Is it considered "okay" to buy a used luxury car? I'm fully aware that the only opinion that matters is the one of the person making the payments, but what is the "socially acceptable" way? My opinion of buying used is that you're just buying somebody else's scraps. But they always say, "One man's trash is another man's treasure." I'm at odds with myself. Ever since I bought my first brand-spanking new car ages ago, I haven't wanted to buy anything used.
I really want a BMW 550i, but sensibility tells me that, as nice as it is, it's just not worth $60K+. I look at pre-owned ones, which are very few, and see them as a better value; still overpriced, but a better value. I consider getting one, then I think, "But it's used. Some careless soul has already marred the interior surfaces, scuffed the door panels, etc." Then I change my mind and want new again. But then I think, "It's so not worth that price." :sick: What to do, what to do? :confuse:
Good question. Of course it's OK! Certainly you know more than the average guy, so you'll end up in great shape, with a very nice car should you decide to go used.
Socially, explaining a terrific car deal you just couldn't pass up should be easy enough. Personally, I wouldn't care what anybody else thought, but sometimes there are those in social circles that do tend to pry into our personal affairs, so if you run into that kind of person... you can always tell them how you "stole" the car... give that busybody something juicy to think about... afterall, what's the difference anyway?
That said, for your own sake, do your best to make sure you get a really nice one. Have the necessary patience to find that gem.
And, of course, if you lease your cars, remember that BMW sometimes offers great lease deals, which could then make that new one an easier consideration.
Of course it's okay to buy used luxury cars. I don't think why it'll be socially unacceptable by doing so, it's your money, spend it anyway you like.
About the 550i, my "engineer side" do agree with you on that it is probably not worth $60K+ but my "enthusiast side" will tell you to go for it if you can afford it. I personally wouldn't want to own any luxury car over the warranty period but that's just me.
I am not going to buy one either (for that kind of money I'll just get a 550i), however, this car represents as a very important milestone for Lexus. If the overall review is positive then Lexus has achieved its original goal - to obtain a beach head in the factory-tune performance car market. Otherwise, it's back to the drawing board they go.
I had thought Merc wasn't bringing any of their Bluetec SUVs here, that they were restricted to sedans. I was going to wait until the X5 3.0d came to the US, but I drove the 4.8i and it's fun. Consider it. You will be surprised. The GL is too big for us, but I could imagine it feeling ungainly in comparison, no matter what the reviews say.
Happily, Illinois doesn't have the same strict regulations as New York, so I can drive any US-bound diesel I want...
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
The A4 3.0TDI and Q7 3.0TDI are coming here MY '09. Yes, it will be the B8 A4. I think that car will be quite impressive indeed... and it looks subtly gorgeous. You should consider it if you wanted a 3 Series diesel; the 3.0TDI should get from 0-60 in 6 seconds flat and return 30mpg.
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
FWIW, my wife and I already drove the GL550, and we were expecting to write a check. I decided to ride in the back seat, because I was suspicious of the ride. It was even more truck-like in the back, as the GL was not nearly as smooth as we had expected. It seemed a bit big and clumsy overall... a disappointment to say the least. And, of course, the diesel powertrain alternative shouldn't make any difference in the ride quality.
And, a nice-looking vehicle for an SUV, and nice-interior. Oh well.
Is the GL interior much better than R's? I saw an R in this year's Atlanta Auto Show and the interior is just down right horrible. That interior shouldn't be in a Cadillac, but in a MB?
Eww...
The GL is a very good looking SUV though, it and X5 are the 2 best looking luxury SUVs currently on the road IMO.
FWIW, my wife and I already drove the GL550, and we were expecting to write a check. I decided to ride in the back seat, because I was suspicious of the ride. It was even more truck-like in the back, as the GL was not nearly as smooth as we had expected. It seemed a bit big and clumsy overall... a disappointment to say the least. And, of course, the diesel powertrain alternative shouldn't make any difference in the ride quality.
And, a nice-looking vehicle for an SUV, and nice-interior. Oh well.
Toyota Motor Corp. will slash the price and size of its hybrid system by around half for the next-generation Prius model....
He added that the next Prius would "definitely" use improved nickel-hydride batteries rather than higher-energy lithium-ion.
"Lithium-ion is going to take some time," he said....
