TSX69

The $46,000 Sport Sedan Challenge

The judges: Kelsey Mays, Cars.com; David Thomas, Cars.com; Joe Wiesenfelder, Cars.com; James R. Healey, USA Today; Brian Robinson, "MotorWeek"; and Jose and Jimmee Medina, a couple in the market to buy a car in this segment.

See What You Get for $46,000

Here's how the scores break down:

No. 6: 2013 Mercedes-Benz C250 Sport, 671 points

What we liked: The word "classy" was thrown around more than a few times, both for the exterior and interior. "I thought the C250 offered a unique style versus the other machines," Thomas said. "An expensive appearance package helped give it a little bit of flash, too." Robinson liked how it "turned in aggressively at the track," and Healey applauded its "nice blend of ride and handling." "Long live the C-Class' hefty shift knob, which slips into Drive with a precise weightiness," raved Mays, who also appreciated the "wide trunk opening and 60/40-split folding backseat that takes the center belt along with it. Nice."

What we didn't: Brakes were the clear problem for just about everyone. "They seemed borderline unsafe in street testing and pretty soggy feeling on [the] track," Healey said. It wasn't just the brakes. "The engine feels strong right off the line, but it runs out of steam in a real hurry," Robinson said. "It was slow," Thomas said, "slow on the track and slow around town." "The C250's sport suspension kept body roll in check, but the handling joy ends there," Mays added. "The tail is hard to work around, and if you keep stability control on, it dials in a lot more understeer." "Even though the formula matches that of the ATS and 328i," Wiesenfelder said, "numb steering and a dearth of engine power left me low on confidence." And Jose and Jimmee found it visually dull. "It seems too plain to me," Jose said.

The verdict: "The Mercedes C250 looks very sporty and has a nice firm ride, but unfortunately none of that really translates into a great-performing sedan," Robinson said.

Key features

Rear-wheel drive
Turbocharged 1.8-liter 4-cylinder engine with a 7-speed automatic transmission
201 horsepower (least powerful and slowest car tested)
12.4 cubic feet of maximum trunk space
4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle warranty and powertrain warranty
Unlimited years/unlimited miles roadside assistance
Has optional Dynamic Sport Package that includes red seat belts, seats with simulated leather with faux-suede inserts with red stitching, a flat-bottom steering wheel and unique AMG wheels
Has a cooled glove box, power-adjustable steering column and power-adjustable head restraints
IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2013
Satellite radio
Does not have touch-sensitive keyless entry
Premium gas recommended

2013 Mercedes C-Class Payment Facts
Price as tested: $42,355
Monthly payment*: $871.22

No. 5: 2013 Audi A4 2.0T Quattro Tiptronic, 749 points

What we liked: The Audi won over several judges with its sophistication. "Audi's handsome and consistent cabin materials still impress," Mays said, even though the A4 was 1 of the oldest models in our test. "Stance and elegance make the only statement you need," Healey added. "Sometimes, less is more for me," Jose said. "I like how simple this is." But looks carry it only so far. "The A4's adept 8-speed automatic transmission and torque-laden turbo 4-cylinder makes you forget that Audi once offered a V-6 in this car," Mays pointed out. "Who needs it?" Thomas added, "On the track, the A4 seemed to burst down the straights. Its weight and balance made the A4 feel nimble, both on the track and around town." It was "more fun to drive than you originally think," Robinson added. "It comes off the corners really hard. Seems to respond better the harder you push it."

What we didn't: But "at no time does it ever feel fast," Robinson said. "Capable? Yes. Fast? No." Weight distribution was also an issue. "Nose heaviness did a number on the front tires on track day," Wiesenfelder pointed out. "You need to be hard on the gas in a curve if you hope to maintain decent front-rear balance." The interior materials quality was also dinged by a few. "It has a subpar interior, with hard plastic on the console," Healey said. 1 of the biggest complaints, though, about the A4 was the lack of features for the money, an issue raised by almost everyone. "Not much delight for the dough," Healey said. "The A4's low as-tested price can't absolve a raft of missing features," Mays said. "Bluetooth audio streaming, keyless access, backup camera and navigation are MIA." Backseat space was also a thorn. "I hated that," Jimmee said. "I didn't like the backseat at all because the seat was too low" for her 5-foot-10-inch frame.

