OK, so this is venting. I don't mean to start the bimmer wars again but I am definitely tired of the car magazines. We all probably buy mostly the same ones each month and I am getting tired of their reviewers and review process. They seem to be very proud of the fact that they caught first Ford (Mustang Cobra) and then Mazda (Miata) in having less power than advertised. But enough doesn't add up to make me very skeptical on the sport sedan comparos. Won't touch pricing yet but I looked at both the Motor Trend sport sedan review and the Car and Driver article. Here are some numbers from the two review reported in Motor Trend/Car and Driver format. First is 0-60, then 0-100, 1/4 mile time and speed, and finally braking (Motor Trend 60-0 and Car and Driver 70-0). Audi A6 4.2 - 6.69/6.4, 17.08/16.3, 14.97@94.22/14.9@95, and 123/170. BMW 540iASport - 6.58/5.7, 16.94/15.3, 14.59@95.13/14.3@97, and 121/167. Lexus GS 430 - 6.01/5.9, 14.92/14.8, 14.42@98.66/14.5@99, and 115/165. E 430 Sport - 6.34/6.0, 15.71/14.9, 14.74@97.20/14.5@99, and 116/174.

Anyone else see some funkiness in these numbers? Obviously the Car and Driver guys are a little faster than the Motor Trend guys (Ok, I know, different days, different tracks, etc.) but the A6 and E430 picked up three thenths 0-60 while the GS only picked up a tenth. OK, the Motor Trend review had the 17" Bridgestones and for some reason the Car and Driver car had the 16s, not just any 16s like the Michelin Pilots mine came with the the 4 season Goodyears. But the 540 picked up nine tenths. More impressively, the 540 picked up 1.65 sec. 0-100. But then it only picked up three tenths in the quarter while the GS was the only car to be slower in the quarter in the CD article. I doubt any of this would change the outcome of the review but not only is something screwy in the numbers, something looks really odd in the BMW performance (such variation in performance either leads you to quesion build consistency or purposeful selection), and the equipment on the Lexus really makes it look like it was never meant to be competitive. I am far less concerned that the Lexus faired poorly and more upset that these guys think we are really just swallowing whatever they publish without questions or comparison. Maybe I just answered my own queson. Or maybe they are working on the "fooling all the people some of the time" principle. Sorry for the long post but the car magazines are really ticking me off, helps to get it out.

 

RON, it wouldn't be the first time that a mfgr turned over a ringer for comparison testing. Back in the 60s, when John DeLorean was chief cook and bottle washer over at Pontiac, he made sure that Car and Driver got a VERY massaged GTO for the infamous comparo between a Ferrari GTO and the Pontiac.

And the numbers do certainly look funny. What I can't really figure out is WHY Lexus would provide C&D with a 430 that had ML/NAV/spoiler/wood wheel but the standard 16s........you'd think that Lexus North America would have just about anything they wanted hanging around the offices so the implication would be that the use of a car with base wheel/tire was deliberate. And that makes no sense.

Oh well, maybe next time.

 

mooretorque - I am definitely not a conspiracy buff and, as I said, I don't know if it would have changed the outcome, but it sure looks like the bimmer was going to win and the Lexus was not going to be competitive. The magazines claim that what tipped them off on the Mustang Cobra, outside of letters, was that the 1/4 mile times were not consistent with the advertised horsepower, I am pretty sure that this is ditto for the Miata. Well man, I would like someone to explain how the 540, both Sport package and both manumatics, lost nine tenths 0-60. And you know, it could be real, but if your buying a 540, I wonder how you get one of the fast ones. I didn't want to acuse anyone of anything but if a ringer was slid in I can't figure out why. The 540 is a heck of a car, why bother. Don't know if anyone else will respond but at least thanks for letting me vent. If one of my researchers came to me with two identical tests but that generate vastly different results, I would tell him to repeat them until he achieved consistency. Then you have data you can believe. Just ticked me off, feel better having posted and gotten a rational response, thanks.

 

It's also possible that the Bimmer that Motor Trend got had a very green motor with only a few hundred miles on it, while C/D got a car that was well broken in. That really makes a difference as well.

 

Very true, but remember that the IS was an auto, while the 325 was a stick. In a sports-sedan comparison in which every car except the IS had a manual transmission, the auto in the definitely held it back. The fact that it finished 3rd is pretty good IMO. It did beat out the new MB 240 Sport 6-spd.

I mean, c'mon, a sports-sedan HAS to come with a stick!!

 

Looking at the few responses and having had a chance to cool down I realize how futile it was to post the original topic. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this board would take any magazine article recommendation without doing a lot of due diligence and would certainly look at the specs of the individual cars and make the judgement whether there was an "apples to apples" or an "apples to oranges" comparison done. I think what torques me off is the large number of folks out there who know very little about cars and use these comparos as gospel.

Having said that, I have started compiling a "wish list" I think would really help these magazines. To kick the list off, I submit:

1. Get thee to a dyno. I think some guys cars here spend more time on chasis dynos than your average Nascar stocker does. In any event, there is more to life than 0 to whatever. How about you unbiased guys getting to a dyno for your reviews?

2. "Street" Pricing. I don't care who you use, CarsDirect, Edmunds TMV?, or whatever, just try to reveal the real cost difference between the cars you are evaluating.

3. Reviewer resume, personal car, and size. I am a big guy and I don't mind a smaller guy fitting better in a smaller car it is just that when you say one car is comfortable and in another you "slide around" in the seat, it has a lot to do with you personal dimensions. In truth, I don't find the GS seats objectionable in this respect to BMW seats. Having owned BMWs in the past and not understanding comments about "hard" BMW seats, now I sit in them in the auto shows and wonder what happened. Some people might be comfortable in them, just not me anymore.

