And guys, seriously, there is no weak car in the group. As much as I nitpick you can't find major fault with anyone.

We could NOT say this 10 years ago. Seriously, IMO at 32k, the G35 is as good as it gets.

 

First off, you are misunderstanding.
Second off, have you owned a GS in the past? I need to know because your statements imply that you did not or do not.

The stock GS430 suspension is just plain dangerous in a car with 300hp.

If you can't effectively USE your brakes, a good braking distance does not help. This is the point with the GS - the brake feel and implementation of the brake assist are not up to par.

Remember, ultimate grip/braking distances, etc, do not help you be a better driver - a car that communicates with you and lets you know what it is doing help a lot more. Think in terms of a car with a great skidpad number that breaks loose at the limit and spins - as opposed to a car with a lower skidpad number that slowly gives way as it reaches the limit - which one is the normal driver going to be able to drive faster and more stable?

 

Not so. If it were based solely on opinion then they wouldn't have bothered trying to quantify things. Even so, of course, this is the conclusion of this group of editors. What test is NOT based on the subjective feelings of the testers. Name me one.

 

Honestly answer this, please. Have you ever driven the cars that you talk so much about? I thought you drive a 1992 ES300? Or am I remembering somebody else? Have you driven a 335i or an IS350 or a GS430 in performance driving situations? If not then, I don't mean to be rude, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It'd be like trying to talk to pilots about why the 777 is superior to the Airbus A330 if you'd only read about them in magazines and only flown a Cessna of your own.

The thing is that if you put a 335i in the hands of your average joe, he's likely going to do a much better job of safely pushing it close to its performance limits on a track then he would in a car that doesn't do as good of a job giving feedback to the driver.

Thus the IS350 may accelerate, brake, and turn almost as well as the 335i when tested in a single-dimension test. But when you combine all of those factors into the complicated dance we call "performance driving" you really NEED the confidence and communication from your car to actually push the car to its true limits when the consequences of misjudging the limits are either poor track times or else running head first into a tree.

What I'm saying is that flooring it down a quarter mile, jamming on the brakes in a straight line down an air strip, or turning the wheel all the way one direction and seeing how many Gs it will pull before losing traction... those are all fine in a controlled test environment. But if those limits aren't easily and confidently detectable by the person who's piloting the car during some hard driving down some winding mountain back roads, then what good are they when it comes time to dance?

Have you ever ridden shot gun in a high performance car that was driven hard through some tough turns? Have you ever noticed that you become quite a bit less confident in your chances of surviving the next turn ahead when you aren't actually behind the wheel of the vehicle? Is that because you don't trust the skills of the driver? Or is it because you're disconnected from the car and its communications to the driver? The same communications that are letting the driver know exactly where the line is that he shouldn't cross?

Let me take this to the extreme. Say a new ultra high performance car came out. Something like the 911 GT3 in terms of capabilities. However the steering wheel was so electric and overboosted that it communicated absolutely nothing to the driver. The brake pedal had no feedback whatsoever- it worked, and it COULD stop the car damn quick, but in terms of feel and response you might as well be pushing the brake pedal on the cruising USA arcade game. And lets also say that the wonderful manufacturer had made the car so serene that even though the car was accelerating like a bat out of hell, the only way you'd know it was by watching the trees whizz by you.

First of all, what kind of fun would that be?

Second of all, do you think you'd have even a chance of pushing that car to its performance limits outside of a controlled open tarmac testing track with no repercussions from screwing up?

Now again - I'll say this. The up side to a more isolated and less communicative over all chassis is a smoother, more comfortable, and more refined ride. And yes the IS350 most definitely has the advantage there.

You definitely 'pay' for the extra communication with the 335i. Nobody is going to get in that car, go over some rough roads, and say "wow, this is certainly a smooth riding luxury car!"

So I'm not trying to tell you that one is better than the other. It's a matter of personal preference. With the BMW you get the ultimate driving experience and better real world average every day joe driving performance to boot. From the Lexus you get a great compromise in the middle for people who want both performance and comfort.

 

No, but I've driven the GS400 and GS430. Even though I don't own one I have enough experience behind the wheel. I've also driven many other Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura models. Dangerous? Are you kidding me? Why is it "dangerous"? Because it doesn't communicate enough of the road? Because it's too refined?

Who's talking about being a better driver? That's getting away from the point that many people criticize the handling and braking of Toyota/Lexus vehicles because the cars don't have a sporty feel that translates every bump of the road to the driver.

