Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

shipo · December 2006

"Now you are talking RWD w/traction control. However, TCS on RWD or FWD is truly a waste in the snow!"

Why? I know for a fact that during a hill climb in the deep stuff; both of my BMWs would have been undriveable with the TCS shut off. That said, since I never once got stuck, I cannot comment on the efficacy of the TCS system for helping you get a car unstuck.

"Never heard of a FWD car having to be backed up a hill. You're starting to make me question your driving skill! LOL"

Yeah, I'm such a bad driver that I can get RWD cars up those hills but not FWD cars. ;-)

Think about it this way, if the hill is steep enough, weight transfer is going to be rather significant and the front wheels will unload to the point where they can no longer transfer enough power to the road surface. I'm thinking of two different driveways here in my neighborhood as well as a certain hill up in Boyne City, MI, which was the first hill where I employed the "backwards up the hill" thing.

At the time I was driving a 1981 Audi 4000 4M 5-Speed, and was heading to a fireside assignation with a loaf of bread, a bottle of wine and... Well, you get the idea.

Anyway, I came around this curve and headed up the hill that separated me from my destination and... I got maybe a third of the way up. I backed down to the bottom and around the curve, picked up much more speed than I had the first time around and... I got maybe half of the way up. I tried a couple of more times until I got to the point where I dared not carry any more speed through the curve and still only managed just over half of the way up. Not to be deterred (some would say in desperation), I reasoned that by turning the car around I would have the whole weight transfer thing working in my favor. Sure enough, once the car was heading up in reverse I was able to back right on up the hill. It couldn't have been easier. I've since had to employ that little trick virtually every time I climb one of my neighbor's driveways when they are even marginally covered with something slippery. ;-)

Best Regards,
Shipo

pahefner01 · December 2006

Performance is a relative issue. Performance on a 1/4 mile asphalt strip would certainly favor a RWD V8 with slicks mounted in the rear. Perfomance in the snow would favor a front wheel drive vehicle or a four wheel drive would perform even better. It all depends on where one resides and what kind of performance they are interested in IMHO. If I want to go down a quarter mile give me a nitro fuel dragster or more realistically a production RWD V8. However, I'm not involved in organized racing or even unorganized racing. I do like to mash the pedal every once in awhile and for that my Azera limited is impressive. If I want to smoke the tires it doesn't work so well. Overall driving in the midwest where we get our fair share of rain and snow as well as hot and cold means I also own a 99 Jeep Cherokee with four wheel drive and anti-lock brakes equipped with all terrain tires. When I go off road in the high mountains of Colorado I rent a Jeep from someone else because I don't want to tear mine up.
For most of us driving is getting from point A to B and not on the quarter mile.

captain2 · December 2006

while I'll concede a probable price increase if Toyota had decided to make the Avalon RWD, keep in mind the hardware to do it was already available (the IS) even back in the winter of 05 when the Av came out. In terms of features there is not that much differentiation between the LS430 (at the time) and the top of line Limited other than about $25k, of course. The Avalon was quicker, even slightly larger, every bit as comfortable with Lexus-like fit/finish, and does better at the gas pump. Keep in mind also that the Avalon was the first Toyota product with the great drivetrain that it has, it is the Camry/RAV/ES that share what was developed for the Avalon, not the other way around (the way it has historically been). A small point, but it illustrates that Toyota could have done almost anything it wanted with a totally new platform. Had the Avalon been RWD it sure could have been an LS competitor as I'm sure some Ltd. owners out there will contend it already is (even with the FWD). Is it really, probably not - but that extra money should buy something other than a 'badge'. I guess Toyota decided that folks spending $60k+ for a car expect a V8 even though some of those similarily priced German cars seem to do fine without one.

tjc78 · December 2006

No doubt you are right about the drivetrain. When my 03 Avalon lease was up I really thought about an 06 ES330, but when I drove the Avalon with the new 3.5 and then the Lexus with the 3.3 there was no comparison. Actually, I seem to remember us all debating in this forum about the Avalon being a new design.

captain2 · December 2006

actually, if you check the physical numnbers, the Avalon remains a distinct vehicle, unlike the previous versions (04 and earlier) that really were gussied up Camrys/ESs all 3 of which shared the same chassis dimensions. Today it is only the ES which borrows from the Camry (or vice versa)- the Avalon (since 05) a bigger car. Assume by your comments, you chose the Avalon?

tjc78 · December 2006

Yes, I have an '06 XLS. Really set out to buy the Touring but here in New Jersey there wasn't one available within a reasonable distance the way I wanted it. My must haves were the JBL stereo and Blizzard Pearl. I really wanted the HID headlights though, they should at least be an option on the XLS.

captain2 · December 2006

mine a Touring bought in 04-05 - really is a little 'tighter' and a little more road noise, more so than even the XL a dealer gave me as a loaner- and yep don't know how I ever survived without those lights. Expensive little puppies though - as a part available only as an assembly at over a grand each - a ripoff at best! Both 'a sport suspension' and the HIDS ought to be an option for all trims, IMO, maybe for 500 bucks or so - think it would sell well and give Toyota yet another way to increase its profit margins (not that they need any real help).
I'm down in Texas where distances are measured in 'six packs' and the major cities are about 200 miles apart - it has gotten to the point that I actually prefer the 3-4 hour drives to wasting time in the airports. Perhaps has something to do with the cars we drive?

jsylvester · December 2006

What is the stone age aspect of the chassis - is it the 4 channel ABS, or the 4 wheel dual piston disc brakes? Perhaps the traction control, or the ABS?

I know - it must be the 56% front/44% rear weight distribution, since that is not 53/47 like the Dodge Charger.

Of course, it is the fact the Crown Vic has a real frame. I'm waiting for the first time my local police tries to push a car out of traffic using a Dodge Charger (wait, none of my local police have yet to buy a Charger - they must enjoy getting stuck in the snow with the Crown Vic.) My township police just ordered their fleet for 2007 - bought 4 more Crown Vics.

I've driven a Grand Marquis for years in the snow - never much of a problem. On especially bad days (once or twice a year), I put about 300 lbs of sand in the trunk, and take it out when it's not needed. Or one could go with winter tires - tons of used steel wheels available if that is your thing.

The real issue is women (such as my wife) are intimidated by driving in the snow, so they think front wheel drive is better. Even with her Toyota, I've lost count how many times she's gotten stuck trying to pull into and up the driveway in the snow. I have to get the little fella up the drive for her.

pahefner01 · December 2006

What kind of gas mileage are you getting on that Grand Marquis? I owned a Grand Marquis for about 18 months and I'm glad I don't own it with today's gas prices. Add 300 pounds of concrete blocks and it would be even worse. I was not at all impressed with the car. The interior was very sad. I'm glad you enjoy yours.

captain2 · December 2006

it's a car that rightfully belongs back in the 70s where it came from - would further suggest to you that if it wasn't for the muncipalities and corporations, it would have been gone long ago. Ford had announced closing of the Town Car plant (in Cleveland, if I remember right) only so that they could move that production to where the CVs and GMs are made - in Canada. The thing is not even an American car anymore, despite still possessing all those questionable attributes that made "Detroit" what they have become - non-competitive in the car business. The Crowne Vic is the problem not the solution.
All that said, however, still do see a lot of them (without sirens) attached, so there must still be those out there that will buy 30 year old cars new. Do I hate CVs, no - just think they are slow and ponderous, space inefficient, lacking of any current technologies/safety features, and gas guzzlers.

jsylvester · December 2006

Well - at least you have reasons for your opinion.

In every car I've driven, I've always come in at right about 90% of the average of the EPA city and highway mileage. After my 1994 Grand Marquis, I had a 2000 Dodge Intrepid rated 18/26 that got about 20 mpg - my current 2002 Grand Marquis rated at 17/25 gets around 19 mpg - mostly commuting in rush hour traffic 36 miles round trip from the suburbs to the middle of downtown. If that is gas guzzling, than my Intrepid was a gas guzzler as well. The Corolla gets around 28 mpg in the same driving (I've driven it for a tank of gas to compare), so I don't think it does that badly.

Some of the attributes you might dislike are what I like about the car - ponderous to you might be smooth, quiet, with good road isolation to me, lack of technology means long, dependable, inexpensive operation to me. I'm assuming by technologies you mean no head curtain airbags or stability control - it has the others that I can think of, whether I wanted them or not.

Heck, I'd like to dump the ABS, autodim mirror, and the autotemp climate control on my next one - all kind of gimmicky to me. I'm on the fence about traction control.

It could use some updates, but if an example of updating is the Mercury Montego - I'd rather not that Ford ruins the car by trying to improve it.

We just have different tastes, which luckily can both be filled in the current marketplace. :shades: If Ford drops the platform, I guess I'll have to buy used, as they do last a very long time, which is why you see them everywhere.

tjc78 · December 2006

As for the safety aspect of the car, I know someone who rearended a bus in a 98 Marquis at over 40 MPH and walked away with only slight burns from the airbags. The car of course is in the big junkyard in the sky!

Ford has done its best keeping the car as modern as possible, especially considering a chassis that I believe dates back to 1980. The newer versions handle OK with the rack and pinion steering and updated suspension. However, they just can't compete with the newer designs. Now, if ford dumped in the 5.4 V8 from the Navigator, independent rear suspension, 18" Rims, and some bucket seats, we could have competition for the HEMI, LOL.

captain2 · December 2006

jsylvester- actually drove CVs, back in the 80s, company cars, of course, each to about 100k - both got me about about 15 mpg overall (about half what I get on my Avalon), and did walk away from a broadsider when an idiot ran a light. Neither car had any major mechanical issues either. My real issue with cars like the CV is that it perpetuates the "American" automakers problems, falling back on 50 year old designs and not building anything really competitive or innovative in the segment. Despite how much I like my Avalon, and respect Toyota for using about as much American parts/labor in it as possible, I still wish it could have a truly American brand nameplate. Don't like the idea of buying things like CVs etc. and effectively putting Americans out of work.
And I don't think you need to worry about the CV disappearing anytime soon, if 100,000 unit sales is a benchmark of sorts for a 'successful' model then Ford will continue to beat the bejeepers out of that just with police car sales. And even it they do take it off the market, there is still the 300 - a traditional RWD design with many of those features that should be in the CV, had Ford wanted to. There should always be a market for the traditional American V8 big sedan, they do have some advantages and well as disadvantages.

joe131 · December 2006

U.S. cannot compete with some other nations in carmaking because it is way too expensive to design and manufacture a car in the U.S.
The government here has taxed and regulated businesses and citizens so much here that carmaking is not a profitable business any longer. The only way car companies make money in the U.S. these days is in their finance divisions.
It's a shame. But not a surprise.

allmet33 · December 2006

And this is why the foreign car makers have all established plants that manufacture imports here in the U.S.???

I think the problem lies in global sales. I really don't think that the Big 3 U.S. makers sell that well in the global market...compared to the foreign auto makers.

joe131 · December 2006

Yes, foreign carmkers, but not all of them. Not U.S. carmakers. U.S. carmakers are busy shutting down plants here and building them in China.
Foreigners have plants here because the U.S. makes credit so easy almost anyone can buy a new car. But it is all with borrowed $.
So the cars are made here close to the customers who will "buy" them.
The profits go back to Japan.

allmet33 · December 2006

The major ones do...Toyota & Honda and even Hyundai has a plant here in the U.S. Doesn't seem to affect them!

The profits may go back to Japan, but they are still subject to the same taxes as the doemestic plants.

joe131 · December 2006

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a tax expert. Are you?
I think I read that foreign factories were lured here by making tax concessions, kinda like towns do with big stores or auto dealerships or sports franchises.

allmet33 · December 2006

I'm not tax expert cause if I was, I'd find away to not have to pay mine any more! LOL

I'm sure there are lots of variables playing in to the domestic car makers faltering in the industry. Maybe in Ford's case, they are just spread so thin. They seemed fine when they only had Mazda under the umbrella, but then they had to jump out there and get Land Rover and Jaguar too.

Who knows. :confuse:

joe131 · December 2006

What else is comparable?

allmet33 · December 2006

What you're likely to get...Buick Lucerne, Chevy Impala or an Avalon minus a bunch of goodies. Then, you'll get a yahoo up in here that'll bring up the Crown Vic/Marquis just because it's been around since Jesus' days in pre-school. Other than that...don't really see too much out there that really compares as a full sized sedan for under $30K!

louiswei · December 2006

How about Nissan Maxima?

allmet33 · December 2006

Eh...if you want, if that's the case, throw the Altima in there while you're at it since they are both about the same size.

I really don't know what Nissan is thinking with the Maxima at this point. They've made upgrades to the Altima bring it darn near close to being the same size as the Maxima, as well as giving it more power with a 270 hp Altima available.

However, for the sake of an argument...lump the Maxima in there. Not sure what kinda goodies you'll get in one for under $30K though. I do know one thing you'll get...a rough ride!!! It's a sports sedan!!!

joe131 · December 2006

I just read that Peugot or something is getting 425 HP out of a variation of the Nissan 3.5 liter motor. Maybe the Maxima will get that along with all wheel drive soon. That would move it away from Altima.

xtec · December 2006

Since when is the Azera considered a large sedan,I could put that glorified Sonata in my Chargers trunk.

allmet33 · December 2006

I truly would NOT believe a 425 hp Maxima, however...I can see it toned down to be maybe 300-350 hp so it can play ball with the 300 C, Magnum/Charger R/T's. I don't know if all wheel drive would make it on the Altima, then they would be stepping on the toes of their Infiniti line.

joe131 · December 2006

The Azera is around 108 cubic feet for passengers, right? And the Charger is what, 110 maybe? Not much difference. Does the Charger have about 500 cubic feet of space in its trunk?

allmet33 · December 2006

LOL The trunks on both cars are rather cavernous to be honest. I loaded my Azera with luggage for 5 for a week down in Florida and it all fit, along with a few other odds & ends.

joe131 · December 2006

Seems to me a "sports sedan" should at least have a manual transmission as an option. The Maxima no longer does. The last sports sedan Maxima was made in 1994. The Altima SER is a sports sedan. Too bad its not around for 2007.

allmet33 · December 2006

They've compensated by offering the shiftable automatic. No, it's not exactly like having a manual, but it's better than being just a plain ol automatic!!! In manual mode, you should be able to run the revs up to redline which is good for some go when you're on the pedal!!!

captain2 · December 2006

The impacts of these manufacturers building plants extend far beyond simple income taxes on profits, because the fact of the matter is that those profits are largely being reinvested where they came from - in this country. How about $700 million each just to build the plants with American materials and by American workers (a Toyota truck plant in Texas and a Hyundai car plant in Alabama). And further, all those thousands of folks, that work at these plants, and then support not only the local economies with their wages but also pay the IRS. All corporations, US or otherwise, are 'encouraged' (usually with free land and/or property tax concessions) to build factories in specific areas just because those towns do understand the financial benefits to those local economies. Maybe you would rather see all this go down to a Ford plant in Mexico or a GM plant in Canada while a whole lot of laid-off employees collect unemployment in this country?
You would be hard pressed to find anybody in Kentucky (Toyota), Ohio (Honda), Tennessee (Nissan), Alabama (MB and Hyundai) that wouldn't tell you that those respective manufacturers not only are welcome but are likely the best things that happened to them in the last hundred years or so. The economic 'trickle down' effect of employment is common sense, and you don't need to be a 'tax expert' to figure this one out. And if it bothers you that Hyundai probably got a helluva tax break for the privilege of spending $700 million in Alabama, and provide jobs for a few thousand people, you really need to talk to somebody who lives there and more importantly sends their kids to school there!

allmet33 · December 2006

Oh no Captain2, I don't think we are arguing those points at all. Really, just trying to see where the problems are existing for the domestic companies. It seems as they run into financial problems, the import companies are flourishing...even with their plants here in the states.

plekto · December 2006

Well, the best large car under $30K. is the Grand Marquis. Okay - you can get a 2006 for $17K - so it's really in a class by itself. Like buying a 3 year old LeSabre but it's brand new.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB60MEC021A0&restor- e=false

That's including delivery. $17,044. Big, RWD, and yes, it may be old school technology, but it's a lot more car than any midsize GM.

captain2 · December 2006

joe131s implication was that 'foreign' companies are being lured here' I guess because he thinks they don't pay taxes or are somehow taking unfair advantage of the tax breaks they do get, which is generally true and the same thing that happens when true blue US companies look to locate factories. The Toyota/Hyundais/Hondas/Nissans of the world build plants here for one reason - they have discovered it is possible to do it here and make even more money. It is something that every American should be appreciative of and IMO, something that people can't seem to get comfortable with - you are likely helping this country more buying something like an Avalon than you are buying a 500 or an Impala.
The problems existing for domestic companies? It's simple and has 3 letters.

captain2 · December 2006

the only way the GM is the best of anything is if you price it by the pound!

louiswei · December 2006

the only way the GM is the best of anything is if you price it by the pound!

LOL, you have just made my day...

So true though.

floridabob1 · December 2006

The foreign manufacturers opened plants in the US to avoid import quota restrictions.

pahefner01 · December 2006

I just went to the Ford website and priced a Grand Marquis with all of the features of an Azera Limited and the MSRP was 33,550. Even with a significant discount it's still pretty pricey. I realize you may be a Grand Marquis fan. Perhaps you should visit that forum more often. I don't think you can compare a stripped down Grand Marquis with any of the vehicles in the under 30K category here. Apples to apples?

captain2 · December 2006

this may be true - I'll have to do some research - but even if it is, it doesn't change how much these plant openings have helped those areas in which they did, does it? I have no problem with protecting our own, but do have a probelm with sending Ford 25 grand for a 500 let's say and then watch them turn around 'fire' some more American employees, and build a new plant and hire new employees - in Mexico/Canada.

captain2 · December 2006

in a previous life I was a butcher - could sell ground beef for 79 cents/lb with 60% fat content, or 10% lean beef for $2.00. This would be the difference between something like a Grand Marquis and many of the other cars in this group

guest · December 2006

The Azera is a midsize at best.If that is a large sedan then my Charger must be a xl.

guest · December 2006

The Azera is a midsize at best.If that is a large sedan then my Charger must be a xl.

louiswei · December 2006

The Azera is a midsize at best.If that is a large sedan then my Charger must be a xl.

Here are the numbers:

Azera Charger
Front Headroom (in.) 40.20 38.70
Rear Headroom (in.) 38.20 36.20
Front Legroom (in.) 43.70 41.80
Rear Legroom (in.) 38.20 40.20
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 57.90 59.30
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 57.10 57.60
Front Hip Room (in.) 55.50 56.20
Rear Hip Room (in.) 55.10 55.50

The truth is: Azera is not midsize and your beloved Charger is not XL. Both of them are large sedans.

xtec · December 2006

Edmunds classifies the Azera as mid-size,if you don't believe me look it up it shouldn't be allowed on this forum.
Its spec is more towards the new Sebring.My wheelbase is almost as long as your car at 120in.If you go buy the outside specs the Charger is alot larger.When the Azera grows up,maybe you will be allowed to be with the large cars.

batista · December 2006

Rear Hip Room is 57.6 for the Charger.
That's an extra 2.5 inches than the midsize Azera.
Check it out at http://www-5.dodge.com/vehsuite/VehicleCompare.jsp

joe97 · December 2006

Edmunds' wrong then. Look up the official info - EPA

Not only the Azera is classified as a large car, the Sonata is also classified as a large car, something you probably wouldn't want to believe either

joe97 · December 2006

No offense, but what's your point?

Front dimensions for the Azeras are larger than the Charger. See, I can do the same

Why are we even discussing this? The Azera is a large car. If you don't like it, take it up with EPA.

louiswei · December 2006

Why didn't you mention Front Headroom, Rear Headroom and Front Legroom? In which the Azera is clearly larger than the Charger.

batista · December 2006

It's just that Hip Room is very important to me because a lot of the Asian cars are built for the smaller people.
The Charger is bigger in the "hip" area not only in the rear but also at the front.
I am 6' tall (average) but I don't like to sit like a girl when I drive.

xtec · December 2006

The Azera is a Hyundai,I rest my case.

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles