year now unable to give up to the G. 85 % of the 3 series....WRONG my bud...try 90% of a 5 and 110% of a 3. You even say that some mags put G in front, thats not 85%. That's owner justification babbel I hear. I hear 3 is weaker from the coverts over the the G forum all the time who owned both and switched to never return to BMW's overpriced, electrical isssued and less than reliable ubiquitious pretty cars. Every time a 3 arguments start the base G gets compared to a pricier and pricier car. The ZHB is a juiced up 3 and i am talking about the base G as 28k. Your ZHB with 44k in sticker with the same looks as the civic like 325 still breaks even against the G in all performance categories. Wait until the G get a nice performance package out. BMW will have to lower prices again!
And as far as the overbloated engine of the G. guess whos stuffing a v8 in to a lower priced 3 to compete with the G. Cant hang with a 6 anymore eh? the VQ speaks for itself and the automakers rate it to Ward top 10 7 years straight. BMW makes it once in a while but not with such consistency. NIssan tweaks these motors down as my motor shows up in other platforms with 27 more hp. Best engine coming from japan and as durable as any in the world..you lose credibility when you argue the VQ is overbloated. And BMW has been rating cars below actual HP for years for people who wll buy it...same people who think GMC has better sheet metal than chevy buy that crp
Are you referring to the RWD oversteer? If so, I am not going to get into the RWD vs FWD debate since a lot of ink has been spent on that.
Depreciation wise, yes, the G would lose more than the Acura, but then if resale value is the main criteria, you would be much better off buying a fully loaded V6 Accord and save BIG in $$$. This car would give you very similar performance to the new TL, especially with premium fuel, since it shares its platform with the new TL, and will be the best in the resale market when you do decide to sell it.
To me, the G provides a great driving experience coupled with a good price, but I agree there are some compromises, such as a 'not top notch interior'. The other thing is the stellar reliability of the VQ engine/tranny, which has proved to be bulletproof, and has been called as the best V6 ever by Ward's auto.
I'm not out to change your mind, you can believe what you want. A little civility in these posts is in order as I'm sure Pat will tell you. But post some credible links to support your assertions. You don't have buyers remorse when you get the best.
link will take you to wards where you'll find your way through to "best engine ever". I don't need to prove myself with links they are quoted above for you to ignore. Since the accolades have you defensive to your 3, i doubt you'll see the light and we can leave this thread as is for those who seek enlightenment, it's informative and entertaining at least.
Comments
Car looks better in person than it does in pictures. Handsome, athletic, smart were the first words that came to mind. Interior is nicer than the G, but it's got some strange areas as well -- i.e., how the aluminum trim just stops at the top of the dash; the black door handles carved out of the parchment/camel interior really stick out; has the same design as the Accord; even the same steering wheel. On the positive side, the seats were a bit firmer than the G, and looked a bit thicker/more luxurious.
As for the drive, I thought it was fantastic. Couldn't feel any torque steer, and the tranny was smooth with just the right amount of noise.
One negative...huge blindspot on the drivers side as you move (or try to move) into the left lane.
Will drive the G as soon as AWD comes out...but have spent much time sitting in one. Not as nice materials as the TL, but certainly fine. The exterior stands out a bit more to me as well.
One other point re: cost. Loaded TL is 35K and change...whereas an apples-to-apples comparison of the G35x (yes, I know one has awd and one doesn't - but I'm comparing snow capable versions) - is $38K and change.
Maxima never handle as good as TL, that is why you are under the impression that G35 is so superior. Maxima dose not even have an independent rear suspension.
With the CTS - totally agree with Chrisboth about the CTS-V. While the CTS has been hammered in reviews as lethargic and cumbersome in handling (just check the Edmunds comparison test!), the CTS-V seems to be completely the opposite of this! Amazing what a stiffer suspension, chasis, and a 400 hp engine can do!
Finally,
chrisboth said - "and clearly honda has overcome some issues with front drive cars that had many skeptics won over.."
- Sounds like you are starting to come around to my side that platform is not the only factor in determining the sportiness in the handling of a vehicle. I will agree that RWD is generally a better set-up for better handling and the twisties, but still maintain that it is not the only factor. Thus the TL-S might be a better-handling vehicle than the G35. When all the reviews and comparisons are out, we will know.
"As we drove our TL prototype on various back roads, it did indeed feel tight around the turns with plenty of road information transferred to the driver seat. Although we found it to be an easy car to drive aggressively, we're not ready to call it an equal of the 3 or 5 Series, A4 or G35 in terms of handling."
The materials in the new Acura sedans just scream quality, and you always feel like you are in a much more expensive car (as long as you stay out of Audis, which have interiors that are a few notches above Acura).
The Acura TL will offer accceleration, ride, and handling that is competitive with the Infiniti. Exterior styling on both vehicles is nice, but the interior comfort of the TL is lightyears beyond the G35.
Yeah, at the limit, the a rear wheel drive vehicle may offer better balance in handling. But, how many of you will get to that limit? Besides, several sources have noted the athe G35 tends to have so much oversteer that handling can sometimes be a bit tricky.
As far as interior setups the acura is great - but the audi is tops and was easy still to walk away from. The best G interior in my opinion is willow on premium. The combo of the aluminum look with the leather is class. The base car with black console bits and graphite looks cheap. As far as ergonomics...it takes 2 weeks to get everything to be second nature and then your like, "it finally makes sense".
chrisboth, just curious about your opinion on AWD vs. RWD in driving dynamics? Also, if you are looking to keep your vehicle past its warranty, you did a very smart thing in taking the G35 vs. the Audi. Infinity has a much better reputation for durability. Best regards and best of luck with your car. The G35 is a very good one. Was just questioning the RWD matters above all else for handling dynamics.
If people really thought like that a Honda 4 cylinder would lose every time to a Hyundia Excel. After all why buy a car for twice as much when you drive it like a "granny" and nowhere near the capabilities? I would like to point out the "use of the capabilities" discussion is hackneyed and trite at this point.
This comparison begs the question, is one comparing cars, or sedans more specifically or sports sedans specifically. If one is looking for a nice car both will do. If one is looking for a nice sedan, the TL wins out; styling, efficiency, interior IMO. If one is comparing sports sedan where the sports aspect of the cars is a priority, the G35 wins hands down with RWD, due to FWDs compromise. If I were in the market for the G35 AWD, I wouldn't buy it until the second year of production to make sure the bugs were ironed out.
Disagree in my morning commute I could get there using a rickshaw in less time than a car. I just doesn't matter what I drive.
In non-subjective areas, the only compelling thing the TL has over the G is quality of the interior materials and maybe the stereo.
"This rear-drive model is a pleasant car, but has some drawbacks. The G35 draws abundant power from its strong 3.5-liter, 260-hp V6 and exceptionally smooth automatic. Routine handling is agile, but when pressed the tail can slide out unexpectedly--even with stability control. Expect a well-controlled ride and nicely suppressed noise levels. The front seats are comfortable, but a bit short on thigh support for tall drivers, and the power-seat controls are poorly marked and confusing to use..."
A true sports sedan will always give the driver a feeling of full control, even when pushed. But, as the article said, "...when pressed the tail can slide out unexpectedly--even with stability control...", you've got a serious problem.
All sedans have limits, VDC or not. There is no car in the world that will always give the driver full control, if driven sufficiently hard.
Some drivers (myself included), like to have the rear slide out a little bit. That is why I sometimes like to drive with the VDC off.
But I note CR did not say the same thing about the 3 series.
Acuras philosphy is to give the most for the $ and to have the most toys on its sedan. I'll give them that and they do it well. Honda accomplishes what it sets out to do every time seemingly. Nissan's philosophy is to give you power in a cutting edge package with less than the most accutruments. I dont even want nav so to me the 5.1 and nav options are too pricey and getting in the way of why I want a rocking sports sedan.