May add more but I think you get the idea. Just hate to see folks take cars off their prospective purchase lists because of these reviews.

illogic - Pick up of nine tenths zero to sixty by breaking the motor in? Maybe, but I really doubt it.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RON430



3. Reviewer resume, personal car, and size. I am a big guy and I don't mind a smaller guy fitting better in a smaller car it is just that when you say one car is comfortable and in another you "slide around" in the seat, it has a lot to do with you personal dimensions. In truth, I don't find the GS seats objectionable in this respect to BMW seats. Having owned BMWs in the past and not understanding comments about "hard" BMW seats, now I sit in them in the auto shows and wonder what happened. Some people might be comfortable in them, just not me anymore.



The 95 540i I traded in had the standard seats and they were far and away more comfortable than the GS seats. The BMW seats cradle you the GS seats you seem to sit on top of. The first thing I check out on a car is the seating, since I do a certain amount of 18+ hour drives one way. I am not saying the GS seats are bad, but they are nothing to brag about.

 

Up through a 92 7 series, I never had any problems with BMW seats. In fact, I would say they are one of the best. But making the rounds of the local auto shows around the start of this year, I noticed the 5s seats were just not very comfortable. Didn't really notice which seats were in the cars at the SFO and SJ auto show but went to the BMW dealer, the 540 was on my list, and just didn't like them. I am not sure I was in a car with the sport seats but I definitely did not try one with the comfort seats, none were available. The GS seats hit me better but then the whole interior of the GS is considerably roomier than the 5 so maybe there was some additional perception going on. I think I would still give the nod to both Volvo and Saab for seats but we are definitely solidly in the opinion range here. When I had the BMWs I used to read about the "hard" seats but just didn't believe it, they seemed fine to me. But I definitely do notice the hardness of the current seats. Maybe being eight years older makes the difference?

 

Last month, I was shopping prior to puchasing my GS300 and checked out the 5's and didn't like the seats. Of course the Comfort Seats on the 740 were sweet. The upper third of the seat tilts to accomodate the curvature of your spine and the head rest then supplies constant support for the head and neck.

Another little item for the L Corp to consider.

 

Add that to general car variance, and driver variance, and you might get nine tenths. It's about the only thing I can come up with other than making up results!

 

Not to be a band wagon jumper...but C&D is just a little bit biased. Take a look at the breaking distance on the GS430 and flip over to the breaking distance on the M5 BMW in another comparison. Both distances are exactly identical....however they give the GS430 a 9 ranking and the M5 a 10 ranking. How is that possible???

Can we say underthetablemoney???? or BMW bias..

 

It's really very encouraging to get comments from knowledgeable enthusiasts. There might be a few people here, but I suspect most people are not died in the wool Lexus fanatics but rather, their Lexus purchase represents what they felt was the best option at the time, considering all factors. If you read some of the european auto mags, you see a different approach to things and they normally will include such things as insurance costs, reliability, maintenance costs, etc. in their recommendations. At least in the lates comparos, BMW didn't get its usual advantage, a stick. For years it was inevitable that any comparison including either a BMW or Maxima would have those two with sticks going up against a selection of automatics and they would inevitably win. Once again, not intended to start a flame war. I have owned BMWs and my currently has a Maxima but the auto writer weenies will take a stick over an auto almost every time. Now, if they would do their evaluations on 101 in San Jose from Santa Clara to Morgan Hill, they might get a different outcome. OK, I am rambling and getting off venting again.

robertito - I appreciate the comment. I wasn't bragging about the Lexus seats but, like you, I really did not like the seats in the current 5s I tried (I'll bet we checked out about the same cars prior to purchase). I got in the GS and the next day spent over 8 hours driving up to NoCal from SoCal and my wife and I both commented to each other how comfortable the seats were and how the drive wasn't that bad. Several long trips in the last eight weeks with the car have confirmed this for us.

illogic - The reason I probably bored everyone with the original post was with the other numbers. The Lexus was surprisingly consistent between the two. The Audi and Merc numbers weren't that far off. The bimmer? I am just not smart enough to figure out the difference. I can't or don't want to believe that with the quality of BMW that they would provide a ringer.

kjhouston - Once again, great points. The least the editors of the magazines could do is earn their money. By that I mean review the doggoned articles and inject some consistency. I find the brakes on the GS430 to be marginally too good. I can't believe I wrote that but they are extremely impressive. Make sure everything is tied down if you ever have to really stomp those things. The fact that they perform the same as an M5s is not much of a surprise. The only reason I can see for knocking them down is that possibly the M5 pads are more progressive, the GS can be touchy although that is getting better as they wear in ( at least on mine, although I am thinking about trying some new pads like the EBC Green Stuff). Also the reason that when I see a post about someone who doesn't like the GS brakes that I respond that he should get them looked at by Lexus because they are probably broken in some way relative to the factory setup. But why can't the mags just say anything about the strength of the Lexus brakes?

A couple of last points, that are also confusing and, for me, infuriating. The sound level at 70 was given and I didn't publish it. I don't have the magazine in front of me but I believe the 540 was quieter than the GS. Does anyone believe that? My last point has to do with people that cruise these boards. We all think that maybe some Lexus types look at these boards once in a while. My guess is that no one from the car mags comes to these boards. At least not Motor Trend, C&D, Road & Track, and probably Automobile. Disappointing. They need to get out of the car maker sponsored shmoozes and listen a little more to the auto buying public. They are not the protectors of the automotive performance public, no matter how much they might think they are. Sorry guys, enough venting again.