The verdict: "Kudos to Audi for having a turbocharged 4-cylinder engine that walks and talks like a V-6," Mays said, "but the A4's sloppy dynamics dampen the fun in high-performance situations."

Key features

All-wheel drive
Turbocharged 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine with an 8-speed automatic transmission
211 horsepower
12.4 cubic feet of maximum trunk space
Has no-cost optional, aggressive high-performance summer tires
4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle warranty and powertrain warranty
1-year/5,000-mile complimentary maintenance
4-year/unlimited miles roadside assistance
LED accents in headlamps
IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2013
Satellite radio
Has rear air vents with climate controls (1 of 2 vehicles tested with this)
Does not have touch-sensitive keyless entry
Does not have Bluetooth streaming audio
Premium gas recommended


2013 Audi A4 Payment Facts
Price as tested: $40,310
Monthly payment*: $829.16

No. 4: 2013 Cadillac ATS 2.0T Performance, 762 points

What we liked: The ATS was a driver's car. "The chassis seems tuned almost perfectly for either road or track," Healey said, "and the styling is just edgy enough." "The ATS was the only 1 that came close to the BMW," Wiesenfelder said, "and sometimes felt even more unflappable on the track. Its Sport mode was the only transmission in the test that seemed to have any smarts." Mays also liked the Sport mode: "Cadillac's 6-speed automatic rarely misses a beat, with crisp upshifts and timely rev-matched downshifts." It wasn't all about what's under the hood: "I was completely blown away by the ATS cabin," Jimmee said. "It has a 'right there' feel," Robinson said. "Just about perfect." And then there's the Cadillac User Experience system that uses capacitive controls to adjust climate, radio and a lot more. Some reviewers loved it: "The CUE system is a technological wonder that was the most robust system of those in the test," Thomas wrote. "I'll throw my support behind the CUE," Wiesenfelder added.

What we didn't: But other reviewers were not as impressed. "The infotainment system can do a lot of things," Healey sniffed, "but just try to figure it out." And 1 can imagine Robinson channeling "Star Trek's" Capt. James T. Kirk shouting at his nemesis Khan as he yelled "CUE!" It wasn't in a good way, trust me. And even Thomas, who praised the system, noted that "it attracts a lot of fingerprints and is hard to see in direct sunlight. Those 2 flaws negate some of its promise." Interior space, or a lack of it, also drew some criticism. "Witness Cadillac, the headroom thief," Mays said. "The cabin is cramped, plain and simple." Jose noted that the trunk is also tight: "It's not deep enough or wide enough for my liking." And even though the Cadillac drove well, there is still some work to do. "Cadillac needs to drop the eye candy and focus on the details," Mays said. "Look closely, and all that fancy dashboard stitching surrounds ill-fitted panels and unsightly gaps."

The verdict: "When I think Cadillac, I think [of] my grandpa," Jimmee said. "But this is not my grandpa's car."

Key features

All-new model for 2013
Turbocharged 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission
272 horsepower (2nd-most-powerful vehicle tested)
10.2 cubic feet of maximum trunk space (smallest cargo space)
4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle warranty, 6-year/70,000-mile powertrain warranty
4-year/50,000-mile complimentary maintenance
6-year/70,000-mile roadside assistance
No heated seats (only vehicle tested without this feature)
Has frontal-collision alert and lane keep assist
Has CUE system that includes navigation and apps such as Pandora, weather, etc. (1 of 2 cars tested with navigation, and the only vehicle tested with smartphone app integration)
No split-folding backseat (1 of 2 vehicles tested without folding rear seats)
Not yet crash-tested by IIHS for 2013
Satellite radio
LED headlamps and door handles
Has power-adjustable side bolstering and manual-adjustable thigh support (1 of 2 vehicles tested with these features)
Premium gas recommended


2013 Cadillac ATS Payment Facts
Price as tested: $45,775 (most expensive)
Monthly payment*: $941.57

No. 3: 2013 Acura TL 3.7 SH-AWD Tech, 775 points

What we liked: The consensus among the reviewers was the TL was very comfortable and that its V-6 engine gave it plenty of go. "It absolutely hauls around the track," Robinson said. "Acura's torque-vectoring system can send the TL on gratifying 4-wheel power slides," Mays said. "The smooth V-6 power almost always trumps turbo 4," Healey added. "The ride quality can't be denied," Wiesenfelder pointed out. The TL was larger than most competitors, and that translated into more space. "The backseat was not only the roomiest," Thomas said, "but the seats back there were also the most comfortable. Taking another couple to dinner would be most pleasant in the Acura." He also praised the TL's technology. "Not only did the iPod integration and Bluetooth work flawlessly, it also had a very accurate voice-recognition system."

What we didn't: That extra size led to the feeling that the TL was extra heavy. It "feels heavy" was a common refrain from more than 1 reviewer, and Thomas said the "girth made it difficult to navigate in the tightest turns on the track." Wiesenfelder noted that the TL's "mileage shows the classic trade-off we once had to make for acceleration — but clearly don't need to anymore." Mays was unhappy with the "embarrassingly small trunk and no folding backseat to boot." Thomas dinged it for a "navigation system that looks dated in terms of graphics." Jose said that the TL felt "just like the Accord," and Jimmee seconded that, saying, "The quality is just not there."

The verdict: "The TL is a great choice if 'sedan' is more important than 'sport' in your personal sport-sedan calculus," Healey said.

Key features

All-wheel drive
3.7-liter V-6 engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission
305 horsepower (most powerful car tested)
Backup camera (1 of 2 vehicles tested with feature)
Navigation system with real-time traffic and weather updates (1 of 2 vehicles tested with navigation and real-time traffic)
12.5 cubic feet of maximum trunk space
4-year/50,000-mile new car warranty
6-year/70,000-mile powertrain warranty
4-year/50,000-mile roadside assistance
IIHS Top Safety Pick Plus for 2013 (received highest score of Good in new small-overlap frontal crash test)
Satellite radio
No split-folding backseat (1 of 2 vehicles tested without a folding rear seat)
Premium gas recommended

2013 Acura TL Payment Facts
Price as tested: $44,080
Monthly payment*: $906.70

No. 2: 2013 Volvo S60 T5 AWD Premier, 793 points

What we liked: Comfort was the watchword for the Volvo. "By far, the most comfortable car here," Robinson said. "Our S60 has Volvo's base suspension setup, and it rides marvelously," Mays said. "Shock absorption, cabin isolation and suspension noise (or lack thereof) all stand out." And the seats? "Among this group's taut seats, the Volvo's cushy chairs are a welcome break," Mays added. Our couple liked the dashboard's "understated elegance," and the "nice, worn-in look" of the seat leather. "Very non-pretentious," Jose declared. "The price makes it a relative bargain in this group," Healey noted, "even if you add in the price of the crucial infotainment gear that it lacks." The S60 was the declared winner for our couple, and Jimmee said she was caught by surprise by the Volvo: "I would've never thought that we would look at a Volvo, but this is very nice."

What we didn't: The consensus was that while the S60 was very comfortable, it wasn't great as a track performer. "Feels front-heavy, and overall heavy, on the track," Healey said. "The handling is good for a Volvo, with minimized torque steer, but I don't give 'most improved' awards," Wiesenfelder said. "The mileage makes it much harder to be excited about the quick acceleration," he said, especially in the 328i's company. "Soft brakes, sloppy steering and plenty of body roll limit the handling front," Mays pointed out, "and you'll notice it on winding roads, not just a racetrack." Robinson concurred: "When you push it really hard on the track, it just feels awkward." Finally, more than 1 reviewer noted that some of the interior materials were not up to snuff. "Some materials didn't exude luxury, especially the shifter and its plastic cover," Thomas said, and Wiesenfelder agreed. "Worst, the plastic window atop the shift lever looks so cheap," he said. "Did you ever build a model car or plane and accidentally get cement on a window? That's what it looks like."

The verdict: "Volvo packed a lot of style, comfort, performance and features into the S60 with a low price tag," Thomas said.

Key features

All-wheel drive
Turbocharged 2.5-liter 5-cylinder engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission
250 horsepower
Has an overboost feature that allows for a maximum 290 pounds-feet of torque for up to 10 seconds at full throttle (only vehicle tested with this feature)
4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle warranty and powertrain warranty
3-year/36,000-mile complimentary maintenance
4-year/unlimited miles roadside assistance
12.0 cubic feet of maximum trunk space
IIHS Top Safety Pick Plus for 2013 (received top score of Good in new small-overlap frontal test)
Has Volvo's City Safety system
Satellite radio
Has touch-sensitive keyless entry
Premium gas recommended

2013 Volvo S60 Payment Facts
Price as tested: $38,170 (least expensive)
Monthly payment*: $785.14

And the winner is ...

No. 1: 2013 BMW 328i M Sport sedan, 859 points

What we liked: "What wasn't there to like?" Thomas enthused, and he was hardly alone. Just by the numbers, the 328i shone. It not only had the fastest time in our zero-to-60 and quarter-mile time trials (and the best braking performance), it also returned the best observed mpg. Nice combination! "Divine balance and controllability, with good steering and feedback as well," Wiesenfelder said. "Flawless performance," raved Mays. "It's the 1st car that's made me smile," Jimmee said. And it wasn't just the performance aspects. "Brakes like this would encourage faster driving in any car," Mays noted. "It feels very stable at high speeds, like it can handle anything you throw at it," Robinson said. "I could forgive a smaller backseat in light of all the other positives," Wiesenfelder said, "but it's not small." Jimmee, who had complained about a variety of interior material surfaces, found that the 328i's other attributes overshadowed that. "If it drives this well, who cares what the inside looks like?"

What we didn't: Despite all the applause, the 328i wasn't a perfect car. "With each generation, it loses a little more feel," Robinson said. "Sure auto stop/start is worth a little extra mpg from the EPA," Healey said, "but it's customer unfriendly, and BMW does it worse than almost any other automaker." "The turn signal is a springy toggle, which I loathe," Wiesenfelder added. And a couple of reviewers commented on the "unnatural electronic shifter," as Mays called it: "It's the bane of an otherwise decent interior." Finally, it was very expensive to boot, a few reviewers pointed out. "BMW charges a lot for the cachet that goes with the hood ornament," Healey said.

The verdict: "The 328i is an outstanding combination of performance, fuel efficiency and roominess that makes its relatively high price easy to accept," Wiesenfelder said.

Key features

Rear-wheel drive
Turbocharged 2.0-liter 4-cylinder engine with an 8-speed automatic transmission
240 horsepower
Has the M Sport Line Package that adds a sport suspension, M appearance accents, sports seats, etc.
13.0 cubic feet of maximum trunk space (largest cargo space)
4-year/50,000-mile new vehicle warranty and powertrain warranty
4-year/50,000-mile complimentary maintenance
4-year/unlimited miles roadside assistance
IIHS Top Safety Pick for 2013
Satellite radio
Has power-adjustable side bolstering and manual-adjustable thigh support (1 of 2 vehicles tested with these features)
Has auto start/stop fuel-saving technology (only vehicle tested with this)
Has rear air vents with climate controls (1 of 2 vehicles tested with this)
Does not have Bluetooth streaming audio
Premium gas recommended


2013 BMW 3 Series Payment Facts
Price as tested: $45,745
Monthly payment*: $940.95

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

Going by their reviews the TL should be 2nd.

TheOMan

Exactly - I'd like to see the breakdown of how they awarded their points.

saturno_v

In these comparison the TL keep paying the fact that it is bigger so we need to figure out what are the terms of the comparison.

To me the right comparison should be "a 20K discounted 535i" not a "too heavy 3 Series/A4 competitor"

Some of the reviewer comments make no sense'''The TL "feels heavy"...hello it is BIGGER......

I totally agree on the folding seats and small trunk gripes.....the dated electronics are understandable, the current TL is on its way out, I would add the crappy automatic gearbox that maybe did cost an extra rung to the TL on this comparo......the last reviewer comment "The quality is just not there" is laughable at best....compared to what???



BMW will not stop charging these prices till reviewers keep being so starry eyed about them.....

TheOMan

Sorry for the double post, just clicked through and they do show the scorecards.

TeamAcura

Mid pack considering it is the oldest of the bunch. Not bad for a 5 year old model. I agree some of their criticism makes no sense. Still the best bang for the buck though IMO.

saturno_v

A small example of how subjectivity in these reviews is the key....they diss Audi interior material quality denouncing it is subpar and cheap in some areas " The interior materials quality was also dinged by a few. "It has a subpar interior, with hard plastic on the console", criticism that I actually personally agree with, while some other magazines think that Audi interiors are absolutely the best....

KeithL

Funny thing is even the updated Acura/Honda NAV graphics still look dated, all they did was added 3D, but the pale washed out colors make it look old.

JT4

- Exactly.

Litt

The BMW is soo small and doesn't have AWD. Volvo isn't really a contender. So the TL really stands out when you want a little space and capability.

Mr Marco

"The quality is just not there."

Shame.

Blaze9

Being 6 foot 5, saying the TL has the largest rear room scares me. Do the other cars really have smaller rear passenger legroom? Insane! Good thing I'm the driver of this car.

And this is awesome for a car which came out in 2009.

H_CAR

I think you owe the S60 a test drive. Very impressive car for the money

23109VC

I used to have a Volvo S60R... it was a great car for the money.. but reliability was sub par. I had numerous issues with my car while it was still in warranty..granted mine was modded....but compared to my Acura products, I felt the reliability was weak on Volvo. I'm skeptical that the new Volvo is as good as the old R given it has LESS hp...and the old R's power ratings were bogus..they claimed 300hp but that was NOT on CA 91 octane gas or in anything over 65 degrees F.. with 91 ocatne and 80 degrees you were making 270-280 MAX... car retarded timing because it coudln't maintain boost on CA gas... detonation issues...

honestly the TL is the best bang for the car in that bunch. please.. a 4 banger 328? that is piles smaller than a TL? if you have kids.. I hope they are little and I hope you only have one or two.. otherwise they will be cramped in a 328...

these car ratings are always subjective. BMW wins because most of these car reviewers are BMW biased... i've seen so many Car and Driver reviews where the BMW wins but whe you compare it's actual specs to the losing cars, it's inferior, then they justify it on teh "fun to drive", "cool factor" and other purely subjective categories...

if you need backseat space the TL is the one to get in this price point.. period. that was a huge factor for me. when I was car shopping I really liked the 335i...but it was just too darn small.. i would have had to jump up to a 535i to meet my space needs..but for the money.. the TL SH-AWD was a much better buy compared to a 5 series.

I also have no interest in getting to know the guys at the BMW service dept...

JM2010 SH-AWD

You're spot on as to the bias. When R&T tested the TL against the S4, G37 and I think a BMW, they ridiculed the TL for having small brakes, even though it's rear brakes were larger than the others and it stopped shorter than the other three. That is called engineering your outcome.

CanTLOwner

One thing that stuck out for me is the fact that they used a 6-AT. I think a 6-MT would have been a better tested model. I never feel that it is "heavy". In fact my 6-MT feels just as light as my wife's 328 xi.

JM2010 SH-AWD

Maybe they should have called it the "Not Large, Not Heavy Sedan Challenge"?

mynameisjacob

http://davelikescars.kinja.com/what-...test-471256537

^ there's a pic of the TL leading the pack... and the volvo trying to keep up lol

d1sturb3d119

iTrader: (1)

Rofl... I just hate the bias all these reviewers have against Japanese cars. Doesn't reliability count for anything in their reviews?! 9 years of beating on my 04 6mt TL and it drives like its brand new. Car still feels crisp and its motor still kicks ass! My buddy's 2004 bmw 325i is falling apart and drives like crap despite him treating it like a little princess. After canyon drives, auto cross events and general hard driving the TL is exceptional. I'd choose that over 10 minutes of slightly superior performance.

winstrolvtec

Once again the TL losses out because of the attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's the only mid size in the group and although it's restricted to AWD instead of RWD, wouldn't that be a tremendous positive or advantage (and most likely the first choice) to an AWD shopper in this range, also a mid size shopper, or better, both?

However, I think a lot of what was stated was warranted but the context is usually all wrong. Why not grade a car on how well it executes what it is trying to do and what it is instead of grading it on what those who grade them want them to do or be?

In most comparos, the common theme is that the sportiest, most aspirated, engaging and/or often the most capable, is the one that usually wins. Sure the other criteria is taken into consideration but that's where the points really go. Suppose you do not want that type of character in a vehicle, are you really driving a worse car and are you wrong for having different priorities compared to others?

saturno_v

Been a "tweener" car the current TL would never win these magazines comparos....pit it against a 3 Series and the TL will be judged "big and too heavy" in their book, compare it to a 528/535, they would get one optioned to the hilt and the TL would lose in luxury/features regardless that it would cost 20-30 grand less (mags do not pay for their car).....in that price range the ideal sport sedan has to be small and agile, RWD and "fun to drive" like a 3 Series...period....you can bring a midsize sedan as luxurious and as powerful as the 5 Series, at that coin level, it would lose against the 3.....this is how magazine set up these comparos.

The problem is that in that price range, the terms of the competition for the mags are set around the 3 Series specs so the extra space take a back seats and so are the AWD capabilities.

BMW is the only brand that can get away with putting a 4 banger on a vehicle in the 5 Series market segment.....I would be curious to see the mags reaction if Infiniti put a 4 cylinder on an M or Lexus did the same on a GS.

Actually I'm surprised that in this context the old TL managed to make it that far in the ranking.....better that the laughable 2009 C&D comparo where the TL, more capable, roomier, more powerful and more luxurious ended up dead last.....

The BMW 4 banger is not an impressive engine by any stretch of imagination except maybe for fuel economy....

jshaw

I think a lot of people are missing the point, here. BMW wins because they are more fun to drive. I know that's a subjective opinion, but car buying isn't all facts and numbers (past a certain point). If it was, we'd all buy Toyota Camries and Honda CR-Vs.

On another point, BMW gets away with a 4cyl, since it's understood by the clientele that it's still a decent powertrain, and it helps the CAFE numbers to balance against the 6cyl, the V8, and the M5. Does Lexus have anything like it, despite having a million hybrids spread along Toyota and Lexus? No. For Infiniti, is the FX50 worth it over the FX37? That's questionable. Is the M56 worth it over the M37? Not a chance.

So for companies like Lexus and Infiniti, there is quite legitimate outcry against more hybrids and 4cyl, since they don't have many good "top end," products, not even that many, "halo," products to balance out the more mundane cars.

The general public? They could probably care less.

saturno_v

C&D had the gall with a straight face to put the M3 ahead of the GT-R and a 911 Turbo...in that case they did bring int he price equation (surprise!!), I call that bias (read BMW ass kissing) in my book....

BMW can get away with a 4 cyl in that price range is because it is a BMW....

Probably Lexus does not want to put a 4 banger in its IS....I'm not the only one that would never spend north of 40 grand for a 4 cylinder.

Yes...big time....is the 550 worth over the 535??

The M and the GS are excellent products....I agree with you about lack of "halo" cars and sport models....that is the real limitation on the Japanese, smaller model ranges and they need to fix that.