To give sales of future hybrid models a boost, Okamoto said Toyota would design all of its gasoline-electric cars in a way that would make them instantly recognizable as a hybrid -- for example through a unique front grille.
Toyota offers a hybrid version of the best-selling Camry, but the Prius, with its green cachet, far outpaces it in sales....
Okamoto conceded that diesel engines were inherently better suited for saving fuel over long-distance cruising than hybrids, which capture energy lost during stop-and-start city driving. But he stressed that Toyota's future hybrids would be just as good -- if not better -- than today's diesels on the highway.
I don't know what sort of R-Class you saw, but any prejudices stemmed from the exterior styling (which I hate, too) shouldn't be carried to the inside. The interior of the R is up to par with any non-S/CL Mercedes model. Very nice. It's a shame that people are seeing what's on the outside, though.
The GL's interior is slightly nicer. Here it is, in case you've never seen:
Well, if he didn't like the GL (which has been renowned for its dynamics), he wouldn't even think to consider the LX. It's heavier, uglier, and slower--though not larger, as the current-gen LX470 is only four inches longer than the RX and the new model hasn't grown much. The LX570's interior appears to be a bit fussy, with too many flourishes, compared to the GL and Range Rover's effortlessly classy interiors. The Range has the most beautiful I've ever seen in a truck.
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
Check out R-class's door panel, then you'll understand what I am talking about. By the way, I do not mean by just looking at it. Touch it, feel it and check out the quality of the material used.
Exterior wise, I like the GL. Interior wise, hands down goes to the LX570. As for Range Rover, never like its exterior and interior styling but in this case the interior looks much better than GL's.
Upon our drive of the GL550, we opted to go back to the drawing board and start over.
First off, MB has got to fine tune the suspension. It was trucky over the rough stuff, and floaty over dips and swells. The GL450 we rented a while back was only challenged by the RR in the ride category. A perfect balance.
I blame the 21's and lower-profile tires. The Escalade that we tested had 22's and it rode like a champ, hammering out the nastiest of bumps. I also did not approve of the "Pimp My Ride" 3-pointed MB star on the grille. That thing is 13 inches across. Gaudy to say the least for the most conservative German brand. And for $83k, I was expecting a bit more differentiation other that power from lesser GL's, much in the way the RR S'Chgd does against the standard model and the Escalade does over the standard Yukon SLT. This isn't to say it wasn't a good truck. The immediate power of the 5.5L is downright thrilling. The transmission has to be best in class and the seats were terrific.
But at the end of the day, the GL550 could not deliver on the goods. While it's interior is thoughtfully laid out, I could not put it pass the RR, Q7 and even the plush Escalade. And the unsorted ride is a sore point on these centuries-old roads we travel everyday.
OTOH, our dear friend who owns the Jag dealer we bought the XKR from also owns the LR dealership and has promised to give us "the best deal on Earth" on a new RR Supercharged. Since the reliablility has been improved on this model, we swing by tomorrow to give it a second look.
Well, if he didn't like the GL (which has been renowned for its dynamics), he wouldn't even think to consider the LX. It's heavier, uglier, and slower--though not larger, as the current-gen LX470 is only four inches longer than the RX and the new model hasn't grown much.
We should let TG speak for himself. My recollection, which could be flawed, is that he felt almost queasy after riding in the 2nd row of the GL. That's not a complaint I've ever heard from my family, or guests, who rode in the 2nd row of my LX; though some kids have not liked the ride in the 3rd row.
I'm out of town on my mobile, but noticed that you have the same problem with the GL that I do... the suspension is too rough... and, IMO, tends to be too heavy on the side-to-side motion over irregular road surfaces.... which is ridiculous for an SUV in this class.
I agree it doesnt get any nicer than a RR... if only there was a third row.
As far as the LX... I don't know... seems to be heavy on the bling factor, but I'd have to take a closer look to say without prejudice.
As far as the LX... I don't know... seems to be heavy on the bling factor, but I'd have to take a closer look to say without prejudice.
I don't know about that, Tagman. MB's press release for the GL550 said: On the outside the GL550 distinguishes itself with a unique styling treatment that includes fender flares, chrome trim, blue-tinted glass and a powerful execution of the Mercedes-Benz star integrated into the front grille. You won't see Lexus "distinguishing" the LX from the GX with a bigger badge or chrome skidplates.
As I recall, the early looks at the new LX indicated a level of bells and whistles set to overkill... which woud not surprise me at all from Lexus.
I understand the third row is still flip-flop seats, but at least with some power-assist... still a compromise due to the chassis/suspension setup... they can not fold flat and lean up against the rear windows... still looks like an afterthought or poor engineering... not something I'd have expected in that price range in 2008!
The flip-flop Micky Mouse seats have always been one of my chief complaints. I doubt that the LX sees any more off-road than the others in the lux arena... however, if it somehow improves the 99 percent of normal on-road driving better than the GL, that would be a good thing, IMO.
The bling I was referring to is regarding the overkill of bells and whistles. Perhaps bling wasn't the best choice of words. I'm still not quite over the silly self-parking hype of the LS. I wouldn't want a bunch of gimmicks on the LX. That's where I'm coming from.
That said, I reserve final opinion until I've taken a closer look... as I originally suggested.
The GL was a letdown, so who knows until you take that personal close look.
The self-parking is an optional equipment on the LS and I am sure it'll be as well on the LX. I am willing to bet that more than 50% of the LS you see on the street came without the self-parking option.
Got to agree with you that it was just a gimmick from Lexus so they can say: Hey, we are the first one to do it (same thing like the 8-speed tranny). A waste of money IMO.
Well, at least the LX can come without a lot money-wasting equipments but the 13-inch tri-star is a standard equipment on the GL550. :P
I notice you got four standing ovations regarding your Prius vs. Hummer CNW study rebuttal? Congratulations but applause does not equate to facts.
So why dont we look at some of the facts regarding that CNW Study.
1) That infamous craptastic study has been thoroughly refuted by numerous sources and the findings from that study (from a lowly marketing firm) directly contradict the findings from similar studies performed by MIT and the Argonne National Laboratory
This Craptistic studywas thoroughly refuted? By whom may I ask?
Argoneen and MIT? Where are their numbers backing up their refutal? Did I miss something?
Those links you had provided do not in anyway indicate any disproof whatsoever of the CNW Hummer Prius study.
My question is what is so craptastic about the most thorough study ever done regarding this matter? Here's some details regarding that study:
Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the "life cycle" energy requirements of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it - and gave up in frustration (though it does publish "life cycle" analysis for its own makes).
CNW identified 4,000 "data points" for each car, ranging from the energy consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage, too - adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural America.
The company describes this exercise as "dust to dust" analysis. CNW has now published its second annual report, a 400-page production.
To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle's anticipated years of use - "U.S. dollars per lifetime mile." Thus it reports the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.
2) You find their 7500 annual mile use of a Prius as laughable? Did not CNW use actual statistics on the actaul mileage driven by Prius drivers. If average Prius drivers drive 7500 miles annually then after 10 years (or is it only 8 or 6 years outside of California) the warranty will have expired and there will still be 4 and a half years (and many more years if not in California) of driving left until 107k miles is reached. Battery problems are guaranteed not to happen beyond warranty? I dont think so!
3) So all of a sudden a Prius is environmetally friendly becaus Sudbury nickel production has become 90 percent more environmetally friendly? Says who? Despite such improvements the nickel production in a Prius battery is still averse to our planet at least according to the following paragraph:
Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to Toyota's battery plant in Tokyo - a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives
4) The CNW findings are not peer reveiwed therefore they are invalid? Is that so? Have you ever wondered why this CNW study was not peer reviewed? Well why dont we get the answer from CNW itself:
Have they peer reviewed every single step of it?" Spinella asked. "No, because again we don't want to release everything we have for competitive reasons. And number two, it gets in the way of doing what we intend to do, which is to make a public document available."
Sounds like a valid reason to me, dont you think?
In fact what the study really points out is how environmentally frindly economy ICE cars really are compared to a Prius. A ICE Civic/Corolla or Fit/Yaris are probably the most environmetally friendly cars in the North America. Unfortunately the media refers to the Prius as a green car. That is one big misnomer IMO.
TOKYO – Toyota Motor Corp. is considering adding new versions of its Prius gas-electric hybrid sedan, effectively creating a family of hybrid cars, the company's top sales executive said Thursday.
Mr. Uranishi said Toyota is also considering additional hybrid models, and he strongly suggested he favors offering a hybrid minivan in the U.S. market. But he said no decisions have been made about that. Toyota has a goal of selling as many as a million gas-electric hybrid vehicles a year by early in the next decade, he said.
Toyota is working on a variety of alternative technologies for powering vehicles, but Mr. Takimoto said he believes the costs of all-electric vehicles are still too high to allow for broad commercialization of that technology. He also said that Toyota is committed to developing in-house much of its alternative vehicle technology – including fuel cells and advanced hybrid vehicles.
The fact that Honda and Toyota are criticizing the GM Volt is a very promising sign for GM. At least GM is doing something bold for a change that is gaining notice in the auto industry.
UTSUNOMIYA, Japan -- Honda Motor Co. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui said so-called plug-in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles offered too few environmental benefits for his company to pursue, and noted that an advanced hybrid vehicle called the Chevrolet Volt that General Motors Corp. is aiming to launch in a few years made little sense.
If Honda was able to come up with low-cost, safe and high-performing lithium-ion batteries, the Japanese executive hinted Honda would rather use them for an electric vehicle.
"My feeling is that the kind of plug-in hybrid currently proposed by different auto makers can be best described as a battery electric vehicle equipped with an unnecessary fuel engine and fuel tank," Mr. Fukui told a group of journalists Tuesday at the company's research and development center here, north of Tokyo. He said he was referring to plug-in hybrids such as the Chevy Volt. "Assuming that we can come up with a really high-performing battery that we are working on currently, I think a battery electric vehicle [that uses such battery technology] would actually be a plus from an environmental point of view."
Test drove the 335i twice - turbo lag is minimal but it's still there.
Had an A4 2.0T for 2 weeks - turbo lag is just down right horrible.
Never tried the the VW and Porsche but I would be surprised if the VW turbo is much different than the one in the A4 I had.
Like I said before, 2 very comparable engine for me to choose, I'll go with the NA one any day of the week. Why do I want more moving parts in my engine bay if the performance is going to be similar.
A fairly high number, imho, since they aren't offered in all states. Though I guess it is possible that he meant 20% in the states where diesel is offered, and it just wasn't quoted that way. Either way, pretty impressive.
Brings to mind that JD Power report that indicated a high interest in diesels... possibly enough to give hybrids a real run for the money... possibly overtake hybrid sales in the future.
1. Infiniti 2. Lexus 3. BMW 4. Acura 5. Porsche 6. Mercedes-Benz 7. Land Rover 8. Audi
SEGMENT AWARDS
VEHICLES Compact Car Mini Cooper Midsize Car Honda Accord Fullsize Car Toyota Avalon Sports Car Volkswagen Eos Near Luxury Car Infiniti G35/37 Luxury Car BMW 5 Series Luxury Sports Car BMW 6 Series Minivan Honda Odyssey CUV Subaru Tribeca
Luxury CUV Land Rover Range Rover Sport Compact SUV Jeep Wrangler SUV Toyota 4Runner Luxury SUV Lexus GX470
Compact Truck Toyota Tacoma Pick-up Fullsize Truck GMC/Chevy Sierra/Silverado
Incorporating the actual use of a car (i.e., the actual amount of miles it is driven) into a notion of "how good the car is for the environment" is utter nonsense. By doing so, the study is penalizing people for how they use a car rather than for the merits of the car itself.
Let me try to draw an analogy. Suppose that 5 years from now (just suppose) you could buy a diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class that got 50 mpg combined. Suppose that you could alternatively buy a gas E550 that got 17 mpg. Suppose that E550 was slightly worse for the environment in terms of its manufacturing and disposal (i.e., not counting the pollution yet from its being driven). But suppose the average C diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec buyer is driven only 7,500 miles per year, but the average E550 buyer is driven 17,500 per year. So the idiot study basically amortizes the manufacturing/disposal pollution of the E550 over more miles, and comes up with the result that the E550 is "better for the environment" than the diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class because there is "less environmental impact per mile driven".
Does that strike you as a sensible way to look at it? A car that has slightly lower manufacturing/dispostal impact, and 3x better mpg?
Shouldn't we instead look at the vehicles themselves, and not how much they are used? Shouldn't we normalize to the grand average of how much the average car (of all cars) is driven per year, rather than incorporate 7500 miles for the diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class and 17500 for the E550?
If you insist on incorporating the amount of acutal usage of the car into the equation, it should be in an entirely different way. You should look at the LIFETIME TOTAL environmental impact, rather than the lifetime imnpact PER MILE DRIVEN. (e.g. impact per mile driven TIMES lifetime total miles driven; rather than simply impact per mile driven, which is what the idiot study uses.)
I think a 50-mpg car that is driven LESS than a 17-mpg car is BETTER for the environment, not less.
Using the logic of the study, if the whole world was driving aroung in 14-mpg guzzlers, but driving alot of miles, say 30,000 per year, then it would be "better" for the environment???? (Less environmental impact per mile becasue the maufacturing/disposal impact is amortized ovar so many miles). I THINK NOT!
Shouldn't we instead look at the vehicles themselves, and not how much they are used? Shouldn't we normalize to the grand average of how much the average car (of all cars) is driven per year, rather than incorporate 7500 miles for the diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class and 17500 for the E550?
Absolutely not!
The environmental impact of a particular car is directly related to the average usage of that particular car . If you assume that a particular car is driven like an average car while in fact it is driven only 1/3 to 1/2 as much as an average car then that study would be completely dishonest.
If hybrib Blutec MB drivers drive 1/3 as much as MB E550 drivers then there must definitely be a reason for that difference. We may not know why that difference exists but the fact is that this difference does exist and it is that difference that has a direct impact on the environment.
That very same logic is applicable to driver usages of Priuses and Hummers or in fact any auto.
If that is not convincing enough then let me give you another example: Longetivity of Cars. MBs and Volvo tend to be known quite well for their longetivity and that longetivity is based not on years but on usage. But what if that longetivity measure is based merely on the fact that MB and Volvo owners may use their cars more? Can we argue that a BMW or Toyota has better longetivity although they are not used as much as a MB or a Volvo. Ofcourse not!
Environmental impact and longetivity measures can only be measured by actual usage otherwise such measures would be complely useless.
Comments
For some of us, those words have true meaning.
TagMan
I really want a BMW 550i, but sensibility tells me that, as nice as it is, it's just not worth $60K+. I look at pre-owned ones, which are very few, and see them as a better value; still overpriced, but a better value. I consider getting one, then I think, "But it's used. Some careless soul has already marred the interior surfaces, scuffed the door panels, etc." Then I change my mind and want new again. But then I think, "It's so not worth that price." :sick: What to do, what to do? :confuse:
Thoughts? Opinions?
Socially, explaining a terrific car deal you just couldn't pass up should be easy enough. Personally, I wouldn't care what anybody else thought, but sometimes there are those in social circles that do tend to pry into our personal affairs, so if you run into that kind of person... you can always tell them how you "stole" the car... give that busybody something juicy to think about... afterall, what's the difference anyway?
That said, for your own sake, do your best to make sure you get a really nice one.
Have the necessary patience to find that gem.
And, of course, if you lease your cars, remember that BMW sometimes offers great lease deals, which could then make that new one an easier consideration.
Good luck!
TagMan
Automobile's 4.6 seconds sounds about just right.
For comparison purpose:
Edmunds: 4.8 seconds
Motortrend: 4.7 seconds.
This is like IS350 debut all over again, when it was introduced, it's 0-60 times range from 4.9 to very high 5s.
About the 550i, my "engineer side" do agree with you on that it is probably not worth $60K+ but my "enthusiast side" will tell you to go for it if you can afford it. I personally wouldn't want to own any luxury car over the warranty period but that's just me.
The concensus, or average of the tests, particularly the ones that seem similar, are where I'd put my focus.
TagMan
Happily, Illinois doesn't have the same strict regulations as New York, so I can drive any US-bound diesel I want...
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
And, a nice-looking vehicle for an SUV, and nice-interior. Oh well.
TagMan
Thanks.
Eww...
The GL is a very good looking SUV though, it and X5 are the 2 best looking luxury SUVs currently on the road IMO.
And, a nice-looking vehicle for an SUV, and nice-interior. Oh well.
LX570 would be too ugly for you?
He added that the next Prius would "definitely" use improved nickel-hydride batteries rather than higher-energy lithium-ion.
"Lithium-ion is going to take some time," he said....
To give sales of future hybrid models a boost, Okamoto said Toyota would design all of its gasoline-electric cars in a way that would make them instantly recognizable as a hybrid -- for example through a unique front grille.
Toyota offers a hybrid version of the best-selling Camry, but the Prius, with its green cachet, far outpaces it in sales....
Okamoto conceded that diesel engines were inherently better suited for saving fuel over long-distance cruising than hybrids, which capture energy lost during stop-and-start city driving. But he stressed that Toyota's future hybrids would be just as good -- if not better -- than today's diesels on the highway.
source
The GL's interior is slightly nicer. Here it is, in case you've never seen:
http://www.carbuyersnotebook.com/archives/Mercedes_GL_Interior.jpg
I don't know how to post photos...
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
'06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
Different stroke for different people I guess...
First off, MB has got to fine tune the suspension. It was trucky over the rough stuff, and floaty over dips and swells. The GL450 we rented a while back was only challenged by the RR in the ride category. A perfect balance.
I blame the 21's and lower-profile tires. The Escalade that we tested had 22's and it rode like a champ, hammering out the nastiest of bumps. I also did not approve of the "Pimp My Ride" 3-pointed MB star on the grille. That thing is 13 inches across. Gaudy to say the least for the most conservative German brand. And for $83k, I was expecting a bit more differentiation other that power from lesser GL's, much in the way the RR S'Chgd does against the standard model and the Escalade does over the standard Yukon SLT. This isn't to say it wasn't a good truck. The immediate power of the 5.5L is downright thrilling. The transmission has to be best in class and the seats were terrific.
But at the end of the day, the GL550 could not deliver on the goods. While it's interior is thoughtfully laid out, I could not put it pass the RR, Q7 and even the plush Escalade. And the unsorted ride is a sore point on these centuries-old roads we travel everyday.
OTOH, our dear friend who owns the Jag dealer we bought the XKR from also owns the LR dealership and has promised to give us "the best deal on Earth" on a new RR Supercharged. Since the reliablility has been improved on this model, we swing by tomorrow to give it a second look.
We should let TG speak for himself. My recollection, which could be flawed, is that he felt almost queasy after riding in the 2nd row of the GL. That's not a complaint I've ever heard from my family, or guests, who rode in the 2nd row of my LX; though some kids have not liked the ride in the 3rd row.
If anyone digs up any clues on how they plan to do this, please post.
I agree it doesnt get any nicer than a RR... if only there was a third row.
As far as the LX... I don't know... seems to be heavy on the bling factor, but I'd have to take a closer look to say without prejudice.
TagMan
I don't know about that, Tagman. MB's press release for the GL550 said: On the outside the GL550 distinguishes itself with a unique styling treatment that includes fender flares, chrome trim, blue-tinted glass and a powerful execution of the Mercedes-Benz star integrated into the front grille. You won't see Lexus "distinguishing" the LX from the GX with a bigger badge or chrome skidplates.
I understand the third row is still flip-flop seats, but at least with some power-assist... still a compromise due to the chassis/suspension setup... they can not fold flat and lean up against the rear windows... still looks like an afterthought or poor engineering... not something I'd have expected in that price range in 2008!
TagMan
They wanted to retain true-offroading capability by using a live rear axle. Kind of the opposite of "bling" anyway.
But if it's not for you then it's not for you.
The bling I was referring to is regarding the overkill of bells and whistles. Perhaps bling wasn't the best choice of words. I'm still not quite over the silly self-parking hype of the LS. I wouldn't want a bunch of gimmicks on the LX. That's where I'm coming from.
That said, I reserve final opinion until I've taken a closer look... as I originally suggested.
The GL was a letdown, so who knows until you take that personal close look.
TagMan
Got to agree with you that it was just a gimmick from Lexus so they can say: Hey, we are the first one to do it (same thing like the 8-speed tranny). A waste of money IMO.
Well, at least the LX can come without a lot money-wasting equipments but the 13-inch tri-star is a standard equipment on the GL550. :P
Congratulations but applause does not equate to facts.
So why dont we look at some of the facts regarding that CNW Study.
1) That infamous craptastic study has been thoroughly refuted by numerous sources and the findings from that study (from a lowly marketing firm) directly contradict the findings from similar studies performed by MIT and the Argonne National Laboratory
This Craptistic studywas thoroughly refuted? By whom may I ask?
Argoneen and MIT? Where are their numbers backing up their refutal? Did I miss something?
Those links you had provided do not in anyway indicate any disproof whatsoever of the CNW Hummer Prius study.
My question is what is so craptastic about the most thorough study ever done regarding this matter? Here's some details regarding that study:
Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world's most comprehensive analysis of the "life cycle" energy requirements of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it - and gave up in frustration (though it does publish "life cycle" analysis for its own makes).
CNW identified 4,000 "data points" for each car, ranging from the energy consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage, too - adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural America.
The company describes this exercise as "dust to dust" analysis. CNW has now published its second annual report, a 400-page production.
To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle's anticipated years of use - "U.S. dollars per lifetime mile." Thus it reports the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.
2) You find their 7500 annual mile use of a Prius as laughable? Did not CNW use actual statistics on the actaul mileage driven by Prius drivers. If average Prius drivers drive 7500 miles annually then after 10 years (or is it only 8 or 6 years outside of California) the warranty will have expired and there will still be 4 and a half years (and many more years if not in California) of driving left until 107k miles is reached. Battery problems are guaranteed not to happen beyond warranty? I dont think so!
3) So all of a sudden a Prius is environmetally friendly becaus Sudbury nickel production has become 90 percent more environmetally friendly? Says who? Despite such improvements the nickel production in a Prius battery is still averse to our planet at least according to the following paragraph:
Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to Toyota's battery plant in Tokyo - a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives
4) The CNW findings are not peer reveiwed therefore they are invalid? Is that so? Have you ever wondered why this CNW study was not peer reviewed? Well why dont we get the answer from CNW itself:
Have they peer reviewed every single step of it?" Spinella asked. "No, because again we don't want to release everything we have for competitive reasons. And number two, it gets in the way of doing what we intend to do, which is to make a public document available."
Sounds like a valid reason to me, dont you think?
In fact what the study really points out is how environmentally frindly economy ICE cars really are compared to a Prius. A ICE Civic/Corolla or Fit/Yaris are probably the most environmetally friendly cars in the North America. Unfortunately the media refers to the Prius as a green car. That is one big misnomer IMO.
link title
TM
TM
Mr. Uranishi said Toyota is also considering additional hybrid models, and he strongly suggested he favors offering a hybrid minivan in the U.S. market. But he said no decisions have been made about that. Toyota has a goal of selling as many as a million gas-electric hybrid vehicles a year by early in the next decade, he said.
Toyota is working on a variety of alternative technologies for powering vehicles, but Mr. Takimoto said he believes the costs of all-electric vehicles are still too high to allow for broad commercialization of that technology. He also said that Toyota is committed to developing in-house much of its alternative vehicle technology – including fuel cells and advanced hybrid vehicles.
link title
UTSUNOMIYA, Japan -- Honda Motor Co. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui said so-called plug-in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles offered too few environmental benefits for his company to pursue, and noted that an advanced hybrid vehicle called the Chevrolet Volt that General Motors Corp. is aiming to launch in a few years made little sense.
If Honda was able to come up with low-cost, safe and high-performing lithium-ion batteries, the Japanese executive hinted Honda would rather use them for an electric vehicle.
"My feeling is that the kind of plug-in hybrid currently proposed by different auto makers can be best described as a battery electric vehicle equipped with an unnecessary fuel engine and fuel tank," Mr. Fukui told a group of journalists Tuesday at the company's research and development center here, north of Tokyo. He said he was referring to plug-in hybrids such as the Chevy Volt. "Assuming that we can come up with a really high-performing battery that we are working on currently, I think a battery electric vehicle [that uses such battery technology] would actually be a plus from an environmental point of view."
Cant think of a single SUV that fits the above criteria. NONE!
If anyone digs up any clues on how they plan to do this, please post
The next Prius is expected to be a 1.8 litre turbo hybrid. The turbo engine may be the clue on how they plan to do this.
Can you imagine the combination of hybrid-diesel-turbo? :surprise:
On the other hand although I am all for better FE but I still prefer NA over turbo or supercharged engines.
TagMan
Test drove the 335i twice - turbo lag is minimal but it's still there.
Had an A4 2.0T for 2 weeks - turbo lag is just down right horrible.
Never tried the the VW and Porsche but I would be surprised if the VW turbo is much different than the one in the A4 I had.
Like I said before, 2 very comparable engine for me to choose, I'll go with the NA one any day of the week. Why do I want more moving parts in my engine bay if the performance is going to be similar.
We're talking Prius though. I'm sure most owners care more about the extra mpg than they do about a little turbo lag.
Source toward the end of this article.
Kudos to MB.
I think the percentage would be better for the RX, but still maybe not 20%.
Hard to know yet. It's much too early.
TagMan
1. Infiniti
2. Lexus
3. BMW
4. Acura
5. Porsche
6. Mercedes-Benz
7. Land Rover
8. Audi
SEGMENT AWARDS
VEHICLES
Compact Car Mini Cooper
Midsize Car Honda Accord
Fullsize Car Toyota Avalon
Sports Car Volkswagen Eos
Near Luxury Car Infiniti G35/37
Luxury Car BMW 5 Series
Luxury Sports Car BMW 6 Series
Minivan Honda Odyssey
CUV Subaru Tribeca
Luxury CUV Land Rover Range Rover Sport
Compact SUV Jeep Wrangler
SUV
Toyota 4Runner
Luxury SUV
Lexus GX470
Compact Truck Toyota Tacoma Pick-up
Fullsize Truck GMC/Chevy Sierra/Silverado
link title
Incorporating the actual use of a car (i.e., the actual amount of miles it is driven) into a notion of "how good the car is for the environment" is utter nonsense. By doing so, the study is penalizing people for how they use a car rather than for the merits of the car itself.
Let me try to draw an analogy. Suppose that 5 years from now (just suppose) you could buy a diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class that got 50 mpg combined. Suppose that you could alternatively buy a gas E550 that got 17 mpg. Suppose that E550 was slightly worse for the environment in terms of its manufacturing and disposal (i.e., not counting the pollution yet from its being driven). But suppose the average C diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec buyer is driven only 7,500 miles per year, but the average E550 buyer is driven 17,500 per year. So the idiot study basically amortizes the manufacturing/disposal pollution of the E550 over more miles, and comes up with the result that the E550 is "better for the environment" than the diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class because there is "less environmental impact per mile driven".
Does that strike you as a sensible way to look at it? A car that has slightly lower manufacturing/dispostal impact, and 3x better mpg?
Shouldn't we instead look at the vehicles themselves, and not how much they are used? Shouldn't we normalize to the grand average of how much the average car (of all cars) is driven per year, rather than incorporate 7500 miles for the diesel hybrid with super-Bluetec MB C-class and 17500 for the E550?
If you insist on incorporating the amount of acutal usage of the car into the equation, it should be in an entirely different way. You should look at the LIFETIME TOTAL environmental impact, rather than the lifetime imnpact PER MILE DRIVEN. (e.g. impact per mile driven TIMES lifetime total miles driven; rather than simply impact per mile driven, which is what the idiot study uses.)
I think a 50-mpg car that is driven LESS than a 17-mpg car is BETTER for the environment, not less.
Using the logic of the study, if the whole world was driving aroung in 14-mpg guzzlers, but driving alot of miles, say 30,000 per year, then it would be "better" for the environment???? (Less environmental impact per mile becasue the maufacturing/disposal impact is amortized ovar so many miles). I THINK NOT!
link title
Absolutely not!
The environmental impact of a particular car is directly related to the average usage of that particular car . If you assume that a particular car is driven like an average car while in fact it is driven only 1/3 to 1/2 as much as an average car then that study would be completely dishonest.
If hybrib Blutec MB drivers drive 1/3 as much as MB E550 drivers then there must definitely be a reason for that difference. We may not know why that difference exists but the fact is that this difference does exist and it is that difference that has a direct impact on the environment.
That very same logic is applicable to driver usages of Priuses and Hummers or in fact any auto.
If that is not convincing enough then let me give you another example: Longetivity of Cars. MBs and Volvo tend to be known quite well for their longetivity and that longetivity is based not on years but on usage. But what if that longetivity measure is based merely on the fact that MB and Volvo owners may use their cars more? Can we argue that a BMW or Toyota has better longetivity although they are not used as much as a MB or a Volvo. Ofcourse not!
Environmental impact and longetivity measures can only be measured by actual usage otherwise such measures would be complely useless.