Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

rcc775 · November 2006

Plekto,

Actually, the Lucerne with the 3.8 will stay in 2nd until almost 90 and in 3rd until it hits the electronically limited speed of 107. The digital readout will tell you when you are being limited. Pretty cool.

People who say this car with the 3.8 is underpowered do not know what they are talking about. If you drive it like an old lady then sure, it will be slow. But it has plenty of power when you get on it. I have even pulled a few trailers with it and it did just fine.

No one talks about the leveling rear air suspension. It is great to have a car that can be loaded and NOT ride on the rubber shock bumpers, bumping down the road like most loaded cars do.

What about the GM Oil Life system, that when actually used in accordance with the instructions from GM, only requires oil changes about every 10K miles? That is a huge money saver. Besides, the oil still looks new at 3K miles so the 3.8 must run really clean, hence the longer oil change intervals.

I have had 12 brand new cars including Honda, Mazda, Hyundai, and a lot of GM products and the Lucerne is my favorite by far. I have had mine for 10 months and I already have 35,000 miles on it. I drive a lot and I can appreciate a quality automobile. The Lucerne is it.

plekto · November 2006

I know that the 3.8 has power - it's a very nice engine. But unless you mate it to a manual or shift the automatic manually - and then flog it - running in 2nd gear 80%+ of the time - it's a dated slug of an engine.

And then it's mated to one of the world's most pathetic preforming (though very reliable) transmissions.

The 3.6VVT is a much better engine for that 4-speed transmission that GM has been using for nearly 20 years.

IIRC, one of the Pontiac models has a manual gearbox and the 3.8/3.9 engine. And it's a blast to drive.

alexstore · November 2006

My 05 maxima behaves better than 2007 V6 Camry I test drove. You get lots of torque just above 3k rpm. I wish it was lower, but still better than Honda's V6 in accord where it simply doesn't move until 5K in RPM.
my second car 94 Buick Park Avenue Ultra is a perfect example of torque from an American car. Press Gas and a car moves you even @ a low 2k rpm. If not for its weight 3900 lb, it can beat even 05 maxima 3500 lb.
In my opinion 04+ maxima behaves like an American car, though on a diet.

quietpro · November 2006

I've owned my Impala SS for 11 mos now and am obviously completely familiar with it's behavior. A lot of the off-track discussion got into low-end torque vs. high-end horsepower.

My sister owns an '06 Impala LT with the 3.9L V-6. While it's still a VERY powerful engine, it's still very noticeable as to how much difference there is in starting power between her car and mine. While I understand comparing her engine to mine is apples to oranges, the torque numbers don't know how many cylinders are used to create them nor does the rest of the car (mine is much heavier BTW) know. What I (and anyone else riding along) know is that the extra low-end torque makes driving around town much less "busy". It also makes a huge difference when you have well over 800 lbs of flesh in the seats and accelerate (uphill) onto a 70 mph interstate highway. My brother-in-law (who drives her car as much as she does) was amazed by the difference.

Again, I realize this is not a fair comparison but it does speak to the value of having lots of torque at your disposal. Those high rpm hp numbers look impressive on paper but they don't always translate to usable power on the road.