In that segment many people buy because of the brand...

g37guy01

Because they like what the brand delivers?

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

^^

Maybe? I not bothered by another motorist getting X car instead of Y because something about X appeals to them more. But I am bothered by "experts" in their field when they can't control their biases and analysis a car comparison on objective information. I wonder if the editor/journalist read over the pre production finished product before they publish the articles, it seems as if in every comparison I read lately two cars are bashed on for the same reason yet one isn't penalized for it.

JT4

IMO not really. Most of the time it's more for the brand awareness.

g37guy01

Yes, because people know what the brand delivers. Which is another way saying brand awareness.

jshaw

I felt these points needed addressing. The rest seemed to be your opinion.
Specifically, the M56 has been called out by practically every recent review I've read so far, as being a marginal upgrade over the M37. Part of it is engine tuning, part of it is the overload of car electronics vs engine power in the Infiniti M (and to get an Infiniti M V8, most of that technology is bundled in).

A brand without good products will not attract anyone. Luckily, Acura still has SUVs.


At any rate, I feel my point still stands.

KeithL

Look at most Infiniti dealers and you will rarely even see a M56 on the lot, they clearly made the M56 to check the V8 box on the competition list. They bundled basic electronic to minimize the number of models since so few will be sold. Every review I have read or watched says take the M37 over the M56. The M56 is there to do head to head comparisons with MB and BMW. I honestly don't think Infiniti would have made the M56 if it thought it could at least show up in a head to head test with the V6. I'd bet the M56 is less than 10% of M sales. Look at most BMW dealers and the 528i is the majority of their 5 series inventory (at least here in GA). Big V8's are for headlines and the few that really want or buy them, the masses opt for far less equipped vehicles. I think Lexus kept the V8 in the LS as the only engine because they got good MPG with it and the tuning and tranny, but watch in a few years I bet they offer a V6 option.

saturno_v

To me, driving one I can feel the engine difference very well...if is not needed that is another story....

But again, back to your point, you could say the same thing with the 535 vs the 550

On that I agree...sales of the V8 version are marginal but that option need to be offered to offer cachet to the model, same for Infiniti, Lexus, BMW or MB

I agree up to a point....Acura definitely has mediocre models and most of all incomprehensible market strategy/product planning and I would say the TL is an excellent car almost despite of Acura and not because of it....still Acura as brand is not as strong as the German or Japanes counterparts mainly because it lacks the halo and the V8 models....so sales may me marginal but these cars set the tone for the brand.....

JT4

I can understand what you're saying. But IMO most of the consumers in the higher priced segments care more about what the brand stands for (prestige) than what it delivers.

Believe it or not most people are not true auto enthusiasts, they don’t read car mags or follow internet forums like we do here. We are a small minority of the overall market. If they are going to spend $50K and up on a car they want people to know about it. Like it or not this drives these consumers (not all, but a lot) even more than gas mileage or value.

For example, just recently I showed my wife the Hyundai Equus in a parking lot. BTW, she knows cars and brands and can pick them out from a distance but I wouldn’t call her an auto enthusiast at all.

At first she said "wow Hyundai has come a long way, it looks good". When I told her it was $60K and could get close to $70k she was floored and asked "what is Hyundai thinking".

I told her they are targeting the Benz S class and BMW 7 series customers with a lot of equipment at a much lower price. Laughing she told me, "there is no way anyone shopping for an S-class, 7 series or A8 is going into a Hyundai showroom to cross shop that car, I don’t care how great it is". I happen to agree.

She would rather have a 5 series or E class for the same money even if it didn’t have all the bells and whistles the Equus had. She also said that she would rather have a 3 series or C-class and bank the rest of the money before spending that kind of money on a Hyundai. And I bet a lot of the non enthusiasts feel the same way.

Sorry for drifting slightly off topic, just trying to make a point. Maybe I did, maybe I didn't.

012TL-GLM

hmm, interesting

The TL right in the middle, just where Acura seems to want it - the ATS folks should be butt hurt, losing out to Volvo LOL

However, as with any review, most reviewers are idiots and don't even re-read the bullshit they just wrote. Saying the TL feels like the Accord, and that quality is missing? What? The same reviewer would probably tell you a lamborghini sucks because it doesn't have drink holders.

Don't step in the bullshit, go drive the cars yourselves

crxb

comment on the web site from the link above

"Matt HardigreeUDaveLikesCars1L
Curious that the Acura TL did so well given that, generally, enthusiasts aren't a huge fan. Were you also surprised? From an enthusiast's standpoint how do they rank? Monday 2:47pm

DaveLikesCarsUMatt Hardigree1L
On the track the TL felt really big but we also take into consideration that the Acura TL is REALLY BIG. Especially compared to an ATS or 3 Series. We know physics wouldn't allow for it to take the tightest corners as well as some of the others on the track. And track was half of the driving component with city roads being the other. Our comparisons are also weighted on performance and value/features almost half and half as well. So TL scored well in ride and power pretty much universally. But also passenger comfort and value. But I agree, I had the lowest handling score out of the other editors for it so I'm surprised some were so high. Monday 2:58pm"

jshaw

^^ Test drive a M37 & M56. Then test drive a 535i and 550i. Comparing numbers won't tell any of the story.

When I was shopping, the M56 needed to be pressed too harshly before any difference over the M37 was felt (abetted by a lethargic transmission). The 550i had no trouble asserting itself over a 535, and indeed, almost all traffic, at will.

None of the cars were what I wanted, so I'm still biding my time (and dealing with Mercedes' formerly arrogant faith in their engineering - definitely not helped when the last MB service center/dealer moved further away).

BEAR-AvHistory

I just love these threads, Are we having fun yet?

wutaguy

So the one that sells most is last in this camparison test. Reminds me of Toyoya Corolla that comes last in every comparioson test, is still a 4 speed automatic, but is a number 1 seller.

saturno_v

I drove both, the M37 and the M56.....personal impressions are....personal obviously so I will not dispute your experience....I did feel the difference between the two despite the M37 being already a very capable sedan......numbers do not telll the whole story it is true but just for reference in the C&D tests the M56 is almost 1 full second faster to 60 (the gap between the 535 and the 550 is slightly smaller)....and when we are already in the 5 second ballpark, that gap is a lot and I find hard to believe you could not feel the difference between the two....

However C&D for both (M56 and 550i) express a similar judgement, in both cases the smaller engines seems to be the better value which should not surprise at all since you can get the same accessory level and you do not really need the V8 power nowadays.

jshaw

? I already posted exactly why I felt the M56 was not comparable to the 550, both relatively to each other, and to their lower brethren. Perhaps I'll explain it in detail.

I've never done, "0-60" in routine traffic nor on the highway.

The M56 hid its power deep into the accelerator - buried too far to have any tangible difference over the M37.

I've purchased the V8 option for most of my cars. I can safely say, I've never used the full power of any of them - effortless power was the real benefit. The M56 does not have that over the M37. Partly due to the M37 already having a powerful engine, partly due to the M56 being tuned for a "power wave" (as the salesperson explained it), which apparently meant the power was tucked away on the top shelf. Yes, I'd bet it's faster when you push the pedal all the way in, though for such a big engine, that would be laughably unimpressive.

Whatever difference there may have been, it was nowhere near as pronounced as between the 535 and 550. Again, I'm sure some 0-60 statistic will say otherwise.

saturno_v

All i can say is that the M56 "felt" more "torquey" in all situations...a "fuller", "stronger" engine compared to the M37 and yes the M37 is pretty strong. I did not need to push all the way to feel the difference.......on the other side you definitely do not need the extra power but this is another discussion....

g37guy01

I get your point precisely. You are suggesting people would rather spend a few bucks more and get a known quantity, e.g. BMW, than a less known quantity, e.g. Hyundai. I think you are also suggesting bells and whistles don't sell cars, which I agree. Form and function at least for me have to come together.