Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1…6263656768…134

Comments

  • scbobscbob Member Posts: 167
    Not what Toyota says.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    You know my brother bought that Ranger with 119,000 miles on it and only paid $3,500. He puts 136,000 miles on it with very few repairs and the thing still looks and runs great. Beat that value! :P

    He did the same thing with a BMW car before that. He's never paid much more then $5,000 for a car. Probably helps he's an engineer and is fairly handy, but from what I can gather just minor repairs on both vehicles and routine oil changes and maintenance seems to be the key.

    His big premise is that most vehicles are a heck of lot more advanced then the generation before them and generally better. For instance the Ranger has nearly all the same technology or better than his 80's vintage BMW had.
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    I will agree with you on this.

    The Duratec is a dependaple engine, and if the vehicle is loaded, i.e. 2 persons or more, the engine feels very smooth.
    What I am saying is that Ford engines are probably designed to be smooth revving under load. Under light loads, it is not damped well enough. That said, I have driven the Toyota 3.0L (in a ES300, RX300) and also the 2.5L on the IS250. The 3.0L is smooth, but it is also very detached from the driver. So much so that I could not even hear the belt screeching while seated inside the car. I was lucky my nephew who was standing outside told me to come out with the engine running to ear the sound. What does that mean? It means that the toyota engines are not necessarily more smoother. It is "felt" smoother due to the lack of any sound/vibration transmission to the driver. :sick:
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    The Duratec is a dependaple engine
    should read "dependable". sorry about that.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    full throttlr engine sound and vibration levels in 3.0 DT Ford 500 and Fusions has been measured to be significantly higher than correspondent V6 engines from all the other mfgrs. all the way 'down' to The Chrysler V6 (which turns out not to be so bad after all. Granted that especially with the extra HP most driversd will rarelyif ever find the need to 'wind' the engine out that far - but in thew case of two of the engines that I do have experience with, the Toyota 2GR and the Nissan VQ, either engine is equally willing (and able) to spend all day in the 4-6000 rpm range without any 'racket'. This not really subjective as you note, a decibel is a decibel, but it does seem as one poster noted that it just might be possible for someone to like this lack of balance and isolation. The 3.5 has been reviewed by a number of auto pubs to share many of those same 'refinement' issues in the Lincoln MKX and Z as well as the Edge, which remains my only basis (along with a similar and simplier VVT) to suspect the 3.5 is 'only' a 'bored/stroked' 3.0 which in itself dated to the smaller 2.5s that proceeded it. Kind of like biting into GMs ludricrous claims that its old 231/3.8/3800 over its multiple incarnations is not still basically the same ole ironblock pushrod. And sure, both those engines, the GM3.8 and the DT ultimately became what they are now - reliable if nothing else.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    Okay. Reliability is what I'm after.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    "It is "felt" smoother due to the lack of any sound/vibration transmission to the driver"

    No, it IS smoother and that is why the sound/vibration isn't carried through the driveline. We could have this argument all day, but as far as NVH goes the 2 GR and the VQ are at the top of the class. The old Yota 3.0 wasn't too bad either.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    if that's what you want, reliability, than sign up for the Maxima, that VQ is without a doubt the most 'bulletproof' V6 that perhaps has ever been built - the Toyota 2GR while it has displayed no mechanical problems to date, is the new kid on the block , only 3 years old since appearring first in the Avalon and folowed quickly in several Toyota/Lexus vehicles. The point, howeever, is, if you can have both a smooth and refined (and efficient) engine as well as a reliable one - why not? decently maintained all these engines should provide 150-200k relatively troublefree service.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    You know I think we're splitting hairs on this. If you scroll up you'll see how many reliable miles some of my family has gotten out of the Ford engines.

    It's kind of like comparing fan bases for USC,LSU, Florida, Nebraska, and Texas. Okay one polling service says Texas fans are the "best" while another says something else. In reality they're all good, and that's the way I view most engines.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    don't believe it's 'splitting hairs' at all - I personally would spend my money on a 'bad' car with a superior engine before a 'good' car with something less than that. Back a few years back that is why I spent a spent several thousand more on my Avalon than the Five Hundred - a car that I really kinda liked until I turned the key. Don't know if it would be the same today with the 260 hp Taurus, although I'm not a big fan of razor blades and overly 'soft' suspensions.
  • alexstorealexstore Member Posts: 264
    From the discussions on this forum eventually we will need to rename it to Hyundai vs World forum
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    as one my friends told me the other day

    the Duratec is the basic unit for the engine in the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish. Read any article ever written abou that car and you'll see it has been named one of the best supercar engines ever. Powerful as hell, and with a sound almost nothing else can touch. Yes, it is based on the same engine in the Taurus, but when Aston smacked 2 of them together and did its own tweaks, it goes from sedan to supercar engine just that quickly.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Methinks it might have something to do with what is called "finesse". ;)
    van
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    agreed.

    exactly the point I was trying to make. Some folks have a bad vibe (pun intended) about the Duratec 3.0 as tested on the Taurus. But that same engines is used in the Mazda6, the Jag, etc and each ones is so different. The V6 in the Mazda6 has the same block but everything else is different and revs very smoothly. I will agree that Honda engines are smoother but not so much that you will regret owning the Mazda6 Duratec v6.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    After driven the Toyota V6, Honda V6 and Nissan V6 I wouldn't call the V6 in Mazda6 "finesse" either. It was tuned differently by Mazda but is still sluggish comparing to the benchmarks.
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    sluggish?
    you must be referring to the old 5-speed automatic transmission. That was sluggish.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    actually

    i think ther Duratec was originally designed by Porsche, believe it or not, back in the 90s when Porsche contemplated more front/mid engine cars. Ford bought it, took a lot of those costly things that made it an engine something good enough for a Porsche out of it and we got what we got. Sure it is possible that even the Vanquish might start with this base block[s]/geomotries, but the thought of any AM (or Porsche) engine even being any near as rough or noisy as what would conceivably go into those cars must mean that you think that just because the DT has the same number of valves as a toyota 2GR, and the same number of cylinders, and (on the surface of it) something called 'VVT'(which is quite a bit LESS in Ford guise than it is in Toyota's version), that is is the same. The Ford version of this engine is nowhere as sophisticated (or efficient and refined) as those engines of the same size by other mfgrs. - I simply can't imagine anybody not feeling and hearing the difference after only one simple 'run-up' thru the gears.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    yes, Mazda's take on the DT seems to be better than Ford's, read somewhere that it has less to do with the engine itself than it does with how it's mounted in the chassis.
  • kcflyerkcflyer Member Posts: 78
    Anyone know why the Lucerne is still not offered with GM's newest V6 and six speed automatic. Saturn has had it for a year and even the new malibu offers it as an option. Since Buick is offered up as a premium brand (at least compared to chevy) why is GM withholding this engine/transmission option. They could at least offer the six speed with the current 3800 series engine assuming the two are compatible. What gives?
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    6 speeds is only needed if you have a tiny engine with no torque. Squeezing out 1mpg more on the highway for $2000+ more in repairs over the normal transmission isn't wise.

    You can have your 6 speed gadget. You can also have a $4000 repair bill versus my $1800.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Probably because the new 3.6L V6 with 260hp + would make the NorthStar V8 pointless.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    while it is true that any 'ancient' pushrod setup will usually achieve its rated torque at lower rpms, the GM 3.8 is still rated lower than all? the OHC engines here and the Lucerne is one of the least likely vehicle to be able to maintain real highway speeds on even semi flat terrain - a combination of an overweight vehicle, overly tall gearing, low relative hp and torque - all some pretty steep prices to pay for potentially low tranny repair bills - don't you think? The Lucerne with the 3.6 would be a worthy competitor in this group (or the Lacrosse which is sold this way) - I have a sneaking suspicsion that the the only reason why we still have the 3.8s (and you 4 sp-d trannies) has more to do with UAW contracts than anything else.
  • hardhawkhardhawk Member Posts: 702
    I keep reading about a new RWD Lucerne replacement for 2009, so my guess is that GM just does not want to spend the $$ to put in the new engine and transmission. They would rather put limited resources into the new model and not the old one. I have driven a CXS last week and it drive pretty darn good, even with the smaller V8 and 4 speed tansmission. There are some pretty good deals on the 2007's left over and other than the lane departure and blind spot systems there appear to be no changes for 2008, except that you cannot get the V8 in the CXL any more.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    this is one that I hadn't thought about, those "Aussie" GM platforms, and the fact that these types of things represent what Detriot does best. Now if only oil can stay below $100, they might actually find a few buyers. But even then not with these antiquated 4 spd trannies.
  • 101649101649 Member Posts: 192
    Check out the Lexus LS...8 speed tranny and/or CVT..389 hp and loads of torque...ultimate in lux and tech...no gadgets here performs like a V-12...also hybrid with 438 hp
  • jimmy2xjimmy2x Member Posts: 124
    Would hardly call an LS a "mainstream sedan". Very nice but how much - 75K??
  • dborthdborth Member Posts: 474
    Would hardly call an LS a "mainstream sedan". Very nice but how much - 75K??

    Yes, for the "stripper" model, if you can find a sales consultant to even approach you.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    yep-, i think those 'consultants' aren't allowed to even nod your way unless you drove in in something of equal or greater cost. Drive up in a 745, and they will be happy to spend some of their valuable time with you! ;) the new hybrid supposedly gets closer to 100k
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    yes, Mazda's take on the DT seems to be better than Ford's, read somewhere that it has less to do with the engine itself than it does with how it's mounted in the chassis.

    that and the bore/stroke ratio, materials used in the piston rod, crankshaft, balancing shafts, dampers, valves.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    The reason the 3800 is so slow is one reason - silly tall gearing. Ubsurdly tall. The CXS's V8 has gobs of low-end torque so it's a good match with that tall gearing. The 3800 needs much shorter gears(but of course it would get 21mpg, hence the move to 5-6 gears by GM).

    Moral - just get a V8 and ignore the V6s.
  • cobrazeracobrazera Member Posts: 352
    IMHO there are two reasons we're not seeing the 3.6 DOHC in the Lucerne.
    First, that engine has never been mated to the large FWD chassis produced in Hamtramck where the Lucerne, Bonnevilles, and Cadillac DTS are made - the V8 Northstar and the 3800 being the engines for which tooling exists at that plant. There would be a cost involved to retool for the 3.6.
    Secondly, and probably more important, the 3.6 production capacity is probably not large enough. That engine is in the Aura, Lacrosse, STS, CTS, and all versions of the new, hotselling, large crossover SUVs: Buick Enclave, Saturn Outlook, and GMC Acadia. Chevrolet will introduce their own version of that CUV next year with expected high sales volumes.
  • 101649101649 Member Posts: 192
    The Lexus post was in response to post 3323 calling a 6 speed a gadget and only used in low torque engines....CVT's are used in low torque applications because of the nature of the tranny...I wasn't including the Lexus in the "mainstream."
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    there you go dreaming (and justifying) again. There are 2 reasons the Lucerne V6 is Sloooow - and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why: 197 lousy hp and 227 lousy lb. ft of torque all packaged into a vehicle that is something around 200 lbs. heavier than its competition in this class. And then you can still point to what is really a 'properly dynamic' V8 that really is the same sort of OHC 'spinner' that you seem so intent on dissing. GM has no excuse not to put a proper V6 in the Lucerne especially since that powerplant already exists - what exactly do you think killed the 500 - how about the same lousy 200hp in a big sedan, not to mention some rather serious engine refinement problems. Buick should be ashamed! And, of course that engine has 'silly high' gearing - what way better to squeeze an extra coupla mpg and leave a 'car' that can become almost undriveable on the highway.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    i think pletko's real intent here is a vote for simplicity and therefore a correspondent real reduction in probable repair costs in the unlikely event that any of us have some tranny issues. He is perceiving these current crop of V6s as nothing more than a Honda Si 4 banger with a pair of extra cylinders. Ignorance is bliss i guess, he has never actually driven any of these 'state of the art' cars, pretty much ALL the ones listed above. The Lucerne 3.8 thankfully to be the last of the dinosaurs in any case.
  • bobber1bobber1 Member Posts: 217
    I agree the GM 3800 has seen better days and is underpowered relative to some of the newer engines. That engine is darn reliable however. I for one am going to miss it.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,147
    >and leave a 'car' that can become almost undriveable on the highway.

    I suspect you've not driven the car with the 3800, have you. Not by the description you give. I'd suggest a test drive in one.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    Not to put words in Captain's mouth but he is referring to the very tall 4th gear which will cause the Lucerne to downshift on even the mildest of hills. I experienced this on my test drive too. Undriveable, no, annoying yes. I am glad to see others saying the 3.6 should be in the Lucerne. It will never be for a # of reasons. Lets just look ahead and see what the next gen brings us. Personally, I am hoping RWD, near 300HP V6 (5 or 6 speed) in a package similar to the current Lucerne. Oh, and of course keep nicely equipped examples in the 35K range :)

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    sure i have -as has most civilized society - exactly how long do you think that we have had things like LeSabres and Park Aves. and Oldmobiles etc etc with the same engine, the same 200 hp/225 lb ft., although in cars smaller and lighter than the current Lucerne. And those models did pretty well FE wise as well (if i recall correctly) with that same 'ridiculous' overdrive cruise gearing. Sound like the Lucerne is really a 20 year old LeSabre yet? AS tjc notes it was annoying then, now merely inexcusable in any vehicle with luxury and hwy cruiser pretensions - they ought not to even equip the 3.8 model with a cruise control. That type of engine pulling 2 tons is a sad sad joke. The Northstar variants do much to negate the drivability/power problems of the V6, almost make the car feel somwhat energetic , suck some extra gas needlessly of course, and still be left staring at the tailpipes of I think all the cars (except the Impala V6?) in this group now that Ford has finally added some spunk to its 500.
    Although Buick's product line is very very thin these days, you still would think that its flagship sedan deserves better (like the 3.6 HF V6).
    It is interesting to note that the first Buick to be received favorably in many many years by both the auomotive press and John Q Public is a 5000lb. car based SUV (Enclave) with horror of horrors that 3.6L DOHC engine and a 6 speed auto tranny. Imagine a Buick that doesn't have to be discounted 20% (or more) 'find' buyers - horror of horrors again, Buick might just be able to MAKE some green on the Enclave. A novel concept for them - to be sure, and an even more unusual thing for those buyers to sink their teeth into - the first Buick in 50 years that might reasonably be expected to hold its value. . Even Buick seems to be able to read the handwriting on the wall....
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    a 300 hp direct injected version of the 3.6 is currently available in the CTS. Excapt for the price tag and smaller size, GM/Buick already has the car. Similar to the way that Toyota gets the same HP out of the smaller 2GR-FSE in the IS350 and supposedly has been testing a near 400 hp (naturally aspirated) version for a new 09 Supra
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    Forgot about the CTS, nice car just way too small for me. If the Lucerne goes RWD there really isn't any reason not to put that engine in and keep the price reasonable. No one will cross shop the Lucerne and CTS two totally different buyers. It would be the same as an IS250/350 buyer looking at an Avalon.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    think STS then even that being slightly stretched
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,147
    The definition of hills varies greatly from one part of the country to the next. I test drove a CXL here in Western Ohio and didn't find it downshifting more than my previous leSabres. But slopes here may not be considered hills in other parts. But I didn't spend much time and miles to sense the OD unlocking which is usually what is felt as a downshift.

    I recall this being discussed somewhere before. I also suspect the readiness to downshift or unlock TCC is a learned characteristic of the transmission depending on the driver's pattern of accelerator demand; hence lots of people testing a car may teach the transmission to be quick to unlock and downshift. I'll have to test drive a LaCrosse with the 3.6.

    One must remember the target buyer and owner of large sedans is people who drive more like myself than people who drive it as a sports car.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • batistabatista Member Posts: 159
    I agree the GM 3800 has seen better days and is underpowered relative to some of the newer engines. That engine is darn reliable however. I for one am going to miss it.

    Any engine these days is reliable, big deal.
    The 3.8L Series II was a leaker and it took 8+ years for GM to figure it out and come out with a Series III (no composite intake manifold).
    Transmission reliability and electrical problems are the biggest problem with newer cars.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    He is perceiving these current crop of V6s as nothing more than a Honda Si 4 banger with a pair of extra cylinders.
    ****

    Actually, if you go back a LONG way, I have always been wishing they would drop the 3800 entirely and only offer the V8. GM needs to learn to take risks and put only their best foot forward. The 3800 was and is a decision to satisfy rental fleets. They put a budget interior and a budget engine in it in a misbegotten attempt to compete with the full size competition. Not that they can't compete, but GM could toss its entire rental fleet sales and hardly notice it it makes so little money to supply them.

    The 3.6 would be a nice car, too - and again, they should only offer than in the LaCrosse. 3800? Toss that in a Pontiac, which has become GM's rental badge with a couple of exceptions.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    "didn't find it downshifting more than my previous leSabres"

    Why would you?? Its basically the same powertrain. I remember the same behavior from my 98 Olds 88. I live in southern NJ (near Philly) and its fairly flat, it would have to be worse in other parts of the country.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    "I have always been wishing they would drop the 3800 entirely and only offer the V8"

    They are actually doing the opposite and making the V8 available only in the pricey CXS. You are right that would hurt fleet sales but also average FE standards too.

    "Toss that in a Pontiac, which has become GM's rental badge with a couple of exceptions"

    GM should just dump Pontiac and focus on Caddy Buick and Chevy.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    and that 'best foot forward' in Detroitise would certainly have to be big ole iron block V8s. And nothing particularily wrong with putting cheap engines (the 3.8) in cars also intended for 'loss leader' fleet sales as long as that is understood to be what it is. Ford did it with its Taurus, the 3.0 DT 500, and now continues to do it with the CV. In all cases these are NOT competitive cars in this segment.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,147
    Right. I recall a ride in an X3 or X5 to the Reds game last summer and that vehicle kept going up and down through the gears on I75 between Dayton/Cincy. It wasn't just changing the percent slip on the torque converter; it was downshifting. Why is that a problem with a 4T65E transmission?

    We've been down this topic before and whatever I say you'll respond differently, so I won't respond. Feel free to email. We disagree.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    You're right... we've beat this topic to death many times over.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 15,905
    I don't think the Lucerne sells that many examples to fleets. I haven't been renting as often this year, but, I don't recall seeing them on the lots. Now, Taurus, CV/GM and grand prix's have always been plentiful.

    2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles