Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison



  • dborthdborth Posts: 474
    "speaks volumes about the techinical superiority of the 2GR".

    Perhaps you should create a 2GR Forum.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    like it's not just a set of Nippondenso injectors...

    yep from the sound of this article its a set of really high quality injectors - and a few extra lines in a computer program. Still not convinced that DI doesn't cost a bit of gas though - understanding of course that a IS350 better damn well be geared differently than a 'mere' Avalon. One of these cars can do so much more than the other , can't it? :)
  • batistabatista Posts: 159
    I was surprised to see BMW have to resort to turbocharging in the new 335 though, simply to produce the same sort of naturally aspirated power you have in your IS already. Guess that in itself speaks volumes about the techinical superiority of the 2GR

    The BMW 335i has a 3.0L engine and has 300 lbs/ft of torque @ 1400 rpm while the Lexus 3.5L has 277@4800 rpm.
    Plus, the BMW 335i is under-rated with having 300HP after some have found out after taking the car to a dyno where it was rated at 300 RWHP.
  • dborthdborth Posts: 474
    Source: Hyundai News


    FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF., 05/29/2008 The 2008 Hyundai Azera was awarded the “Consumers’ Top Rated Vehicle Award” in the $15,000 - $25,000 sedan category by’s visitors. The 2008 Azera received the average highest rating from the site’s audience as of April 30, 2008.

    “This recognition further reinforces our brand philosophy on how smart consumers think about premium sedans,” said Scott Margason, national manager, Product Development at Hyundai Motor America. “Clearly, the Azera raises the bar by combining safety, luxury and value like no other vehicle in its segment. Consumers who want full-size sedan features, a smooth and powerful engine and a comfortable ride will be pleased with the Azera.” tabulated the results for 21 award categories by evaluating the feedback of thousands of site visitors. Awards were given for coupes, convertibles, sedans, wagons, SUVs, trucks, minivan/vans and hybrids.’s editors agree that Azera is a great choice for consumers looking for a family sedan with luxurious touches at an affordable price.

    More and more customers are discovering the Hyundai Azera’s advantages. Enhanced design and convenience features, together with a comprehensive standard active and passive safety technology package, render the 2008 Azera a solid alternative to vehicles like the Lexus ES350, Toyota Avalon and Nissan Maxima. Spacious and luxurious, the Azera features more interior volume than more expensive luxury sedans, such as the Mercedes Benz E-Class and BMW 7-Series. Couple this with its continued accolades from independent automotive studies across the board and there’s no question that Azera is one of the smartest premium large sedan choices available in the American marketplace today.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    I do not see how this vehicle turning those revs will achieve those high
    average miles-per-gallon figures stated at those speeds.

    And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about.

    For what its worth, I obtained the speed per 1000 RPM that I quoted earlier from a shop manual. Checking a few auto magazines who publish such information, I found some variance in the published numbers. The axle ratio and OD ratio are accurate although rounded a tad but I have no quarrel with your math. The only variable I can think of would be tire pressure that could ever so slightly impact overall diameter and revs per mile.

    In any case, I think we agree that the Taurus gearing in top gear is higher than most and that helps steady cruise FE. Where it becomes a detriment, IMO, is in heavier AWD vehicles like the Ford Edge which is 600 Lbs heavier than a FWD Taurus. They have way too much of a tendency to downshift on slight hills or even going into a headwind. I have heard reports that the AWD Taurus even has some trouble maintaining that high top gear in hilly situations. The old Ford 500 with the 3.0 certainly did. I am only guessing now but that may be part of the reason the AWD Taurus has a 24 MPG highway rating while the FWD model is 28.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The BMW 335i has a 3.0L engine and has 300 lbs/ft of torque 1400 rpm while the Lexus 3.5L has 2774800 rpm
    true enough, turbocharging especially in the dual stage manner BMW implements it will produce lots of torque available at lower rpms. And yes Bavarian horses have histroically been a larger than Japanese or American ones, but perhaps you are missing the point - given that the BMW straight sixes have always industry leaders, the comment was only that they 'resorted' to turbocharging to get that same sort of power you already have in that naturally aspirated Toyota V6. Nissan also 'resorted' to turbocharging in the V6 powered GTR and managed close to 500hp! Given that Nissan is doing that with a VQ variant V6, guess that would mean that a turbochraged 2GR might be worth what - 600 hp and 500 lb. ft.?
    The comment obviously not meant to diss BMW's wonderful engines at all- only to point out what an accomplishment that particular Japanese engine is.
  • alexstorealexstore Posts: 264
  • snaglepussnaglepus Posts: 160
    "And I will obviously never convince you. If you could tolerate the car long enough, you could rent one and test it yourself. Many magazines publish FE tests but usually show overall results rather than steady-speed results in ideal conditions like we are talking about."

    That's true to be sure. Why would I want to go out and waste money renting
    any Taurus when I already have a better beautiful Azera in my garage?

    Steady speed results you say? Yet you admit making a long interstate trip
    cross -country. Must be hard to keep your car at steady state speeds?
    Never stopping all that way for gas or to eat or rest stops?
    Your mileage figures could not have been at steady state speeds either but "overall results." I say that such high figures are perhaps possible at a lower steady speeds of 65 mph or less, but not going cross country at such high speeds with occasional stops along the way.

    When any vehicle is pulling such tall gearing, going over a certain speed will decrease your
    mileage as you go faster. You do not get higher mileage at faster speeds, but less mileage.

    As far as tire diameter, etc. I got my figures from the tire manufactures charts.
    Any differences because of tire pressure would be difficult to measure
    and impossible to measure when figuring fuel economy.

    Must be some shop manual that gives speed per 1000 rpm. I have never seen
    such figures in any shop manual that I have had in the last 60 years!
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    OK, Snaglepus, I am going to waste 2 more minutes on this and then I am done.

    I did not quote MPG for a cross country trip or overall results for a weekend trip! Minneapolis to Des Moines is a 4 hour jaunt. No, I don't need to stop on a short trip like that and I certainly did not need gas or food. Pulling on the Interstate in Minneapolis, setting the cruise at 77 MPH, pressing the MPG reset button, and driving to the Des Moines area is my idea of steady speed cruising. Did I ever have to touch the brake to slow down or step on the accelerator to speed up? Yes, a few times of course! Would the mileage have been lower if I included the mileage while driving around Des Moines and other little towns visiting relatives? Of course it would have been lower! Had I set the cruise at 60 instead of 77, would the mileage have been better? No doubt about it! 90 instead of 77, would it have been worse? No question about that, either!

    That is all the information that I have for you. Thanks for your interest in the Taurus.
  • carolinabobcarolinabob Posts: 576
    Doesn't work in my area at any Toyota dealer. Lexus is even worse.
    BTW, I had a Camry that had instant MPG read out. Found it basically useless and also very distracting, as in dangerous.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Okay, let's everyone step back and take a few breaths here. We can have differences of opinions and viewpoints without making it personal.

    Several personally directed posts have been removed. Let's move on, please.
  • snaglepussnaglepus Posts: 160
    Please contact me privately.

  • alexstorealexstore Posts: 264
    There is an article today on edmunds about people getting from 1.5 to 2 times EPA FE in their cars. IN the past I achieved 35 mpg mostly highway mpg in my 05 Maxima and thats 9 mpg higher than new EPA estimate. I am currently carpooling with a guy and my mpg is expected to fall by at least 1-2 mpg , but I am still managing to get 30-32 mpg.
    I used both computer and gas station estimate and they are in my case are almost same. I reset computer @ a gas station few miles from highway. I can only imagine my FE if I did it once I reached my cruising speed. I also try to keep 59-64 constant speed AC or open windows have small effect on FE ( about 1-2 mpg loss)
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 160
    I have the 18" rims with 225/55 tires on my Taurus - any idea if the overall diameter is different than the 17" rims? I don't know what tire size the 17" rims come with. That might account for the disparity in calculated rpm at 80mph and what I'm seeing on the tach. I'd guess I'm at around 2150rpm at 80mph, (which is "around 2k rpm" for me).
  • snaglepussnaglepus Posts: 160
    Pirelli does not list either the overall diameter for your tire or the revs per mile.
    Is that your brand?
    That brand is what TireRack lists as OEM for the 2008 Taurus FWD LTD model.

    For other brands, you can use anywhere between 746 and 750 revs per mile for that size.

    This tire would indeed be bigger in overall diameter than the 215-60-17s listed for the SEL models.
    Those tires are 767 revs per mile.

    Perhaps you are on to something. That is a considerable difference in tire diameter.
    Do you know for sure what the overall gear ratio is for your car when it is in overdrive 6th gear?
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 160
    Yup - Pirelli P6 4 Seasons 225/55R18 - quite a lot of rubber. I don't know the gear ratios.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    Evidently Buick is dropping the 3.8 liter engine in favor of the 3.9 liter as the base V6 engine for the 2009 Lucerne. Any comments? Does this make the V6 Lucerne a more viable option, with the roughly 30 hp improvement over the 3.8?
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    So the power rating would go from 197hp on the 3.8L V6 to 240hp ton the 3.9L V6.

    The question to beg, why not the 3.6L V6?
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 6,663
    IMO its not that big of an improvement. The MPG should be similar, (using the Impala's #s) however the highway # comes with the use of cylinder deactivation. The 3.9 is also a dated OHV design, at least it has VVT. Like joe97 said GMs 3.6 is the better option here, however, I read somewhere that the 3.6 is not setup to be installed where the Lucerne is being built. IMO if they aren't putting the 3.6 in, keep the 3800 at the very least the Buick lovers will be happy as that engine has a following so to speak. Bulletproof it is... rough, noisy and underpowered in todays standards... that too.

    2017 Buick Enclave / 2017 Hyundai Elantra

  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    Like I said, if you brought the Genesis out with NO badging on it and sat folks in it and asked them to give their opinion of what the car should be worth...

    This should be done, and then the final test is to smash them into a brick wall.

    The cars, or the folks?
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    I disagree. As Car and Driver put it so well in the bad old days of Cadillac:

    "You don't always get what you pay for. Sometimes, you get less."
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    The 3.9 in the Lucerne should make somewhere between 227 hp (like in the G6 convertible) and 240 hp (like in the Impala).

    As far as the 3.6 liter, it is already used in the Malibu/Aura, CTS, STS, SRX, etc. I wonder if GM needed to 'use up' their supply of 3.9's? The 3.9, being more of a torquey engine, may make more sense in a larger car like the Lucerne.
  • brucelincbrucelinc Posts: 815
    I don't know the gear ratios.

    The Ford website shows the Taurus FWD to have a 3.16 axle ratio and the AWD version to be 2.77. I suspect they printed it backwards. Based on the revs per mile that a tech at my dealer provided me, it makes more sense that the FWD model is the one with the 2.77 axle. The OD gear is .74 so we are looking at about a 2.05 overall top gear.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It's not a big deal, but I thought the Impala 3.9L had 233hp. ?
  • drwilscdrwilsc Posts: 140
    I stand corrected. Still, that is 36 more hp than the 197 in the Lucerne's 3.8. Consumer Reports clocked a 3.9 liter Impala 0-60 in 7.8 sec, just a hair slower than the 7.5 sec. 0-60 run they got in the Lucerne V8. The Lucerne 3.8 was clocked at 9.2 sec. Do keep in mind, however, that the Impala is slightly lighter than the Lucerne.

    Let's say the 3.9 in the Lucerne is good for low-8 0-60 times. That makes it more in line with other makes and closer to the V8 Lucerne, with some benefit with the sticker price and at the pump.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Indeed, not a big deal (233 v. 240) but the big deal is 233 vs. 197. Motor Trend had a 3.8L Lucerne at 8.8 seconds to 60, with the V8 Lucerne at something like 7.2 seconds (I'll have to look it up).

    The 3.9 ought to be good for at least 8 seconds, a notable improvement.

    UPDATE: Car and Driver quoted the 2006 Lucerne CXS at 6.9 seconds to 60 saying this:
    From a standing start, you get an initial jump off the torque converter up to 7 or so mph, followed by a sag as you wait for the twister V-8 to take over, which it does at about 28 mph; 60 mph comes up at just a tick under seven seconds (6.9), followed by the quarter-mile mark in 15.3 at 94 mph.

    They also say this about the 2007 Impala LTZ, with the 3.9L.

    Its 233 horsepower is enough to giddyap to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, and the 15.6-second quarter-mile pass at 91 mph is respectable for what this car is.

    Not a whole lot better with the Northstar, eh? For the record, Consumer Guide tested an Impala LT 3.5L with a curb weight of 3,555 lbs. The Lucerne CXL in the same publication was tested with a curb weight of 3,764 lbs, or about the weight of an extra decent-sized passenger.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    shame when GMs (or any mfgrs.) ability to compete is dictated by plants they are contractually obligated to keep open and/or their poor finances dictate an inability to produce enough quantity of a good thing (the 3.6) . Don't think the 3.9 is much better - other than being a proper 60 d. V6, the very thought of that engine (the 3.9) at 5600 rpm (where all the hp is) enough to make me wince just thinking about it. More torque will certainly make any car more driveable, but that projected (and not really class competitive) acceleration comes from that torque as it is applied over time - otherwise known as horsepower The Lucerne has much going for it, although very little under the hood, it looks like it will remain that way - GMs stepchild!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Just because an engine has OHV or other "older" technologies doesn't mean it's rubbish. Often these engines are very reliable and inexpensive to repair because they DO use these simpler technologies.

    I'd rather have a more reliable and less costly to repair drivetrain than the type of nonsense that you're seeing recently. $3500-$4000 to fix a transmission? That's robbery. Yet that's what one costs on most Toyotas now. BMW or Audi or any of the others aren't any different, either. A 3800 plus 4 speed - the entire engine and transmission can be replaced for under $3500.

    The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 3.6 not being offered is simply because they don't have enough production - they are being put into CTSs instead.

    It's a shame, because the Lucerne should get this engine and drop the now-behind-the-times Northstar. Tune the engine with the same 275hp/251lb-ft as in the Acadia/Outlook XR and give it a transmission from this side of the ninteen eighties and it might have a fighting chance against the Avalon/Azera/Taurus in the engine room.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Since most of the folks here are primarily new car buyers and owners, it sure would seem silly to pay that much money for anything that is so clearly inferior. Heck, we could go back to the horse and buggy and only have to buy some horseshoes - and hay. The chances of my 05 Avalon having any problems with it for the first 75000 or so are pretty remote - oh wait, it already has - repair costs $0. Your glass must always be half-empty, if you are out buying substandard vehicles because you are worried about tranny repair costs that never happen.

    OTH if I was looking to buy a car on a tight budget, didn't care about FE, or driving wallowing whales I'd get in line for that late model Crown Vic you seem to favor. Dirt cheap now - and later - and worth every penny!
Sign In or Register to comment.