Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Karl's Daily Log Book
Sylvia
Member Posts: 1,636
Great to have you in the Forums Karl!
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The first contestant on this New Car Blog is the all-new 2005 Mercedes-Benz SLK350. Like BMW with its redesign of the Z3 (now called Z4), Mercedes is trying to get away from the "chick car" cross that these cute convertibles often bear. Now the SLK looks like a mini SL, which in turn looks like a slightly defanged McLaren SLR. The result is a more aggressive appearance -- I've even heard the word "phallic" used, suggesting Mercedes may be a bit too serious about injecting manliness into its Baby 'Benz roadster. Styling aside, the SLK's new 268-hp, 3.5-liter power plant feels as refined as any internal combustion engine I've driven. Forward thrust starts strong at idle and only gets better from there. What’s my favorite improvement over the previous SLK? The steering, which now matches the sports car promise this car has been making since 1997. Thank the "recalculating ball to rack and pinion" upgrade that came with the redesign. And in case the improved drivetrain and steering aren't enough, don't forget the retracting hardtop that offers coupelike ride quality when raised. I'll take mine in red with the six-speed manual and Airscarf system (possibly the coolest convertible feature ever invented -- even if the name somewhat contradicts the "anti-chick-car" direction Mercedes is going).
Check back tomorrow for my reaction to another all-new DaimlerChrysler product: Chrysler 300 SRT-8.
agree with your assesments on the looks and cache of the baby Benz convertibles...
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That said, the 300 SRT-8 could be the best combination of luxury and performance available for the money. I initially had this vehicle pegged in the high $40s when Chrysler showed it off last August at Pebble Beach. But it actually starts at just under $40K, and if you load it up it's still less than $45,000 (including navigation, Sirius, bluetooth and side curtain airbags).
Don't expect it to handle like an M5 or E55, because it can't. But for buyers wanting maximum luxury and maximum forward thrust for a price well below the premium German and Japanese alternatives, this car is a steal.
Anybody else I wouldn't have corrected, but the head honcho at Edmunds? I couldn't resist.
I look forward to enjoying this thread!
The all-wheel drive on our model would normally be a waste of money and gas in Southern California, but the record rainfall we've seen over the past eight weeks has kept the roads plenty wet -- and muddy along my PCH commute. The all-wheel drive has proven its merit, helping me dodge various rocks,boulders and patches of displaced earth, especially at night.
The one issue I have with the S40 is the abrupt power delivery from the turbocharged five cylinder. It's less of an issue on the manual shift cars, but with the automatic the engine can feel sluggish when its caught in the wrong gear and turbo lag comes into play. Not a huge issue, but one to be aware of.
On February 16 the S40 took runner up (to the Audi A6) as the inaugural World Car of the Year, as voted on by 48 journalists from 16 countries. Considering its platform is shared by the Mazda 3 and European Ford Focus, the title seems appropriate.
For me, its the combination of safety, luxury and value that makes the S40 a solid choice in the entry-luxury segment. Gotta love that surround sound audio system!
Someday they'll inject automotive terms into spell check and it won't make these "helpful" corrections...
This car is not particularly attractive, and between its Volvo badge and chunky station wagon looks it's hardly "cooler" than any minivan. Yet this is one of Volvo's most successful models, and much of it has to do with the car's (well-deserved) reputation as a street legal bank vault for families.
My ongoing problem with the XC90 was always the weak drivetrain options. Either you bought the more powerful T6 model and you had to put up with an outdated four-speed automatic. Or you went with the smaller 2.5T engine to get a modern five-speed automatic, but the car was left wheezing with only 208 horsepower (remember, that double-strength chassis is HEAVY; this car weighs over 4,400 lbs!).
But the 2005 version I drove today offers a 315 horsepower V8 and a SIX-SPEED automatic. Now that's more like it! At $46,000 it ain't cheap, but the XC90 finally brings performance, luxury and benchmark-setting safety together in one package (the styling still won't set your heart aflutter).
I can say this without hesitation: If divine enlightenment suddenly told me that my wife and kids were going to be in an accident tomorrow, and the only element I could control was the light duty vehicle they would be in when it happened, I would choose this vehicle.
Is it really that big or do the big wheels and small windows make it look bigger than it is?
I parked next to one in my E39 Bimmer (528iA) and noted that the 300 appeared only fractionally longer taller and wider. The E39 is classified as a "compact sedan".
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Not me, I'd opt for the lower V70 or XC70 which have lower CGs ergo less chance of flipping.
I'd have to disagreeagree w your assesment of it's looks though. It's really quite attractive for a Volvo and it's selling like hotcakes for that reason IMO.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Besides, rollover accidents are still relativley rare, and the most dangerous elements, if they do happen, are when:
A. The occupants aren't wearing seat belts or
B. The vehicle collapses in on itself and/or an occupant's head strikes an interior surface like the roof or roof pillar
The XC90 has some of the most advanced anti-rollover technology available, and it has a structure that's very unlikely to collapse in on itself (the roof is made of Boron steel). And it has three rows of side curtain airbags. And my family is always properly belted in.
I'll stick with the XC90, higher CG and all.
Crashes in which a vehicle rolled over accounted for 33 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2003 (55 percent of single-vehicle occupant crash deaths and 12 percent of multiple-vehicle occupant crash deaths).
Stats from http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/occupants.htm#sec4
If your answer is "I don't know" then I'd follow up by saying, again, that the XC90 has extremely advanced anti-rollover technology, and even more advanced safety technology to protect occupants in the (unlikely) event that it does rollover.
Are rollovers bad? Yes. They are also rare (as you admit) and unless someone can point to the XC90 having a preponderance for rolling over (I would bet that any research on the subject would prove the opposite) then I'm going to stick with my position that the XC90 is EXTREMELY safe -- desptie being an SUV (to me it's really a tall wagon).
- The XC90 is a looker. It is the most striking mid-size SUV on a market IMHO. Our Ruby Red draws a lot of attention everywhere we go. My wife, who drives the car, compares it with a fancy dog - she gets hits from male drivers every time she stops for a gas ;-)
And 208HP seems to be more than adequate to us. It is an SUV, the family/cargo hauler, is it?
I will buy a sport coupe, if I need an adrenaline pumper.
...but Porsche is about performance...so they do not advertise the safety angle...
the Volvo is good ... I drove the XC-90 at speed at a closed course... even made the wheels skid and drift. I drove both the tamer model and the twin turbo one....and liked them...
however, I do not like the XC-90 rear end lights going up like the way they do, IMHO. LOOKs are subjective...SO if I were to design them, I would do something diff....the front end looks good...the interior is also good. It even has a radiator that breaks up ozone, a polluter.
I would have no problem owning one...
The company hit some rough patches in recent times, including a discernible drop in quality and a reputation for being glorified Jaguars.
But the 2002 Aston-Martin Vanquish signaled a paradigm shift for the British marque, and the all-new DB9 continues the momentum. I drove the DB9 today on some of the most entertaining roads in Southern California, and let me confirm for you now that the company's future is bright. The U.S. is its fastest-growing market, and the dealer count has more than doubled in the last five years.
And the car? Well, the 2005 DB9 is perfectly balanced on the road and downright decadant inside (it makes Lexus wood look like cork board). The automatic tranny offers paddle shifter functionality and the type of rev-matching on downshifts that normally require a sequential manaual design with a clutch and pressure plate. But this unit has a torque converter, meaning no annoying head-toss when left in full Auto mode, despite the manual-tranny-like rapid response time when manually shifted.
I'll have a First Drive story (with video) available soon, but here's a quick sneak peak: It's a damn fine automobile.
Ford has done with Aston what it's neglected to do with Jaguar and that is to go racing. This year the DB9R will compete in the ALMS and in the LM 24hour race. The competition with Corvette for the GT crown ought to be fierce.
In the meantime Karl, you should try out the new small AM, the V8 Vantage model and let us know if it's a worthy competitor to the 911.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
And I totally agree with you regarding Jaguar. Considering the brand equity (and historic sales numbers compared to Aston) under the leaping cat's belt it's quite painful to watch this once mighty British brand go down in a blaze of broken race cars and malfunctioning headlights (anyone see the Advanced Lightweight Coupe at Detroit?).
But as they say, Rome wasn't burned in a day. GM is just now getting Cadillac really working, and Saturn looks to be next in line. Maybe now that Volvo, Land Rover and Aston-Martin seem to be firing on all five, six, eight and twelve cylinders, Ford can focus on Jag.
Here's hoping so.
Let's see if their dismal FOR improves.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
At least this car is a joy to sit in for such long stretches. I absolutely love Audi's MMI display screen. The colors, fonts and user interface are much slicker than iDrive. But it still took far too long to figure out how to manually tune the radio (which has excellent sound quality, BTW).
The latest A4's look is appealing, and the Avant looks even better than the sedan. Yes, I know the front grille is somewhat controversial, but the wagon still works for me overall. Actually, that's been the case with every A4 for the last 10 years -- I've always liked the wagon versions better in terms of styling. Same thing with Saab's 9-5. Maybe there's just something inherently cleaner about a wagon's shape versus its sedan counterpart. Too bad their sales still pale in comparison to SUVs.
Bring on the S4 Avant, please.
I think the 9-5 wagon's shape is better resolved in the rear than the sedan's which looks like they didn't quite know what to do with it.
Audi Avants are the best looking wagons made but you could say that about their sedans too.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Despite low sales volumes, I think it is wonderful that we still have a good selection of wagons and hatchbacks. If/when my wife and I have kids/pets we will seriously consider a wagon as we are never, ever going to own an SUV of minivan.
If it weren't for cost reasons I might already own one - or a V50 or a 325i wagon.
How is the reliability on the A4, anyway?
In the case of my B5/'98 Avant 2.8 it was quite good with a fan motor being the most major item needing repair and replacement (about $600 parts/labor) outside of tires, rotors and other wear items and damage caused by mice chewing on underhood wiring..
It was more reliable than either of the 80's era Hondas I owned.
The car was acquired second-hand (CPO)@ 23K and traded in 5 years and 100,000 miles later.
.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I'm not sure what's more bizarre, that Honda is now in the truck business, or that its first truck seems inspired by a Cadillac (Escalade EXT). Remember, not so long ago Cadillac had never made a truck, either.
Of course, unlike the Cadillac, the Honda isn't a real truck. The Escalade EXT is based on the body-on-frame Chevy Avalanche, while the Ridgeline is based on the unibody Pilot/MDX, both of which are largely based on the Odyssey.
But this is not a knock against the Ridgeline. Car-like trucks are in these days, as proven by the sales numbers of the Toyota Highlander versus any Jeep or Isuzu product. The Ridgeline is easy to drive, very refined and has all sorts of cool features (love the "trunk" under the bed). People wanting the look/image of a truck with the friendliness of a Pilot or Highlander will love it.
People expecting the off-road or towing ability of a real truck will not (its maximum towing capacity is 5,000 lbs while the Tundra is 6,500 lbs and the Big 3's trucks range from 8,200 to 9,400 lbs).
But I still wonder how much of a market exists for non-truck truck buyers. SUVs offer seating for up to eight and/or the ability to haul delicate items (groceries, luggage, tax audit paperwork) in a safe environment. The Ridgeline maxes out at five passengers, and except for the relatively small "trunk" area it risks getting its cargo wet during a rainstorm.
As long as it doesn't end up being Honda's Blackwood...
Bingo! In advertising we say "perception is reality."
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
But, it is not a point. There is a very large population of the car buyers, who looks at the car as an expensive toy, a pleasure item, rather than a pure utility.
I am one of them.
"Of course, unlike the Cadillac, the Honda isn't a real truck. The Escalade EXT is based on the body-on-frame Chevy Avalanche, while the Ridgeline is based on the unibody Pilot/MDX, both of which are largely based on the Odyssey."
Not true. The Ridgeline is built on a fully boxed frame with a uni-body cabin on top. The design incorporates rails some 70% deeper than the supports incorporated into the Pilot. Something like 90% of the chassis is all new. It is a similar design to that used with the Grand Cherokee and LR3. (Rovers are still real trucks, right?)
The not-a-real-truck feature for the Ridgeline is not frame-related. The odd duck on that truck is the indy suspension.
Also, the FWD bias on the 4WD... A real truck is RWD, because that is where the load is..
The Ridgeline has most of it's power going to the front wheels in normal driving... That is just weird for a truck..
I'd prefer to think of it as a "crossover pickup/ute".
And, to be clear... I like it..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I just think it's sorta funny, most trucks you see have one person in them and are used for commuting....for the way probably 90% of truck owners use their trucks 90% of the time, a Honda Insight would do the same job, it just wouldn't look cool.
Looking cool drives the buying decisions for so many people, especially where I live - Southern California. Otherwise how can you explain the situation when almost every second person drives a truck or SUV (including monstrous Hammer) in area with probably the least in the world need for an off-road vehicle.
Well, nobody really "needs" a 400Hp sports car either...
Nobody "needs" a luxury car...
If we went strictly by "need" everyone would have some tiny box with a 1.0L engine
But I concede your point: the Ridgeline is certainly further from the Pilot than, for example, the Silverado is from the Tahoe.
Just so everyone knows, part of my definition of "based on" is when two models are:
1. Produced at the same plant (not a requirement, but an indicator)
2. Utilize the exact same drivetrain(s)
3. Have roughly the same wheelbase, track and curb weight (within 10 percent)
Basically, if the above situations exist and the vehicles aren't somehow based on each other, the OEM is wasting money!
I drive Volvo S80 and my wife drives XC90. They are cool, nice, up-scale - chose any adjective you like. We bought XC90 to conveniently drive up the Mammoth Lakes on our ski trips 5-6 times a year. We could be better off just buying a set of tire chains for $60 - but it is not so cool...
Remember, I am the one of those who buys an expensive toy...
1. Produced at the same plant (not a requirement, but an indicator)
2. Utilize the exact same drivetrain(s)
3. Have roughly the same wheelbase, track and curb weight (within 10 percent)
The Ridgeline's drivetrain, while based on the Pilot, has been beefed up to meet truck needs.
The wheelbase of the Pilot is ~ 106," while the Ridgeline's wheelbase is 122."
Finally, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding out there as to what category the Ridgeline falls into. Is it fullsize or midsize? Honda is positioning it against the midsize trucks out there, which means, Dakota, Frontier, Tacoma and Explorer Sport Trac. However—and this is a big "however," the Ridgeline is wider by far than any midsize truck. That extra width allows it to lay 4x8 paneling flat on the floor, like the fullsize trucks—and Honda promotes that benefit—hence the confusion. Also, the total vehicle payload is ~ 1550 pounds, of which 1100 pounds can go in the bed.
So is the Ridgeline a midsize or fullsize 1/2-ton pickup? Yes.
Bob
We used our long-term 2005 Honda Odyssey, but before I could travel a couple hundred miles in it I had to fix the front, passenger-side tire, which of course uses the new PAX run-flat system. We discoved a nail in it that was causing a very slow leak, and I immediately suspected the fix would be more painful than with a standard tire.
Sure enough, it took multiple phone calls to multiple Honda dealers, followed by multiple phone calls to multiple Michelin tire dealers, to find one that could repair it. Then it took about two hours once they started working on the tire because, as the technician told me, "This is the first one we've done, and the machine isn't working properly. I'll have to call our Michelin rep to have the machine repaired."
The whole "this is my first experience with PAX" was a common theme, as I also heard it from every Honda dealership I called.
Seems like a standard patch on a standard tire, done at a standard tire store, would have been easier...
"New and improved" run flat tire technology aside, I still love the new Odyssey. LOTS of power, plus it was getting really good gas mileage when we could actually maintain a steady speed. We were stuck in standard Los Angeles nightmare traffic on the way back from Legoland (60 miles in three hours), but if you have to be stuck in any car with your family for that much time, the Odyssey is a solid choice.
It would be even better if our test car had an entertainment center. Anyone with kids will know what I'm talking about, but buying a minivan without an entertainment system in today's world is like buying a Porsche without a manual transmission. What's the point?
Karl, I hate to be the fly in the ointment in the safety debate, but I would feel a lot safer driving out there without SUVs. Sure, Volvo have done a lot to improve passenger safety. However, IMHO the debate should move on as to what SUV manufacturers are going to do to improve 3rd party safety (in particular passengers in a crash partner car and pedestrians).
I don't particularly care about the MPG for SUVs or their contribution to greenhouse gasses -as I've been impressed with the lengths manufacturers have gone to to address these issues in recent years.
When I lie awake at night, its because my mind ticks over visuallising a "tall 4000lb wagon" going straight OVER the crumple zones on the other cars that were designed to protect my children's fragile bodies.
If SUV manufacturers were REALLY serious about everyone's safety, they might consider a few woeful design flaws in their current models:
- not putting the vehicle on frame-rail truck chassis which does nothing for kinetic energy absorption
- dropping the ride height during of the vehicle for speeds greater than 30mph (this would also reduce roll-over risk).
- I'd love to see a drop in mass, but realistically short of using expensive composites, I can't see this happening.
There is of course an alternative, whereby everyone drives around in tall heavy vehicles with bullet proof frames and the relative masses of cars becomes less of an issue (that of course is unless you are an unlucky pedestrian). This works great if you ignore the increased gas use, new capital expenditure for 75% of the nation, and until somebody breaks rank and ups the ante by buying "Hummer Big Brother" - and we all have to follow suit. I could mention plan B, "Lets down size", but that would mean change...
Karl, don't get me wrong. I thing Edmunds, and its forum in particular, are the best things on the web. But I do think that this trait of keeping schtum on the effects of driving SUV on OTHER people's safety, is something that an editor should crow about.
For those who are seriously interested in safety of SUVs, see the link below:
http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3804.pdf
I could mention plan B, "Lets down size", but that would mean change...
Yeah, and not necessarily for the better. Ever try and fit two child seats into the back of a Corolla? Hope you don't want to recline. And heaven forbid you have more than two kids. There are trade-offs in larger vehicles, but the utility is worth it for a lot of people. You might want to think about that before dismissing these vehicles as "foolish excess".
Finally, studies have shown that the number of fatalities per miles driven has actually remained steady or gone down even as more people get on the road and more people drive large vehicles. Face it, even if we all drove Geo Metros, driving a car is a potentially dangerous situation, and people would still get killed, mostly due to poor driver judgement (DUI, no seat belts) and not because of the vehicles.
I have to say, the PAX tires plus not being able to add the "plus one" seat (there are no seat belts for that seat in the Touring) where the deal breaker on the Touring model. I'm sure that a lot of Touring model buyers will start regretting their choice once they have to deal with any tire issue. From what I hear, even rotating the tires on your own is not easy....
Anyway, we love the new ody and even though at first I didn't want to spend the extra $$ on the DVD player, the way it's integrated in the vehicle is really amazing. I was surprised about that. It's not just bolted to ceiling like a aftermarket solution.
What milage are you getting out of the VCM engine? There is a lot of talking going on on the forums that 20/28 is way to optimistic.
D.
I heard that to do a timing belt change on the Audi 2.8 V6 engine you have to drop the engine!! Now that's some fun right there.
Interestingly, they started using timing chains on the new FSI engine, like BMW and MB. The timing chain is, by the way, on the back side (not the front) of the engine.
So now everyone takes their phone with them, and we have "car kits" and/or "hands-free kits" that make hooking your cell phone up to any car a simple process. The same thing is already happening with portable DVD players. They are cheaper, often have better picture quality, and are certainly more versatile (your kids use them on the way to the airport, then use them on the plane after you take off).
They aren't as well integrated into the vehicle's audio system as the factory units, of course, but with FM transmitter abilities (I just bought one with this feature for my sister's family at Christmas) it's almost as good.
2005 BMW X5 4.8is -- Even faster than I expected, and much more capable in the slalom than any SUV has a right to be. It was the fastest vehicle through the slalom today, pretty amazing when you see what else I tested. I never really liked the X5 because I thought it was a taller, less fuel-efficient, worse-handling and smaller-cargo-area version of the 5 Series wagon. That's still all true...but it sure does drive well.
2006 Volkswagen Jetta -- I'm a bit disappointed. The styling looks like a tarted up Corolla, and the interior doesn't feel as upscale as it used to. I think the weak dollar is making it tough on European automakers, especially the ones trying to produce compelling cars for under $20,000 (though Mini is doing it...). It did drive well, with typical German steering and brakes (meaning excellent). I guess the market will decide if this latest redesign was for the better -- or not.
2006 Mercedes CLS500 -- I drove this briefly a few weeks ago, and felt it was a nice sedan with cool exterior styling. But I didn't know if the swoopy roofline was reason enough to consider it. Now that I've pushed it hard at a test facility I can see that its dynamics are pretty amazing for a luxury sedan (it really responds well in corners, and stops on a dime -- 114 feet from 60 mph, if I remember correctly). Plus it really does look great, inside and out. Too rich for my blood, but for S-Class and 7 Series intenders, this one is a must-test-drive.
Honda Ridgeline -- I already commented on my street driving experience (March 10). The test facility experience follows suit, proving this is a very nice car/SUV that happens to have an open bed (and a trunk, too). I'm still not sure about its ultimate functionality for most consumers, but it certainly fills a non-crowded niche.
Volkswagen Phaeton -- The car no-one wants to like, no matter how good it is. Two undeniable facts about this one. 1.) If it didn't have any Volkswagen emblems on it, people would have to acknowlege its many impressive traits. 2.) It is difficult for most people to quickly alter their views on a company, regardless of the product it produces. I would also remind everyone that not so long ago BMW and Volvo were not, in any way, shape, or form, luxury brands. Yes, the Audi A8 makes more sense at this price point. But that doesn't make the Phaeton a "worse" car, just a harder one to justify. For the record, I'd also buy the A8 before the Phaeton.
Since this is a brand new thread, may I suggest to include an original posting ## in your response. Some times, when the answer is short and non-descriptive, it is difficult to figure out what was the point of that counter point.