Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

I remember that comparison. You know the funny thing about that battery of comparison tests between the Sonata I4, Turbo 4 and Hybrid vs the Passat I5, V6 and Diesel vs the Camry I4, V6 and Hybrid was that the Camry essentially won all the tests in regards to performance, efficiency etc.. but the Passat won based on it's 'fun to drive' handling factor go figure

Sulu

NO! You are wrong. The EPA publishes the test procedure, allows the manufacturers to test their own vehicles and issue their own numbers; the EPA audits the manufacturers' tests and results later to verify that the numbers are acceptable. That is how the EPA caught Hyundai's overstated consumption figures for the 2012 Hyundai Accent and 2012 Kia Soul: Hyundai / Kia conducted the test, made a mistake on the roll-down test and published overly-optimistic consumption numbers, were caught by the EPA audit later, and forced to admit the error (and compensate owners).

The EPA's procedure does not even require that all new cars be tested. Manufacturers are allowed to publish the same numbers for different cars if they claim that the different cars use the same drivetrain (same engine and transmission) and are in the same weight class. Ford was caught by Consumer Reports for claiming incorrect numbers for their Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid cars. Ford claims that they did not test both; they tested one and used the numbers for the other, claiming same drivetrain and weight class.

It seems that you place a lot of faith in the EPA's published numbers, which can differ quite a lot from real-world figures, especially for hybrid and turbocharged cars, in which the officially published numbers often are much higher than real-world numbers.

84Cressida

Yeah, great example there.

84Cressida

I thought this was ClubLexus, not ClubChrysler. The defenders of the WORST CAR COMPANY IN THE WORLD are really in the wrong place.

I've driven this miserable car more times that I want to. It is BY FAR the worst POS on the road, bar none. Chrysler should've gone out of business, but instead we bailed them out so they can continue to peddle garbage after garbage on unsuspecting people.

TangoRed

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Car Chat is for "General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news."

As for the rest of your comment:

Justin2JZ

I find the OPs absence a bit sus. But I can dig the new 200. I rented a loaded 200 V6 and drove it 200 miles, the trans was butter as well as the engine but the build quality and the seats were horrid.

FrankReynoldsCPA

Seeing an attitude as a common thread in all of your postings.

If you don't have anything to add to these discussions that ISN'T snarky sarcasm or condescension, maybe stick to the Lexus only sections and not car chat?

84Cressida

Oh I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings by deservedly trashing the car the OP is talking about? Nevermind the fact that I've driven those turds more than most (all?) of the people on here EVER will. I guess I have to say nice things about a car company that is consistently ranked at the bottom of reliability surveys year after year, that has taken bailout money from hard working tax payers back in 1979 and 2009 and then further screwed over those who bought their cars and their bondholders in an illegal bankruptcy. Yeah, go Chrysler! You guys rock! Love the Neon! Caliber is the best! Love me some Intrepid!!!!!

84Cressida

Right, and I'm doing some "general discussion" about the fact that Chrysler is, consistently, THE WORST RANKED AUTOMAKER IN RELIABLITY AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, year after year. Just spewing some truth.

dsadsauser

Well, this is the same car company that makes the Viper, Challenger, Charger, 300, Grand Cherokee, etc., so calling it the worst ever is ridiculous. Do you not remember Daewoo?

Any links to your claim? I'm pretty sure Land Rover owns the least reliable title.

spwolf

they are certainly one of the worst, consistently... FIAT is also the same in Europe.

TangoRed

While Chrysler certainly isn't topping the charts by any stretch, your bolded statement is wrong. You clearly have an axe to grind given your overly enthusiastic nature in this thread. I know Chrysler has a ways to go in the QC area, but calling cars that haven't even come out yet a POS is too much.

doge

Once again there are always exceptions and thats why im calling him out on Blanket Statements, look it up if you don't know what it means.

On the other hand there are cars that constantly exceed epa numbers : Prius, VW Diesels, Corvette's I could go on.

To be honest I will trust the manufacturers submitted numbers over Johnie's numbers from forum some forum which are based on his experience. At least there is some consistency

yowps3

I honestly don't understand what you're finding hard to understand.

TURBO SONATA or whatever TURBO on average has a lower real world MPG than N/A variants.
Them being less reliable is also another fact, as you're generally running their little engines at far greater pressure levels and heat.

So in conclusion that small Sonata 2.0L engine is consuming more gas than the almost double the size 3.5L V6 in the Camry.
While also being slower, less refined and of coarse less reliable.

IS350jet

I agree. Aside from the EPA ratings, which are really just manufacturers' numbers, out in the real world the V6 cars are generally getting about the same gas mileage as the turbo 4's in the same segment. The V6 powered cars are leaps and bounds better than the 4 cylinder cars in that they're quieter, smoother, and without argument, more reliable and longer lasting than turbo 4's. Also, the turbo 4's cost just as much as the V6 cars. Yea, give me the V6 any day.
The Accord is the best example of this. It's EPA rated at 34 hwy which is impressive considering it has 278HP and can rip to 60mph in under 6 seconds. Also, V6 owners are reporting this figure as very realistic and are often beating it by a large margin.
I drove 4 bangers for years, mostly Honda's, but after driving my V6 Accord and my ES350 for years, I don't know that could ever go back to a 4, I don't care how powerful or economical it is.