captain2 · November 2006

Because HP is basically top-end speed
MULARKEY - and I think you know it, HP is acceleration - The mathematical relationship is: HP=(torque x rpm)/5252. The important component of this formula to understand is 'RPM'.
Torque is a quantifable measurement of instanteous twisting force available at any given engine at any given engine speed and obviously is an important part of how a car drives. An electric motor, for example, has its maximum torque available at 0 RPM.
Referencing the formula above HP is torque applied over time. You can have all the torque in the world (let's say a diesel, or a pushrod engine, or a big V8) but if the engine doesn't rev quickly, HP must be limited and so is acceleration. It is HP/lb of vehicle wght. that will give you an accurate idea of how well a vehicle can accelerate - NOT ft/lbs per lb. I recently drove a ML320CDI diesel (200hp/400 ft lbs.) and even at 4500 lbs. I'll guarantee you that it is quicker off the line than my 3600lb 270hp/250 ft lb. Avalon - BUT, 0-60 or quarter mile not close - why because that OHC engine revs so much more freely and quickly and my HP/lb. is much better. And then you can go drive a example at the other extreme, the extremely quick S2000 with 240 HP and ONLY 160 ft lbs.torque all available well above 6000 rpm. By your contentions, that 2800lbs ought not be able to even move with that kind of limited torque, but wrong, once you hit about 6k rpm the thing becomes a rocket - peak HP doesn't hit until nearly 8000 rpm. At something about 12 lbs. per HP it should run in the 5s 0-60, which it can. A very demanding car to drive smoothly and quickly BTW, as it should be and an absolutely astonishing normally aspirated engine.
But you are right about ONE thing, that being that these new engines with VVT (or even better CVVT) do serve to widen out those torque curves in these OHC engines that, by definition will rev more quickly and produce more HP. It is about time that GM has figured out how to use some of this technology instead of foisting all these pushrod marvels on the unsuspecting American autobuyer. I can't believe that GM can 'sell' the 3.6 to Suzuki (in the Vitara), and then only put it in the the 'black circled' LaCrosse/CTS, leaving the 3.4, 3.5s, and 3.8s etc. throughout the rest of their products. Makes no sense!

barnstormer64 · November 2006

[b]The mathematical relationship is: HP=(torque x rpm)/5252. The important component of this formula to understand is 'RPM'.[/b]

You're missing what he's saying. And that is, many/most torque curves (torque vs rpm) aren't very flat. Ideally, you want a graph of HP vs rpm to be a straight (increasing) line, and not one that is concave up. The car just drives better that way.

jsylvester · November 2006

I was quoted $8,600 off of list price on the last 2006 Grand Marquis my local Lincoln/Mercury dealer had in stock. It's tempting, but my 2002 has literally never been to the mechanic for more than routine service. I've tried to get my wife to go for it, but she wants to spend more money to get some modern, stylish crackerbox car to carry our kids around.

I've owned two of them in a row - a 94, and then a 2002, and both of them at once because I liked the old one so much. I got rid of the 94 in 2005, not because there was anything wrong with it (well, valve stem seals let the engine burn some oil), but because the wife got tired of me owning two of them at once. Literally everything still worked properly on the vehicle, though I did do new front ball joints 118,000 miles, and I had put new coils, wires, and a starter in it before that point.

My mechanic loves it because he said it is one of the few "real" cars still being sold today. My 2002 at 60,000 miles is due for it's first front brake job, and first tranny fluid and filter replacement - still has the original tires. Also a great car for shadetree mechanics - easy to work on for those with lower mechanical skills.

The Grand Marquis has no street cred because they aren't flashy, and they don't change enough for journalists to write about. Ford hates them because they last too long, which is why they are trying to push you into a Montego - how much did Ford spend to design an inferior product? Sure, it looks better on paper, but come see me with it when it is ten years old and throwing CV joints, engine mounts, etc. - no thanks.

They are also great for rush hour traffic because people always let you over - probably because they think you are 80 years old and blind :P

plekto · November 2006

Well, the Marquis IS a very overbuilt car. It's like buying a Topkick to run around town in.(heh - a few people do so I hear) - it's so overbuilt for commercial/fleet use that the average driver with more low-key driving habits won't wear anything out for a decade or more.

Now, about the torque/HP discussion.
I know all of that - it's just that in plain terms, the way most engines are made today, HP translates into top-end speed and highway acceleration. The engines are peaky, like the S2000. You said that once it hits 6000rpm... Well, it's a toad at 2000-3000 around town.

Power at RPMs that are silly high, mated to a silly tall gear set - makes for fantastic numbers and highway mileage, but translates into nothing useable.

A Buick LaCrosse with the 3.8L engine develops *advertized* power and torque at speeds in excess of 90mph - in third gear. That's verging on bald-faced lying to us, as no consumer will ever see more than 2/3 of that "power" in actual use. Some won't do much better than 1/2.

But the 3.6 GM has - does the opposite. It runs like a turbo-diesel. Very flat and low torque curve, which means you get maximum power behind your acceleration and it holds it there nicely. You'd think that after more than 100 years of designing engines for cars that they'd have figured out how to make an engine like this. Wel,l they have, actually, just that everyone worships HP in the U.S. - like computer power. Gotta have that extra 20HP - despite the fact that outside of a track, you'll never see it.

P.S. It's lb-ft.

captain2 · November 2006

nope, fully understand what he is saying - and almost all these new OHC designs will be relatively torque deficient - and those precious torque curves, all the cars in this group will deliver at least 75% of the rated torque between 2000 to somewhere about the 4500 rpm maximum rating. If you really want a 'wild' torque curve then drive that S2000 I was talking about, or about anything with a turbo 4 banger. GMs little 3.6 is no different in that respect, given that it does have some capacity to flatten that curve with valve timing changes - just like all the rest of the cars in this group. And it may be 'Detroit's' best engine right now (my apologies to the V8 fanatics) - which only underlines how generally 'behind' those other engines are.
But, if you really want a flat and accessible torque curve, drive a diesel and then, wonder why the thing simply doesn't accelerate. It doesn't because the engine is slow to gain speed (rpms), and therefore HP - the best indicator of any vehicles ability to get out of its own way. A lot of accessible torque really does help a car's drivability, but is worthless without an engine that can spin fast enough to take advantage of it!
This is the catch - as a general rule, engines with a lot of torque (created by things like compression ratios, rotating mass, displacement, long strokes etc) are the same ones that are more reticient to gain engine speed...

plekto · November 2006

The GM 3.6 develops *maxiumm* torque at 2000rpm. Find me another V6 anywhere that comes even close to this low.

*quote*
all the cars in this group will deliver at least 75% of the rated torque between 2000 to somewhere about the 4500 rpm maximum rating
***
How about 75% at 1500 and 100% at 2000. That's an entire WORLD of difference. Where most other engines start, this one ends up. That mean that even in gentle city driving, it's already putting out over 200lb-ft of torque. That's a silly amount, really - like a diesel. just it's not slow like a diesel, given the nearly 6000rpm redline.

Go test-drive one. Pound on it and notice how quickly it responds. How litte effort it takes to make quick transitions, even with arguably one of the most "old person's" automatics on the planet hooked up to it.

imidazol97 · November 2006

>the 3.8L engine develops *advertized* power and torque at speeds in excess of 90mph - in third gear.

The 3.8 has more than 200 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm IIRC. it's not the maximum torque but how much torque is produced at lower, useable rpm values in normal driving that make a car nice to drive. When you have to rev to 6000 rpm because the torque is anemic at 2000, you have a completely different car.

3800 graph

3.6 graph

rpfingsten · November 2006

Jsylvester... let me say up front that I do not own a Grand Marquis. I briefly looked at them back in Sept. when I was car shopping but really wasn't crazy about the body style.. having said that, let me tell you that my father in law worked in the service dept. of a local lincoln mercury dealership for 30+ years and he is absolutely sold on that car. so much so that he has owned several himself. He told me that of all the cars they sold, the grand marquis was the car that needed the fewest repairs and was considered by ford lincoln mercury to be their most dependable vehicle. Also with regard to price, heard a spot on the radio today where the local dealership is selling 06 marquis for $17,500 I'm sure that dosnt include leather, but if somebody was in the market for a new marquis, now would be a good time.

Roland

louiswei · November 2006

That car better be the most dependable vehicle for Ford since they have been building the same car for the last 20 years.

captain2 · November 2006

I can read - the LaCrosse a very poor 5th place finisher (out of 6) in a C&D comparo 07-05. The Avalon and Maxima blew its doors off, 0-60 and quarter, and provided better gas mileage while they did it (that would be pounding on it (6 second 0-60), as you suggest)- that said, it did keep up with those 2 cars in things like 30-50 top gear acceleration numbers. No I haven't driven one, have very little interest in a car that had already been awarded the esteemed 'black circle' (keep in mind that with the 3.6 the LaCrosse is about as close as 'Detroit' can get to building a truly new car). Not to mention those legendary Buick resale values.
As I have said, however, the 3.6 is likely 'Detroit's' best effort but I think the car to get it in has to be the new Aura, at least then you can drive on a European chassis not made of sponge rubber!

cxc · November 2006

"How about 75% at 1500 and 100% at 2000. That's an entire WORLD of difference."

A car like that is called 2007 BMW 350i, which has a torque of 300 ft-lbs from 1400 rpm to 4000 rpm for a power of 300 HP.

plekto · November 2006

The Car and Driver test wasn't any different than your typical auto magazine. Daily life in traffic and in the city is where the LaCrosse shines. All of those 10-20mph variations in speed and hills and so on, plus all of the rest of the headaches. Try a Camry in a traffic jam. You need to scoot to get into a spot that opened up or NOT let two cars get in when a gap opens up in front of you.

The typical V6 lurches and usually fails. You need quick torque to get it going - or an engine that spins up instantly like the RX-8.

P.S. Yeah - but I thing the BMW costs oh - twice as much last I checked...

tjc78 · November 2006

So let me get this straight. You think because of its torque curve that the 3.6 is a better motor than either the Nissan or Toyota 3.5?? It's not even close. I have no trouble "keeping" up in rush hour or "scooting" anywhere in my Avalon, so what if I have to rev it a little, its so smooth you don't even know your at 4000 RPM.

plekto · November 2006

The Avalon isn't in the same class. Of course it whomps on the LaCrosse. I'm talking abot the typical cpmmuter-box V6s that are everywhere. Tall gearing and maximum HP at their redline. Nasty to drive in traffic - I'd rather have a 4 with a good stickshift instead.

allmet33 · November 2006

Okay...what is a commuter box V-6??? I thought anything commuter box came in 4 bangers!

I can honestly say, I commute into DC every single day, driving my Azera and it's proven to be very nimble and capable of getting into those quick openings when I need it to. Only thing is...I don't leave the transmission in auto mode, it's usually in manual mode and that makes all the difference.

I have found at low cruising speeds of 35 or 40, the transmission will shift all the way up to 5th gear and when you go to pass or make a quick move, it's gotta down shift all the way to 2nd or 3rd before you can do anything. By keeping it in manual mode, I can cruise those speeds between 3rd and 4th gear and shift when I need it.

floridabob1 · November 2006

RE 374
I have never had a problem with the automatic tranny shifting on my Azera. I very rarely use the manual mode, only when I want to play around.

allmet33 · November 2006

I didn't say it's a problem, it's just that when the car is cruising along it can be in 5th gear going as slow as 40 mph. When you want to make a quick move or something, there's a lag from the time you jump on the pedal to the time the car takes action. Having it in manual mode eliminates this at lower speeds if the need should arise. Truly, I don't have any issues with the transmission to be honest. I'm quite used to the Shiftronic system as I had 4 years of practice in my '02 Sonata. Although it was only a 4 speed, the 5 speed did take some getting used to.

I think I can honestly say I use manual mode more than just leaving it in auto mode because it is so much fun.

captain2 · November 2006

and you've obviously NEVER driven any of these: an Avalon/Camry, Maxima/Altima, Azera/Sonata, Accord/TL, Passat 3.6 - if that is what you think is 'nasty to drive' in traffic. Way way off base!
The 3.6 GM is a better engine (for a 'detroit' product) but is still light years behind the V6s in any of the above - especially the Nissan VQ and the best (and most technologically advanced) V6 currently available, the Toyota 2GR. As one poster has noted, it is so smooth and quiet that you really don't know (or care) that it may be at 4k rpm (or 2 or 6 for that matter), it will leave about 95% of what else is on the road in the dust, and then when you finally have to pull in for some petrol you are further rewarded with FE that can easily get into the mid 30s. By your definition, a Northstar Lucerne would also be undriveable in traffic, simply because in HP/torque ratings (and your oft mentioned curves) are at the same kind of numbers that any of the above engines are? Drive one (or the DTS) and then you can feel what a good V8 feels like.
Again, you are right about one thing, those cars mentioned above aren't in the same class - they can't see that far down! You had better stick with cars of the same ilk - things with those wonderful 15 year old Duratechs and 50 year old pushrods!

tjc78 · November 2006

By your definition how is the Lacrosse 3.6 a commuter box? The 3.6 is available only in the top trim level nearing the 30K mark. You can get the Avalon for under 30K.

Just for curiousity so we can be on the same page please describe (car and engine) what you feel to be a "commuter box"

allmet33 · November 2006

A brand new Avalon for under $30K will be a scaled back version of what you would really want. So comparing a fully loaded Lacrosse to a mid-level trimmed Avalon doesn't really make sense at all. :confuse:

I mean...that's one of the arguments about the Azera and the Avalon...fully loaded, the Avalon XLS (fully loaded) will hit your bank account for slightly more than $30K, the Azera Limited (Ultimate package) will only cost run you just north of $27K...a $3-4K difference between two cars that of the same class.

As far as commuter boxes go...I always envisioned the likes of the Sentras, Elantras, Corollas, Cobalts, Neons, Civics and such. Just my 2 cents.

plekto · November 2006

I didn't say it's a problem, it's just that when the car is cruising along it can be in 5th gear going as slow as 40 mph. When you want to make a quick move or something, there's a lag from the time you jump on the pedal to the time the car takes action.
****
Exactly. All of the ones captain2 listed suffer from the same problem - unless you manually shift it/go into manual mode. Fast in a straight line but dreadful in traffic. No - really - test-drive a V6 with stickshift and 6 speed gearbox or a RX-8 and it's night and day. One is "okay" and the other launches into traffic like a scared dog. There's a sense of urgency and being pressed back in your seat and the automatics all... meh.

The GM 3.6 is special not because of the technology, but because they engineered it to work in reverse in the LaCrosse.

Compare the CTS 3.6 and the LaCrosse 3.6. Same engine but tweaked - one has 255Hp and a typical high-end torque curve. The other has 240HP and uses the VVT to put all of the power at the low-end where it's normally lacking. I don't know of more than a couple of engines out there that take this approach. GM could really make inroads if they dropped the 3.8 for this engine.

tjc78 · November 2006

We were talking powertrains. The point I was trying to make was that to get the 3.6 in the Lacrosse you have to get near Avalon price territory. The Avalon only has one engine choice from the 28K XL all the way to the 38K limited.

As for drivability, Plekto and I just disagree. I find no drivability problems with any of the cars Captain mentioned and have driven them all (except the Passat).

As for GM dropping the 3.8, that would certainly be BIG trouble as their reliability would drop significantly if the 3.6 was in more cars. The 3.8 / 4 spd combo is uninspiring, but at least its reliable.

allmet33 · November 2006

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....now I'm with you.

Well...he's comparing the drivability between automatics and manuals. That's like apples and oranges. Unless you get sport tuned tranny...you're gonna have some sort of lag. However...if you anticipate the need to mash on the gas...you can compensate for that lag and get the punch you want when you need it.

At some point, GM will need to take a chance if they want to get anywhere!

plekto · November 2006

But the 3.6 in the LaCrosse(and trust me - 2006 models are cheaper than a Camry V6 by a lot now) is tuned to make up for the automatic's pathetic gearing, so you get about the results you'd get with the 3.8 engine if they offered a manual 5-speed.

The CTS (manual) isn't much better due to how they've tuned it.

captain2 · November 2006

I certainly agree with you concerning a reliability dropoff if GM stops production on the 3.8, the LaCrosse has not been doing well in that regard. However, don't think there is a whole lot of danger of the 3.8 disappearing - the reasons - money and the UAW. GM can only produce so many 3.6s - the reason why the engine is only available in a few cars, and they don't have the money to expand the factories to compensate. Furthermore, supplanting the 3.8 would involve closing and/or moving/refitting existing plant[s] - something that the labor contracts may effectively stop them from doing. Or they could take Ford's approach, and write a bunch of checks to buy out existing employees, close a bunch of plants, and then move everything to Mexico.
And, of course, there are no drivability problems with a good V6 - he just doesn't seem to understand that there are a group of engines like this that sound and feel good at higher rpms - most of them just don't happen to be 'Detroit' designs - where I think his real problem is.

arumage · November 2006

You are right that torque is much more important than HP. In that respect, the 3.6L is also down on Hyundai's 3.8L by 32 ft. lbs, but it makes that torque at 2000rpms. That is a nice feature, but it doesn't really help the car accelerate. The Azera is over 1 second quicker to 60 than the Lacrosse despite being heavier. On top of that it get's worse gas mileage on the highway.

I'm not sure of Buick's plans for the Lacrosse, but there is a good chance that the Azera might get a 6-speed automatic for 2008 because the upcoming Veracruz is getting the same engine with a 6-speed. Maybe GM will use their new 6-speed auto in the Lacross soon. That might help along with a power boost.

captain2 · November 2006

it makes that torque at 2000rpms. That is a nice feature, but it doesn't really help the car accelerate
EXACTLY - finally somebody that seems to understand the difference. Available troque at any given rpm gives you the initial 'tug', but acceleration has much more to do with how well the engine speed increases under load.
The Azera 3.8 is a pretty darn good engine - something I think GM and Ford wishes they had - its willingness to rev the reason why it outperforms the LaCrosse - despite that usual Korean weight penalty. Take about 200-300 lbs off the Azera and it would run with things like Avalons and Maximas, and maybe even pick an mpg or two!

imidazol97 · November 2006

>In that respect, the 3.6L is also down on Hyundai's 3.8L by 32 ft. lbs, but it makes that torque at 2000rpms.

What is Hyundai's torque in the 2000-3000 range? Do you graphs of the torque curve?

That's where most drivers perceive the "power" of the automobile when doing part throttle starts from stops. 100% of drivers I know don't spend time at full throttle and full speed in any gear. I realize others like to compare those top peak figures, but they're not reality driving for most people; i.e., the beltway around DC the two times we visited. Stop and go.

Please note torque is affected by final drive ratio along with the individual gear ratios in the transmission. Good choices make a car seem completely different.

arumage · November 2006

Ford's new 3.5L is a pretty nice motor. It is also very, very simple in it's current form. The 2007 MKZ's 0-60 time is around 6.5 seconds too and weight is about 100 lighter than the Azera. That motor has alot of potential because it makes 263hp without VVT, direct injection, etc.

Toyota's motor is a beast, but once you load an Avalon up. It's $3k+ more expensive. The Ford Five Hundred is probably going to be the closest thing to it once they put the 3.5L motor in it.

arumage · November 2006

Peak torque is a 4500rpm for the Azera, but it makes roughly the same torque numbers across the band. The extra weight and soft suspension can also make the launch seem soft.

imidazol97 · November 2006

>roughly the same torque numbers

I'd like to see a graph like this.

3.6 LaCrosse

captain2 · November 2006

seen mixed reviews on the DT 3.5, see the review on the Edge in the recent MT 'truck of the year issue', the engine being 'rough and unrefined compared to the Nissan VQ and the GM 3.6'. On the other hand general plaudits by the same mag for smoothness and improvements to the old DT3.0 in a Lincoln review. Don't know how far along it is, haven't driven one, but almost anything has to better than the 3.0.
The Avalon, incidentally, the highest resale value in its class (at least according to C&D) perhaps justifying some of that initial price pain, depending, of course, on how long you plan to keep it! IMO the Avalon to buy is the 'Touring', handles better, you get the leather, HID lights but not a lot of additional 'bling'- about $31k sticker with sunroofs, homelink, stereo upgrade etc.

arumage · November 2006

It's the sound that they said was rough when revved, not anything to do with engine performance. With upcoming upgrades of VVT and direct injection, over 300hp is in reach. The Edge in the test also weighed over 4500lbs (it's a pig) which makes alot of V6's sound rough. I'm sure the CVT helps the Nissan sound better too.

The Avalon Touring with all those goodies is closer to $33k MSRP, and it is very hard to get deals at a Toyota dealership (at least it is around here).

louiswei · November 2006

it is very hard to get deals at a Toyota dealership (at least it is around here).

Got a family friend a deal on Avalon 6 months ago...

$30 over invoice.

arumage · November 2006

The Toyota dealership here won't hardly go below MSRP for any vehicle.

captain2 · November 2006

actually I show $31495 sticker + dest, you must live in an area served by Toyota's 2 independent distributors - GC Toyota and SE Toyota that shamelessly ship 'fluff' option packages adding up to $2500.00 onto sticker for Avalons sold by dealers in those areas. And it is now hard to find one without the silly VSC/TRAC. Sure, it is a crock, but it is also the type of thing that is done by any mfgr. when they have a car in that kind of demand.
The CVT in the new Maxima/Altima is interesting - if you nail the accelerator - the engine just goes to about 6000 rpm and stays there until the car 'catches up' to the engine or you reduce the pressure on the gas pedal. Seamless acceleration but not the kind of thing that you would think would serve to minimize noise - the VQ, however, is easily a solid enough engine to do this and FE has gone up a couple of mpgs I guess because of lowering the mechanical losses inherent in a traditional auto tranny. I personally think that the jury is still out on CVTs although I don't know of any specific issues buyers have had with them...

arumage · November 2006

I priced it online. I added the 1st option package because all of that comes on the Azera. I wanted to make a fair comparison. Our local dealerships just don't really have to give deals because they sell plenty without having to give them. Alot of people in my area don't do any research. They just look for the Toyota decal.

I don't really like Nissan's CVT because it is belt driven rather than chain driven like Ford's CVT. I guess it just scares me a bit. Otherwise the two CVT's are relatively similar.

plekto · November 2006

Quote(arumage):
That is a nice feature, but it doesn't really help the car accelerate. The Azera is over 1 second quicker to 60 than the Lacrosse despite being heavier. On top of that it get's worse gas mileage on the highway.
***
imidazol97 summed up my position pretty well. Armchair quaoting of figures from a test-track at full-throttle by some professional is meaningless.

Full-throttle, the Hyundai is quicker, but it's much MUCH slower in part-throttle maneuvers. In the LaCrosse, I only need to put the pedal down about 1/3 of the way to get moving - and quickly. A 20-40mph roll-on is done quickly and gently - no slamming down a gear or flooring it. Just a nice increase of the gas and - done. Try driving a Crown Vic for an example of this behavior. Yes, it stinks for anything else, but the ability to effortlessly choose a speed and get there without hearing the engine or working at it - that's the goal if you can manage it, IMO. The ultimate expression of this is an older Mercedes S420 or S500. Want to go 30? Done. Want to go 50? Finished. Want to go back to 20? Your morning coffee's not even upset.

The Hyundai? I've driven it. It feels like the 3800. Noisy and like the throttle has two positions - grandmother and racer. And a lot of vagueness inbetween. Not bad, mind you, but it doesn't have ANY feeling like a V8 does. The GM 3.6, though, feels like the world's smallest V8. Very nice to drive in city traffic(and a first for a Buick - lol)

P.S. The Altima(thanks for bringing it up) gets around this with a nice non-stepped CVT. Go drive one(or both) and see what I mean.

arumage · November 2006

I think that's part of the problem with Hyundai's V6 engines. I'm not sure it's the engine itself though. The Santa Fe with the 3.3L motor is the same way. It seems as if the transmission is hunting for the perfect gear rather than the engine being slow to engage. The new Veracruz has an Aisin sourced 6-speed that will probably make into the Azera at some point. Aisin also makes transmissions for Ford and Mazda. That will probably help immensely.

captain2 · November 2006

all that technology that allows for these wonderfully powered and efficient engines has a downside - that being drivability!
Effectively what is happening is that we now have engines and trannies with 'intelligence' that 'learn' our habits and therefore 'anticipate' what 'it' thinks we are going to do. Then, it gets 'confused' when 'it' makes a wrong 'decision'. Most cars out there will do the same thing that the Hyundais you talking about do - 'gear hunting' has gotten to be very common these days, and the problem will become epidemic as more and more manufacturers use these technologies. And it will get worse, as the new Federal mandate for stability/traction control systems necessitate even more invasive computers. In my Avalon, the 5 speed can be forced into a bothersome 'hesitation' if I reapply throttle in a specific manner from lower speeds. The solution - learn how the car 'wants' you to drive it and adjust to the way that some programmer in some lab somewhere decided what is best for all of us. So it turns out not really a transmission problem in the traditional sense but a software issue, although for some that have difficulty 'adjusting' it presents some rather serious impact on drivability.
PS noticed no such problems on a 06 Sonata V6 that I had on a longer term rental - thought it was a sweet ride especially considering the price.

w9cw · November 2006

arumage wrote: "The Toyota dealership here won't hardly go below MSRP for any vehicle."

The Toyota dealer here deals quite well, and generally to a couple of hundred above invoice. Although not for discussion in this Large Sedans forum, they currently have 20 Prius in stock, and I just talked to a salesperson on the base model. They're selling them below MSRP (he offered $21,750 for a base model with Option Package #1), which is a switch for the Prius. On the other hand, they've never had that many in stock before either.

arumage · November 2006

Maybe it's the extra 600lbs the Santa Fe carries over the Sonata. I know my '99 Camry certainly has it's 'gear hunting' episodes. I've never had any problems adjusting to it though. My '00 Intrepid ES always seems to be in the right gear and is much smoother shifting. I guess I pay for that luxury every time I fill up the tank.

captain2 · November 2006

don't have the slightest on what they did in '00 Intrepids - but I would guess some sort of 3 or 4 speed that likely predates Abraham Lincoln - not nearly as 'infected' with these electronic DBW and computer systems as even your older Camry. Toyota/Lexus does have a history of programming trannies in such a way to maximize FE - not that this is bad - although it can lead to somewhat reluctant multiple gear downshifts. One of the points I was making is that the 6 speed due in the new Hyundais, should logically keep the engine in its most efficient power band but it may not improve drivability.
A source of lively discussions on the Avalon sites for months, it was assummed that the 6 speed would be better - something that appears to not be necessarily so - judging by the results in the Camry/ES.
A corollary of Murphy's law: the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to break (or not work right). One of the reasons why the Toyotas (and BMWs and MBs) of the world are starting to experience some unusual (for them) problems, and the 'US brands' are improving - thanks in large part to some rather ancient (but proven) drivetrains.

plekto · November 2006

But my "most efficient" - they tune it for EPA/maximum FUEL efficiency.

So when you semi-whomp on it, it gets all confused. Me? I'll never buy another automatic again - problem solved. 200+ HP and a 5 speed gearbox is plenty fast.

GM gets around all of this by having the "Abraham Lincoln" transmissions. 3 speed with overdrive. With a big enough or torquey enough engine (Northstar V8 for instance)it does very well. And it's cheap to fix. No computers at all in it - at least non that are trying to out-think you. - so it's at least predictable if sluggish.

allmet33 · November 2006

I used to think like you about always driving a 5 speed, but after having my automatic Camry...I sorta got lazy. There were times I missed being able to shift, so when the '02 Sonata came out with Shiftronic...I was delighted to have the best of both worlds. While the shiftronic isn't exactly the same as a manual, it's pretty close. I truly makes a huge difference over just a regular automatic.

w9cw · November 2006

Actually, the '00 Intrepid uses the 4-speed ECT automatic which also has a "learning feature." This fuzzy-logic capability with the Chrysler 4-speed automatic dates back into the early '90s.

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles