General Car Conversation
#4606
Oh yeah, as soon as they bumped it up to 290hp with the vvti it became the fastest luxury car until the W220 came along with the 5.0 and even then it was close.
1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....
As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....
As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
#4607
Having said that, however, I did own an AWD non-turbo 2006 2.5L Outback, with the 4-speed automatic, that was rather slow even by my conservative standards. It was rated around 11 seconds or do to 60....and took its time getting up to speed. I liked Subaru's simple and efficient Symmetrical AWD system, but it just didn't have enough torque to overcome the added drag. The addition of the more-efficient CVT to Outbacks several years later dropped the 0-60 times a little...at the cost of transmission longevity / durability.
#4608
I agree, that is all that is technically needed but I would require something that slow to have a larger/high TQ engine so I am not constantly spinning it out to just move normally. 3k rpm max, a diesel would be best actually.....
Cars of this class with good TQ like my Jeep or other larger engine heavy SUVs feel fine to drive but can be annoying to live with on interstates etc or when you need to pass/anything that requires power. You are forced to plan very far ahead and you do not have ability to react dynamically to much if at all, it's okay for a simple drive/commute but if you commonly deal with higher speed interchanges etc a 6 sec or so car is much much better since it will allow you to dictate position in traffic better etc. Cars of that level with again, high TQ engines are very relaxed to drive and since they don't need much RPM not annoying like econoboxes that you always have to spin out to get moving even reasonably.
Cars of this class with good TQ like my Jeep or other larger engine heavy SUVs feel fine to drive but can be annoying to live with on interstates etc or when you need to pass/anything that requires power. You are forced to plan very far ahead and you do not have ability to react dynamically to much if at all, it's okay for a simple drive/commute but if you commonly deal with higher speed interchanges etc a 6 sec or so car is much much better since it will allow you to dictate position in traffic better etc. Cars of that level with again, high TQ engines are very relaxed to drive and since they don't need much RPM not annoying like econoboxes that you always have to spin out to get moving even reasonably.
Last edited by Striker223; 06-14-23 at 08:47 PM.
#4609
Maybe that is just where you and I differ. I don't find 9 seconds slow at all. I look more for comfort and versatility in a vehicle than speed, although I'll admit that some vehicles offer both.
Having said that, however, I did own an AWD non-turbo 2006 2.5L Outback, with the 4-speed automatic, that was rather slow even by my conservative standards. It was rated around 11 seconds or do to 60....and took its time getting up to speed. I liked Subaru's simple and efficient Symmetrical AWD system, but it just didn't have enough torque to overcome the added drag. The addition of the more-efficient CVT to Outbacks several years later dropped the 0-60 times a little...at the cost of transmission longevity / durability.
Having said that, however, I did own an AWD non-turbo 2006 2.5L Outback, with the 4-speed automatic, that was rather slow even by my conservative standards. It was rated around 11 seconds or do to 60....and took its time getting up to speed. I liked Subaru's simple and efficient Symmetrical AWD system, but it just didn't have enough torque to overcome the added drag. The addition of the more-efficient CVT to Outbacks several years later dropped the 0-60 times a little...at the cost of transmission longevity / durability.
#4610
Oh yeah, as soon as they bumped it up to 290hp with the vvti it became the fastest luxury car until the W220 came along with the 5.0 and even then it was close.
1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....
As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
1998 LS400 was fast and everyone noticed....
As for 9 seconds, as long as the car has decent torque it's enough.
they list the LS's 0-60 time as over 7 seconds and then have the nerve to say that time was "provided by the manufacturer" lol... well we all know what the W220's legacy is now so oh well
#4611
Mine was about as optioned down as possible. It was a rare one that did not have a sunroof. It had leather and that was it (there was a guy in PNW who had one with cloth interior….cloth). Weight was 3690 lbs. which was heavy for 220 bhp in my opinion. It was never painful to drive. I just had to plan ahead. I do anyway.
#4612
i'm happy i was able to find this, but in 1999 mercedes conducted an "unbiased" test of the S500 vs LS 400 vs 740i vs XJ8 and what a surprise! mercedes concluded in their test that their car was best
https://youtu.be/rNeKMMWPGWA?t=504
they list the LS's 0-60 time as over 7 seconds and then have the nerve to say that time was "provided by the manufacturer" lol... well we all know what the W220's legacy is now so oh well
https://youtu.be/rNeKMMWPGWA?t=504
they list the LS's 0-60 time as over 7 seconds and then have the nerve to say that time was "provided by the manufacturer" lol... well we all know what the W220's legacy is now so oh well
Now that's funny. lol
I will check out your video.
#4613
You don't really mind revs in a manual hatch - that's kind of the point . If it's a luxobarge, that's a different story, but even then it could be that the engine is heavily biased towards low-end grunt.
Why would you need lots of power to pass something on a million lane interstate?
#4614
The issue is the 0-60 time will not necessarily tell you how lethargic a car will feel, it has to do with gearing and ratios in everyday driving. We don't go flat out WOT every time. The car I am thinking is my cousin's Rogue which does 0-60 in 9 seconds and feels extremely lethargic.
5-60 is actually a better test of real world pickup. And NA cars beat the you know what out of the turbos.
Mine was about as optioned down as possible. It was a rare one that did not have a sunroof. It had leather and that was it (there was a guy in PNW who had one with cloth interior….cloth). Weight was 3690 lbs. which was heavy for 220 bhp in my opinion. It was never painful to drive. I just had to plan ahead. I do anyway.
#4615
i read an article that bmw is done with stick and dual clutch transmissions for good (except for what they already sell).
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.
#4616
i read an article that bmw is done with stick and dual clutch transmissions for good (except for what they already sell).
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.
good ol' auto is faster than the dct and hardly anyone wants a stick.
this also allows bmw to focus on ev's.
some may not like it, but things change.
#4617
On another note, we’ve talked about this before but Mercedes brake dust is a real thing and it’s annoying. After just one drive there’s dust. I just washed it yesterday and this already.
#4618
There are lower dust but still well-performing pads available. In the BMW community iSweep 1500 and 2000 are very popular, they might be made for your application. 1500 is supposed to be OE performance with almost zero dust, and 2000 more bite than stock with very little dust. Akebono is another great option. They were stock on my wife's Q7 and had very little dust, I replaced them with what I thought were the only OEM pads--made by Textar--and they dust horribly.
#4619
I had 2 3IS F Sports and the brake dust with factory pads was terrible. In both cars, I replaced the brake pads with Sumitomo pads, which bite a bit less and dust a LOT less. If it was a braking performance downgrade, it wasn’t significant enough to notice in a daily driver.
#4620
Oh the brakes work fantastically.... including from 120MPH back down to 85 quickly and effortlessly.
But damn if you can't take it around the block without those pretty wheels getting dust on them!
But damn if you can't take it around the block without those pretty wheels getting dust on them!