If you NEED a sporty driving feel in order to drive well, then you're not a good driver at all. Your logic is quite flawed. A Porsche or Ferrari communicates extremely well with the driver, yet your average driver would probably crash driving one.

If you're a good driver, then you should know the limits of your car regardless of how it communicates with you or what the "feel" of the car is.

I KNOW the limits of any car that I drive. Even if a car doesn't communicate well with me, I can figure out it's limits fairly quickly. Thus I can drive a car fast and stable regardless of how it communicates with me because I know the *actual* limits of that car.

It's a matter of preference. I like my cars to be refined and provide at least some isolation from the road. I prefer that even when we're talking about performance cars or supercars. That is why I'd rather drive a 997 Turbo for example if given the choice compared to say an F430 or Corvette.

Going back to the previous point, when I drive a Honda I KNOW that the braking will be average/mediocre at best regardless of what the brake pedal and steering may be communicating to me as a driver. Do you understand my point now?

You could have a vehicle that communicates road, steering, and brake feel extremely well to the driver but if it handles poorly, or has mediocre braking abilities then you as a driver will be FOOLED and under the illlusion that the car you are driving brakes and handles well.

It wasn't solely opinion, but it was a BIG part of it. Again, you missed part of what I said. The 335i offers BETTER performance than the G35. Period. But in the end that didn't matter to Edmunds, since in their OPINION the G35 deserved to win no matter what. What I'm saying is that the G35 shouldn't have won, if ALL things were considered.

Yes, almost all reviews/comparison are opinion-based, but not all of them to such a large degree. Not sure if you've noticed but I consistently criticize many tests and comparisons for being heavily based on opinion.

Threxx, I driven plenty of BMWs, plenty of Lexus models (including GS400, GS430, IS250/IS350 and the list goes on) and plenty of other makes and models. The 335i I have not (yet) personally driven.

Ultimately, it IS a matter of preference. What I'm criticizing is that many of you are slamming Toyota/Lexus models for bad braking and bad handling as if it's an objective fact, when in reality you're doing so ONLY because these cars don't fit your preference. Give credit where credit is due and don't be trying to make your opinion or preference seem as fact.

Here is another example: I've been in some extreme braking situations under bad weather while driving different makes. Most Toyota/Lexus vehicles in these situations performed well in braking. Most Honda/Acura models in this situation had only average braking performance, despite the great feel and communication I was getting from the pedal and steering.

 

You don't seem to understand the very concept of a communicative chassis. A communicative chassis lets the driver know exactly where the limits are. Thus if there was actually some kind of car that was communicative, yet had poor actual performance, then the driver would be quite aware of those weak points and be able to avoid them.

An uncommunicative car requires a certain amount of guess work, and yes an extremely experienced driver can often circumvent the lack of communication just by experience with the road and the car, but despite 9/10 internet jockies seeming to think that they're a great performance driver... they're far from it.

Try attending a performance driving school. Like the real kind... one that certifies you to run on the big boy tracks with other drivers. The kind that costs a few grand and takes several 8 hour days. At the end of it you'll look back and realize just how terrible of a driver you were before and how much potential your car had left that was never actually tapped.

What I'm saying is that a communicative chassis will allow people who HAVEN'T been through significant performance driving instruction to push their car closer to the limits without fear of repercussion from guessing wrong or unknowingly becoming over confident.

The IS350 isn't quite as strong of a performer on the track as the 335i - but lets say that we neutered the power of the 335i just enough to make it to where a professional driver would achieve roughly equal 'best' lap times with either car after feeling them out for a bit.

I'd guarantee you if you then took those two technically equal cars and put them in the hands of your average joe - he'd get much better results out of the 335i.

It's funny that you mention the Porsche vs Corvette thing as that's one of the reasons why so many people prefer, say, a Porsche 911 Targa to a Z06. The 911 Targa in professional hands will run most tracks slower than the Z06. But for the average joe Porsche buyer, he becomes a much more confident and capable driver with the more communicative porsche.

Have you ever driven a Viper? Those cars perform like nothing else, but take a turn even a 'little' too fast and it's all over. And the worst part is that it's almost impossible to know where that 'too fast' point is.

Both the Viper and Z06 are rough riding cars - rougher riding than the Porsche 911 for sure. Yet the Porsche is the more communicative car.

So while you keep trying to say that a communicative car is just another way to refer to a rough riding car... that's not at all necessarily true, as is illustrated by the 911/Z06 comparison...

OK I'm just repeating myself now. If you still don't understand, then I give up and we'll just agree to disagree.

Please get some actual seat time on a track or similarly winding road in the IS350 and 335i and come back and tell us if you've maybe changed your perspective at least a little. I betcha you would.

 

The Edmunds logic on this point is bass-ackwards. I fail to see how a car, in its "BASE" form, that comes without all of these features, is "better equiped" than the Lexus. You have to buy a package to get a sunroof or an auto dimming mirror. I don't quibble with the fact that the G35 is a better "value" once you add all these features, but if you have to buy the Premium/Sport/AWD package to get these features, they aren't standard features.

 

So you're telling me you've NEVER driven a car with a communicative chassis and communicative brakes and steering YET handled poorly and had mediocre braking?

Likewise, please get some actual seat time in a car that I described and maybe then you'll understand what I mean.

I see the point you're trying to make, but you don't seem to understand my point.

I would highly recommend you go and drive a Civic or a 1st gen Odyssey. I have personally had some close calls while driving a 1995 Honda Odyssey. I owned one for a short time. The 1st gen Odyssey shared many parts with the Accord of the time. In fact, the 1st gen Odyssey was like an Accord wagon. It (supposedly) has a communicative chassis, steering, road feel and braking feel. The period of time when I drove this Odyssey I had less experience as a driver than I do now. At the time, I thought I knew the car's limits based on what the steering, chassis, and pedals communicated to me. I was wrong. Despite being overall a communicative vehicle to me as a driver, ultimate grip and handling on the vehicle was mediocre, and braking was mediocre. The car also felt faster than it was in reality. I felt like I was driving a fast car when under WOT since I could feel almost every bump on the road. In reality, the 1st gen Odyssey is a slow vehicle that is slower in a straight line than a Corolla. I had several close calls in various conditions with the Odyssey. Once when it was raining outside, I made a tight turn onto a street. The steering and chassis made me feel confident, but the wheels lost a bit of grip and I spun a bit. Similarly, in snowy conditions I often would make the tires spin even though I had winter tires on, and that the accelerator pedal was communicating to me what the tires were doing. In wet and snowy conditions, I had several situations where I braked hard. The brake pedal communicated the road and what the tires were doing very well to me but despite that the vehicles's braking distance was very long in these situations.

The inconsistencies in this Edmunds comparison just continue to accumulate.

 

We aren't discussing vehicles with good feedback and poor performance. We're discussing vehicles with good performance and good feedback, vs cars with good performance and mediocre feedback.

A mid 90s Honda minivan that you probably got from your parents as your first car is not what could ever be described as a communicative chassis.

I strongly believe that you do not understand the difference between a car that transmits a lot of noise and vibration from the road into the cabin, and a car that communicates effectively through its steering and braking and offers predictable and progressive handling characteristics through good chassis design.

 

The original point of discussion was cars that communicate well with the driver vs those that don't. You're limiting this to only high performance cars, I'm not.

Great work making all these assumptions about me personally that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand .

Again I ask, have you EVER actually DRIVEN a 1995 Honda Odyssey or a 1995 Accord? Have you ever driven an older model BMW, like an E30 M3 or E36 M3?

I strongly believe this argument is pointless and you just don't understand what I'm talking about. Did I even say ANYTHING about noise and vibration? No I did not. Did you even read what I said, or are you simply misinterpreting my posts because it's what you want to hear?

 

The original context of this discussion was entry level sports sedans - none of which are at all poor performers on the track.

No offense intended, but there are just too many magazine racing kids on the internet who talk like 'experts' about cars they've never driven but have only read about in magazines, or talk about driving those cars in manners which they've never been allowed to.

If you are one of those people then it does affect the discussion at hand as you'd be talking about something you've never realistically done.
So far as I understand it you've owned a 95 Honda minivan and a 92 ES300. Maybe you went to a dealer and drove a GS one time but that hardly replaces the experience for having driven one at the track. I have. The cars I talk about I've owned, or at least been lent for an extended period of hard driving.

If you're not one of those then excuse my assumption. It's not meant to be an attack at all on you as a person, but it does very much affect the validity of your opinion on the subject.

I, for a couple of months, owned a 97 Accord EX 5-speed manual 4-cylinder coupe and my wife, who was my girl friend at the time owned a 98 Accord EX-L 4-speed auto 4-cylinder (first year of the new generation at the time). I've also driven my best friend's uncle's 99 M3 fairly hard as well as road shot gun with him driving it to the limits.

I'm not sure what your point is, though?

The Accords were fairly rough around the edges - fairly fun to drive, but were far from performance cars. I would describe them as more communicative than a Camry of that time, but less communicative than a Maxima of that time, even though the Maximas were smoother riding cars IMO. They were far from performance cars of course.

Yes, you did - you say stuff like you said in this thread all the time:
You think that Lexus vehicles are being criticized for a lack of communication and progressively predictable behavior in their handling because they don't have a stiff jarring ride.

Like I said, I don't think you understand that there's a difference there.

A Z06 gives a significantly stiffer and more jarring ride than a 911, yet a 911 is considered to be a much easier and more predictable car to push to the limits by the average joe. The two things CAN go hand in hand but they often don't...

 

The 1st gen odyssey does NOT offer any good feedback. I dont think you really know what good feedback is if you think the 1st gen provided any confidence. The steering is overboosted, and the chassis is hardly communicative. It's an accord chassis with some added frames. To get good feedback, your chassis must be balanced from the start. This is one reason why a lot of Lexus still can't get the same feedback as a stock BMW, despite having many suspension parts.

Secondly, grip is ultimately determined by the tires. If you really could feel the tires slipping in the snowy condition, then common sense would have told you to back off on the throttle to reduce wheel spin. Just because the car was equip'ed with snow tires, doesn't mean it's immune from slippage. Both the car and the driver needs to be involved.


No need to ask me if I've driven the odyssey or accord. I've driven every single Honda/Acura post-1988 excluding the NSX. I live around Honda/Toyota and I can differentiate the two when it comes to certain aspects. The last BMW I drove was a 2003 E46 330ci. Objectively, there is a BIG BIG difference between the BMW and most Hondas, and there is a marginal difference between honda and toyota..



As far as these entry sports sedan goes, they need to be sporty. I do not really believe a car is sporty (like the GS) because it's marketed as one. It NEEDS to have the aspects of a sports sedan. Refined is nice when you're talking about a commuter like the ES350 or the LS460, but if you're putting a bunch of sport sedans together, expect the reviewers to drive the snot out of the cars to test the limits, and how well it does in the driving department.

 

You guys are kinda saying the same thing but in different manners...

 

Most of the cars I talk about also I've either driven for an extended period of time or I've previously owned. I've driven plenty of Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs, Chevys, Nissans, the list goes on.

A Z06 is considered to be more communicative to the driver IIRC, compared to a 997 Turbo. Also the Turbo has AWD which gives added confidence to a driver.

You sort of prove my point though. When I drove the Odyssey, I was under the illusion that it was a good handling vehicle with good steering and good braking. My apologies if what I posted made it seem like fact. I've edited my previous post.

That's the problem with regards to the vehicle's grip. Based on what the Odyssey was communicating to me, I felt that the tires still had grip when it fact they were slipping. Again, I was under the *illusion* (I was being fooled) that the tires had grip when they did not. Under hard braking, I was under the *illusion* that the vehicle had good braking performance based on what the pedal was communicating to me. Just before I sold the vehicle, I figured out the REAL limits of it. I figured out that in REALITY the Odyssey had mediocre steering, braking, and overall handling/chassis dynamics, despite what I was feeling behind the wheel and despite what the Odyssey may have been communicating to me.

I can also discuss the E30 or E36 M3 if you prefer. In both of those, the braking feels better than it is in reality.

Let me also make a point about actual chassis dynamics: take the IS350 and IS-F. Those that have driven both (I have not) say that there is a BIG difference in handling, and ultimate feel. People who have driven both all say the IS-F *feels* MUCH more sporty and more confident. Well how can there be a BIG difference in handling if both cars are using the SAME chassis? It's simple. The IS-F provides much more road feel than an IS350, and combined with a tuned suspension and tires you feel what the chassis is truly capable of. If you give an IS350 the same aggressive suspension and tire setup as the IS-F, then it will FEEL like it handles much better than a stock IS350.

Similarly, give a GS the same aggressive suspension and tire setup as an IS-F and it will suddenly FEEL like it handles very well. In reality, the IS and GS DO handle well, but many people think that they do not because they don't FEEL the chassis and how well it can perform.

And for the final time, these are NOT "sport sedans" in this comparison. Sports sedans are vehicles like an STi or Evo. The comparison is about entry-level luxury sports sedans and so in order for the comparison to be thorough both luxury and sports aspects should have been looked at, but Edmunds did not do that.

 

Holy off topic batman. Not that it isn't interesting to read but man...