RE:
"just curious about your opinion on AWD vs. RWD in driving dynamics? Also, if you are looking to keep your vehicle past its warranty, you did a very smart thing in taking the G35 vs. the Audi. Infinity has a much better reputation for durability"
I had a new passat in 01.5 form that was a lemon and I got all my cash back. Germany is not on my car maker map right now. Audi looks good but the lack of sportiness for less than 40 something was bad news. Infiniti should last me 10 years.
Never take a quatrro or turbo out of warranty and expect peace of mind. AS far as AWD vs RWD...I wouldn't want full time awd unless it was an SUV. The G has a system that has up to 100% RWD and up to 50/50 and anywhere in between dpending on grip. This is like the Porsche system and allows that RWD fun to happen until you lose it or traction fails at any of the wheels. I would avoid the 300# increase as a someone who wants every oz. of fun out of it. The car is VERY light for it's size and I wouldn't want to give that up, at least until I move to Utah someday.
And don't worry too much about the sliding rear end. These tires have limits as all seasons that can not be overcome and if you put the G on curve at 100 and floor it, I hope you are not high in a canyon. Reminder to self - dont take any car to those limits in all seasons EVER. Many are upgrading to a 225/235 50/45 sport tire. Throttle application at these limits is touchy and I'd prefer a bigger tire as well. It's not an issue for anyone in the G forum and the car was documented in a TV R&T report against the A4 and 330i to kill both in the slalom and skidpad by serious margins. I'll take the G anyday in the worst situation. Traction contol/VDC has saved my rims so many times it's a waste to buy the hazard insurance.
Yes and there are other comparos with the other way around. So take the comparo that shows off your favorite marquee the best. Buying a car still comes down to a personal preference. You can read the mags, read the comparos and believe what you want, but in the end you get the car you want. Not the car anybody wants you to get.
"And don't worry too much about the sliding rear end."
That is until you bang the car, hurt yourself or hurt others.
BTW, Car and Driver has a very good review this month on the G35 6MT's performance:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article- _id=7082&page_number=1
I'll predict anything that, at this time next year, the TL is badly outselling the G35. It offers similar levels of performance without all the tradeoffs in interior comfort.
One last comments on G35 vs. TL: Those of you who opt for the Acura should know ahead of time that you are involving yourself with a car company that has a horrible record as far as consumer service is concerned. My TSX has not had any real problems, so I haven't had that much contact with Acura. But, every contact I have had has left be annoyed. In fact, I think Honda dealers have treated me better over the years. Infiniti, on the other hands, pampers owners at every turn.
I'd like to expand on that comment by saying there is virtually no car user anywhere that will find almost any FWD setup on any car impairing their day to day driving. The only exception would be those who do their day to day driving on a racetrack. However, if the sports aspect of sports sedans is a priority than RWD is a must. If you are looking for a decent ride, than than both cars are up to task. It depends on where you place the priority of "sport" in sports sedans.
Call the NTSB these G cars are flying out of control everywhere eh. Watch the test and watch the 330 get owned and get handed #2 with 3mph faster slalom times performed by G sedan. I've never heard of anyone other than 1 CR test driver having this problem and he didn't even have the sports suspension and had the all seasons. Dream on my bro the 3 is coming out with some new materials (V8 and a lower price since sales are falling out of the sky) to try and keep up with the G so try again when the 338i comes out. Until then I'll just keep blowing by you 3 guys in my soon to be declared unlawful to drive unsafe in turns (yet with better numbers than anything in class) G.
When cosumer reports actually matters in toaster reviews i might give them more credence than Road and Track and Motor trend at shopping time. Read em and weep the G owned the 3 in 5/6 mags I've read or seen.
Her current TL is too "luxo-barge" as she puts it. It is a fantastic car, and we both love it. But it's a little soft around the edges.
We test drove the new '04 Acura TL twice, as well as the G35. No doubt, the TL interior is laid out much better, it's stereo is just jaw dropping and the overall car is smooth as can be. There's really little to nit pick about the car. Maybe a little strange steering. It does everything so well. Probably one of the best engineered and refined cars anywhere at any price. Simply awesome. But, it still leaves her with a bland feeling. The car is still slightly soft riding, and seems to lack a "personality". It's just the feel of the car. That's the problem. It doesn't have much feel.
The G35 may have some oddly placed interior controls, but for a fun driving experience it beats the TL hands down. The steering is go-cart direct, throttle response great, brakes (while touchy) stop on a dime and has the driving experience only a rear drive car can have. I'm not too worried about the rear drive in bad weather. Our '01 TL is miserable in the snow. It'll go fine, but it won't steer worth a darn.
The way we see it...if we were looking for a car that a traveling salesman needed to chew up long highway miles, we'd pick the TL quickly. If we were picking a road course or autox car, the G35 is the easy choice, since it is essentially a 4 door Z. But for a moderate commuter car, which will also serve as part time chariot for our first child (due in March), it is so close. Both great cars, just get it done in different fashion. When it comes down to it, the G35 is just more fun. After her last 3 cars, a '95 Infinity G20, '97 Honda Accord and '01 TL, she's ready for a true sports sedan. And the fact that we're going to pay almost $3000 less for the G35, with all the bells and whistles of the Premium Package, sure doesn't hurt either.
I just pray the G35 is as rock solid reliable as the TL is. I know about the brakes issue, and am already planning what aftermarket pads I'll be putting in it.
Steve
I'll still dispute the suggestion that somehow RWD is always superior to FWD. I basically see that as an urban myth. There are lots of very sporty FWD vehcles out there (Audi, Acura, Honda).
P.S. Congrats on the child!
I'll chalk your comment up to inexperience in driving a RWD for the long haul and repeat mine. For day to day both will do as well as a Hyundia. If you want to emphasize sport, RWD is the way to go. If sport is the first priority, I would think the TL wins. At least if I were buying with this line of thinking that is what I would do. Those asking the difference between the two cars usually decide on the feature/form/functions that are important to them.
chrisboth - Believe what you want about the G35, they ain't indestructible (and I hope you do not get seriously hurt like eaton53(?) who crashed/totaled his G35) and they do not handle as well as the 3 series, not on my say so anyway. The 3 series is still the benchmark. While the G in some comparos may have had better numbers, the 3 still wins almost every comparo hands down. Those that it loses factors in price as value, as if an SRT4 has better value because it's cheaper. If your worried about besting a 3 an Sti or Evo will do the trick to both cars quite handily for less or equal money than both and probably won't have warped brakes. The G suffers from over bloated engine, getting worse gas mileage for only marginally better performance (or not at all depending on the comparo) then 330i or 3 with performance package. One of the reviews I read had the ZHP with a .89 skidpad. The 5.6 to 60 for the ZHP are in the numbers, losing the 1/4 to a car with more than 35 more horsepower and torque by a whopping .1 second.
Borrowing some words posted by 'talon95' recently who so accurately expressed my thoughts on the subject...
This is a common fallacy that's promoted by people who want to discredit CR's auto tests. CR doesn't have a single pool of staffers who test anything that comes up. Their staff for testing autos is dedicated to that purpose and hired with the necessary qualifications to perform those tests. Those folks have nothing to do with [toasters].
I'd agree that, given CR's lack of "enthusiast" leanings, they may not be the first and best source for tests of sporty cars. But the tests are certainly valid. After all, you have to look at all auto tests with some grain of salt... some of the gushing fanboy reviews that you see in enthusiast magazines are also pretty suspect.
Furthermore, no matter what you think of Consumer Reports, they are the world authority when it comes to rating cars based on their reliability.
Both of these cars are good in their class. Nobody can go wrong with either one. The difference in platforms (RWD,FWD) to me makes it easier to decide which vehicle, as the platform makes a difference in winter weather conditions.
I think that's another thing to keep in mind with the TL and G35. Do you honestly think that Acura and Infiniti really think that many of the buyers of these cars will push them beyond 7/10ths? I would say no. 1/10 of a second on 0-60 is just a statistic for them to brag about (I'm talking about sedan buyers here, NOT the coupe). Most owners of these cars probably don't use all of it's ability. My wife will never push the G35 super hard. Nor will I on the street (but I'll give it all it can handle when I get it on the autox course).
I agree with kdshapiro that the 3 series is still the bench mark. But the problem with the 3 series is its' $$$$. Infinity and Acura offer better value. For the price of a 260 hp/260 lb ft. of torque, loaded to the gills G35, I'd only get a stripper 3 series with 184 hp. The Infiniti is probably 85% as capable as a 3 series, but again, if only pushed to less than its' limits, the Infiniti can keep up fine. It's only at the track that the 3 would put the G away. I disagree with the bloated engine opinion. The VQ series engine, while aging a little, is regarded as one of the best motors in recent memory. I love it.
As for CR, don't even get me started. I do agree that they are authorities on reliability, because they just gather info from consumers and put it together. But when it comes to their opinions on cars, I have a hard time respecting them.
Now, back to the TL vs. G35....
I think you won't go wrong with either one you chose. They are both awesome. Which do you value more? Comfort? Sport? Luxury? Then decide which car you want. I actually think the G35 has a bigger back seat and more interior room than the TL, so it isn't a small, tight sports car. The G is bigger than it looks. But the TL is probably the slickest car in this price range.
Steve
Kdshapiro, I basically disagree completely with all of your remarks.
In day to day driving, you will notice a big difference between a Honda Accord and an Excel. Just try changing lanes at high speed. Even your typical family car driver will notice the difference.
However, as far as sporty cars are concerned, a excellent FWD will corner and handle just as well as a car like the G35. There will be a difference in handling characteristics (understeer vs. oversteer) and better balance of weight in a RWD, but a FWD car can still handle excellently.
And, btw, my comments don't come out of "lack of experience with RWD cars." My family has owned at least one RWD car as long as I can remember. We own two right now.
Instead, I suggest that the issue might be the other way around. You don't have much personal experience with FWD cars that handle well. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
As far as the G35 is concerned, I see little reason to believe it handles better than the TL or the TSX, A4, or Saab 9-3 for that matter. And, I seriously doubt even most aggressive drivers will approach the limits of any of these vehicles or find the G35 to be a lot more fun to drive than the others.
In fact, if you saw the sports sedan comparo in the CR, the G35 did not handle as well as the Saab 9-3. The Saab 9-3 exceeded the G35 in every handling test. RWD does offer some advantages, but that doesn't mean that a RWD car will always be better than a FWD car. An excellent handling FWD car (like the Saab, A4, or TSX)could still out handle some rwd cars.
And, I agree, that driving my father's 3 series a week or two out of the year doesn't give me the day-to-day experience. But, by that logic, you shouldn't be commmenting on FWD cars. As far as I can tell, you own experience with such vehicles is limited to a 15-minute test drive or two.
I doubt the G35 is going to beat the TL in hard comparisons, but that remains to be seen. It lost out to the Saab 9-3 in CR's tests, and it lost out to the TSX in AUTOMOBILE's comparo. Now, I'm not trying to claim the TSX is superior to the G35, I'm only pointing out the weakness in your argument that the G35 will somehow be inherently superior to its FWD competitors. In fact, in head to head comparisons, the G35 has lost out to its FWD vehicles more than once.
If you in the 99% of drivers, you will not see the difference between RWD and FWD even if you push your car, and if you push your RWD car you have a better chance hitting the wall than FWD. The only advantage RWD has if accelerating at the hill, FWD would spin tires too much.
TL is a much better car that G35 in and out , don't forget you not buying WRX or EVOLUTION.
Again I don't want to diss G35, I love this car, but when people say that it's better than TL just because its RWD, it's makes me sick.
After all you can't find a better handling car in this segment that 330 or IS 300.
I have 2002 TLS and I love it , but if you in the market for MT, test drive IS300, it handles like a dream and has a better steering than both TL and G35, not enough power though.
I would pick TL over G35 in any category.
But back on topic, in this specific instance I am making an assertion about these two vehicles. In almost every comparo, the G posts impressive numbers, even some beating the 3 series. But comparos don't always look at the numbers to see who wins, they look at the total package. The accruements of the TL are far superior to the G and that may be enough to win a comparo even with marginally worse performance by the T. But if we are talking sports sedans then my assertion that the G will be an overall better performer with most of the numbers than the T simply because it is a well engineered RWD (albiet seems to be taking a beating on Edmunds now) vehicle. The G lost a lost of comparos, not because of the numbers, some which were weaker than the 3 series with less hp, but because it's total driving experience was not in the same world class of it's competitors. You can read the Edmunds comparo to find out why it took a hit, but it had less to do with raw performance numbers than the total package.
I doubt the G35 is going to beat the TL in hard comparisons, but that remains to be seen. It lost out to the Saab 9-3 in CR's tests, and it lost out to the TSX in AUTOMOBILE's comparo. Now, I'm not trying to claim the TSX or 9-3 is superior to the G35, I'm only pointing out the weakness in your argument that the G35 will somehow be inherently superior to its FWD competitors. In fact, in head to head comparisons, the G35 has lost out to its FWD vehicles more than once.
Your argument that RWD is inherently superior doesn't hold up in (relatively) objective tests.
I left a posted message in the 2004 TL room, but I'm posting it here also.
What do you think of car reviews?
My opinion is that Consumer Reports is the only unbiased source. They don't accept advertising and their experts buy cars anonymously.
How objective can a car reviewer be when his company's salespeople are soliciting the same car manufacturers that are spending advertising dollars in that magazine/newspaper. Additionally, the reviewers are invited to parties, given brand new cars to drive and coddled by the car manufacturers.
I do think that all reviews are a good guide and starting point. I like the specifications and especially appreciate the comparisons to other vehicles.
Am I wrong?
Personally, I can't stand just going on specs-- the G35 while a great car on paper, just didn't do a whole lot for me. Admittedly, my expectations may have been set too high (again, based on reading reviews and specs... 260hp? 260ft-lb of torque? sounds like a monster to me). Felt good, but not great to me.
I'm not bashing the car (as it's a real bargain) but it does come down to:
- driving these cars for oneself; and
- personal preferences (in my case, I didn't like the top-end of the VQ engine, particularly when compared to Honda and BMW's engines which are more free-revving).
Just throwing my $0.02 in.
And it doesn't matter that the Acura beat the Saab which then beat the G35 and then by default the Acura beat the G35 in ONE comparo, cause in another comparo it's the other way around. One get's what they feel is the right choice for them, not what a magazine says.
In Motor Trend's short take on the 2004 TL, while they praised it to have more driving ecxitement than the old TL, they did point out that it was nothing like the G.
Basically, in my post I just wanted to point out that different publications come up with different results, so it always boils down to taking a long test drive on your own.
Most publications have said that apart from the excellent 3 Series BMW (the best Bimmer ever), the G provides the best handling in the near luxury segment.
If your argument is that most drivers are never going to reach limits provided by these cars, then that logic means that you would be perfectly satisfied by a car doing 60 in 10-12 secs, and a maximum speed of around 85 MPH (since 65MPH is the legal speed limit in most states). Looks like a great candidate for a Hybrid car, the new Toyota Pruis does all this and achieves 45 MPG.
Coming back to publications, Car & Driver rated the old TL higher than the G, but while doing so timed the G to do 60 in 7.3 seconds with tha auto, when all other mags have achieved around 6.3-6.5 second times. Probably C&D's Acura bias had a lot to do with this, since it would be difficult for even them to rate the TL higher, had it been a second slower to 60. Handling wise, even CD felt the G was much better, right up there with the 3 Series.
would make me stay away from the G35.
As far as the IS300 not having enough power; I tend to disagree. It is a very good highway cruiser. Most passing can be done in 5th gear without downshifting becuase it is geared fairly low about 22 miles per 1,000 rpm in fifth. The pnealty is fairly low actual mileage about 21 mpg. However any speed from 50 to 100 is very comfortable controlled and quiet. As far as IS300 RWD unless you diable traction control, it is far too intusive it significantly cuts the throttle with any slippage. If you live in snow, ice or slush forget the RWD IS300 even in "snow mode" the traction is terrible. Possibly could be improved with Bizzack snow tires. I previously had a BMW M3. Very good traction control and handling, but I actually liked driving a modified Acura Intgera GSR better and it was FWD. Most people who are comparing FWD and RWD, really don't have a clue from experential driving of how small the difffernences really are with good suspensions and good tires. YMMV
There is a lot of subjective crud here that should be cleared up for the lux buying reader.
First: You got it right - The G only doesn't handle better according to YOUR say so. Who is eaton53 anyway and why do you assume he was not to blame for taking the car past it's limits...just like the M3 driver who left his friend to die in a burning back seat after taking his car too fast into a canyon run...oh maybe i'll assume for the sake of an argument with a 3 owner that is was the cars fault..blaming the car is ridiculious.
Second: since we agree that CR is the end all of road test mags, they rate BMW for having less than great reliability...wouldn't risk my family with that so I got the infiniti with #1 rankings after extended ownership. Also since BMW seems to be the standard (at least before 2002)they should look at why they FAIL the offset frontal crash test as rated by the NHTSB. Again, too much risk for my family. The g gets top score in class and has 7 airbags, and brake force distribution. These issues far outwieght the one where one guy created a too much oversteer in a RWD car while on the envelopes edge...especially since oversteer is a better problem than understeer and can be controlled with proper throttle control.
Show me some magazines that have the 3 besting the G. I know of 1 and the rest give up the credit you seem to for a year now unable to give up to the G. 85 % of the 3 series....WRONG my bud...try 90% of a 5 and 110% of a 3. You even say that some mags put G in front, thats not 85%. That's owner justification babbel I hear. I hear 3 is weaker from the coverts over the the G forum all the time who owned both and switched to never return to BMW's overpriced, electrical isssued and less than reliable ubiquitious pretty cars. Every time a 3 arguments start the base G gets compared to a pricier and pricier car. The ZHB is a juiced up 3 and i am talking about the base G as 28k. Your ZHB with 44k in sticker with the same looks as the civic like 325 still breaks even against the G in all performance categories. Wait until the G get a nice performance package out. BMW will have to lower prices again!
And as far as the overbloated engine of the G. guess whos stuffing a v8 in to a lower priced 3 to compete with the G. Cant hang with a 6 anymore eh? the VQ speaks for itself and the automakers rate it to Ward top 10 7 years straight. BMW makes it once in a while but not with such consistency. NIssan tweaks these motors down as my motor shows up in other platforms with 27 more hp. Best engine coming from japan and as durable as any in the world..you lose credibility when you argue the VQ is overbloated. And BMW has been rating cars below actual HP for years for people who wll buy it...same people who think GMC has better sheet metal than chevy buy that crp
Depreciation wise, yes, the G would lose more than the Acura, but then if resale value is the main criteria, you would be much better off buying a fully loaded V6 Accord and save BIG in $$$. This car would give you very similar performance to the new TL, especially with premium fuel, since it shares its platform with the new TL, and will be the best in the resale market when you do decide to sell it.
To me, the G provides a great driving experience coupled with a good price, but I agree there are some compromises, such as a 'not top notch interior'. The other thing is the stellar reliability of the VQ engine/tranny, which has proved to be bulletproof, and has been called as the best V6 ever by Ward's auto.
In the end, choices, choices, choices.
Just to talk about one misconception, the 3.2L and the 3L have been on Wards 10 best since their introduction. Go to Wards site and look it up. http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/microsites/Newsarticle.asp?newsa- rticleid=2666873&srid=10088&instanceid=29125&pageid=5- 991&magazineid=1004&siteid=26