When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
BTW, isn’t it interesting that the Infinity Q50 Red Sport almost never comes up in these conversations? And I’ve owned three Infinity sedans. The Red Sport is probably the best bang for the buck when you consider that they often have big incentives.
I may sound like a broken record, but one of the best bang for your buck sport sedan today is the Dodge Charger....street price under 50K for a 485 monster (The 392 Scat Pack), sub 4 sec 0-60, 150 ft 70-0, glorious sound, ton of room and trunk space and surprisingly refined and athletic despite the size. Best sport seats south of 80-90K.....
I do not own one but they are a hoot to drive with a ton of road presence.
I owned the Q50 (a Q50 Sport AWD) and it was a good premium sport sedan, inching more toward luxury than sport compared to the G37. Excellent fit and finish, my only complaint was the thin paint that would chip easily (same problem with my 4G). The DAS killed its reputation (yes no feedback but tremendously effective if you knew how to use it) and it has not been significantly upgraded (except for the new turbo engines)
0-60 in 5.7 seconds may not be lightning quick but it is more than enough for the majority of motorists not looking for an S4 or RS400.
Agreed Midnight!
In that regard, any basic 4 cylinder family sedan nowadays is more than enough.....all of them have at least 180-200 CV with some cracking the 7 second 0-60 barrier which was fast not that many years ago....same of more traffic than back then and same speed limit, freeway ramps did not get any shorter either
But this is not a segment when people want just "more than enough".
I may sound like a broken record, but one of the best bang for your buck sport sedan today is the Dodge Charger....street price under 50K for a 485 monster (The 392 Scat Pack), sub 4 sec 0-60, 150 ft 70-0, glorious sound, ton of room and trunk space and surprisingly refined and athletic despite the size. Best sport seats south of 80-90K.....
I do not own one but they are a hoot to drive with a ton of road presence.
I owned the Q50 (a Q50 Sport AWD) and it was a good premium sport sedan, inching more toward luxury than sport compared to the G37. Excellent fit and finish, my only complaint was the thin paint that would chip easily (same problem with my 4G). The DAS killed its reputation (yes no feedback but tremendously effective if you knew how to use it) and it has not been significantly upgraded (except for the new turbo engines)
And the Q50's turbo 4 cyl is already being dropped for 2020. This is another issue with Infiniti, too many models with options that seem to come and go, it can get confusing.
I may sound like a broken record, but one of the best bang for your buck sport sedan today is the Dodge Charger....street price under 50K for a 485 monster (The 392 Scat Pack), sub 4 sec 0-60, 150 ft 70-0, glorious sound, ton of room and trunk space and surprisingly refined and athletic despite the size. Best sport seats south of 80-90K.....
I do not own one but they are a hoot to drive with a ton of road presence.
I owned the Q50 (a Q50 Sport AWD) and it was a good premium sport sedan, inching more toward luxury than sport compared to the G37. Excellent fit and finish, my only complaint was the thin paint that would chip easily (same problem with my 4G). The DAS killed its reputation (yes no feedback but tremendously effective if you knew how to use it) and it has not been significantly upgraded (except for the new turbo engines)
I actually agree totally with you. I actually have thought about buying a Hellcat. But to me, the stigma of buying a Dodge is worse than a Genesis or Kia.
BTW, I drove a car today that I have lusted for since it came out - a Shelby GT 350. It did not disappoint. I stopped by my BMW dealer who know really well. I saw it in the managers parking area and found that is was owned by the service manager, who I have a great relationship with. He went with me for about a 6-8 mile drive. He encouraged me to run it hard. I’d love to own it, but my wife does not drive a manual and it would limit our ability to swap vehicles when needed. But that does not rule it out all together. Keep in mind that I’ve own some nice Corvettes, my last a 2009 Z06. But for some reason the GT350 just speaks to me.
I actually agree totally with you. I actually have thought about buying a Hellcat. But to me, the stigma of buying a Dodge is worse than a Genesis or Kia.
BTW, I drove a car today that I have lusted for since it came out - a Shelby GT 350. It did not disappoint. I stopped by my BMW dealer who know really well. I saw it in the managers parking area and found that is was owned by the service manager, who I have a great relationship with. He went with me for about a 6-8 mile drive. He encouraged me to run it hard. I’d love to own it, but my wife does not drive a manual and it would limit our ability to swap vehicles when needed. But that does not rule it out all together. Keep in mind that I’ve own some nice Corvettes, my last a 2009 Z06. But for some reason the GT350 just speaks to me.
You cannot go wrong with the new Camaro ZL1 or the Mustang Shelby...they are absolutely terrific sport cars at a bargain price...even C&D admitted they are getting close to Porsche good and in some trim to 911 good...that's right...
When I extensively test drove the ZL1 I could not believe you could get that much of a sport car (pretty much a super car) for south of 70K.....the 10 speed automatic is machine gun quick in its gear change and sooo smooth...GM claim it's faster than the Porsche PDK.
If you want more luxury, you may want to consider grabbing, if you can, one of the last 2019 Cadillac CTS-V (the car I currently own), it is an absolutely fantastic super sedan...the lack of AWD is vastly compensated (and them some) by the way it drives...the steering feel is beautiful and on the road it "shrink" in size to a proper sport car.
We definitely live in an era of American car renaissance.....
On BMW almost everything is an option. This car will top 70K comparably loaded to a Type S. Give me a Type S with around a 5 second 0-60 at right around 50k or less with some discounts and I could care less about the other 2 seconds. If you want to race everywhere pay a lot for maintenance then get an M series. I don't think the Type S is going to be that type of car. It will be a bit faster than the standard variant, brake better, look better and handle better (at a cost of feeling more bumps in the road). I don't in any way think it will be comparable to your "benchmark" performance wise or cost wise. People buying that car are unlikely to be the target customer for Acura's Type S. Don't forget that most Acura models will have a Type S variant soon enough so its not just the TLX.
No why the hell would you want a type S doing 5 seconds
You cannot go wrong with the new Camaro ZL1 or the Mustang Shelby...they are absolutely terrific sport cars at a bargain price...even C&D admitted they are getting close to Porsche good and in some trim to 911 good...that's right...
When I extensively test drove the ZL1 I could not believe you could get that much of a sport car (pretty much a super car) for south of 70K.....the 10 speed automatic is machine gun quick in its gear change and sooo smooth...GM claim it's faster than the Porsche PDK.
If you want more luxury, you may want to consider grabbing, if you can, one of the last 2019 Cadillac CTS-V (the car I currently own), it is an absolutely fantastic super sedan...the lack of AWD is vastly compensated (and them some) by the way it drives...the steering feel is beautiful and on the road it "shrink" in size to a proper sport car.
We definitely live in an era of American car renaissance.....
Just to be clear, you mean the V, not V Sport? Too expensive. I have not done a lot of research, although I know the car well. It would have to have a HUGE discount. I have a new neighbor who has one putting down 1000 at the rear wheels. Have not ridden in it yet, but will soon.
I just couldn't live with myself if I bought an American car. No other reason, just that one...
Thought you had an Acura. Designed in Torrance California, Built in Ohio, About 90% including the engine USA manufactured content. One of the most American cars on the planet. You want to borrow my pistol to end it all?
Just to be clear, you mean the V, not V Sport? Too expensive. I have not done a lot of research, although I know the car well. It would have to have a HUGE discount. I have a new neighbor who has one putting down 1000 at the rear wheels. Have not ridden in it yet, but will soon.
Yes, I meant the V.
The V Sport is another fantastic sport sedan and it can be had with huge discount if you can find one still at dealership.
It is one of the best used buy if you get an off lease.....one of the forum member got a lightly used V Sport for not very much money and that car put a big grin in his face.
Yes the LT4 V engine is very easy to tune and get, reliably, ungodly amount of horsepower.....I heard that even in stock form is underrated putting ~620-630 HP at the wheel...I did not dyno mine yet.....
Thought you had an Acura. Designed in Torrance California, Built in Ohio, About 90% including the engine USA manufactured content. One of the most American cars on the planet. You want to borrow my pistol to end it all?
Almost 20 years ago, after two brief bad experiences (one of them disastrous, a Chrysler 300M) I swore I would never buy an American car again, especially a Chrysler product....things change and so I change my opinion (as Lord Keynes famously said)
My wife Grand Cherokee SRT has been one of the best car we ever owned reliability wise...yes we had a couple recall and a Service Bulletin but done on our own schedule with no inconvenience. I'm impressed how the interior show such little aging, no rattles, etc.....and I'm impressed how thick the paint is compared to my Acura and Infiniti...a far cry from the Chrysler products of the past.
Thought you had an Acura. Designed in Torrance California, Built in Ohio, About 90% including the engine USA manufactured content. One of the most American cars on the planet. You want to borrow my pistol to end it all?
What I meant was a Ford, Dodge or Chevy.... They're just too cheezy and plasticity. It just doesn't feel to be made to last in the long run. Why people buy these things in such volume is beyond me.
Where I grew up, most people buy Toyotas and keep them 20 years. I guess the rest of the country is different.
I remember the joke about Dodge owner. We call him the walking man!
What I meant was a Ford, Dodge or Chevy.... They're just too cheezy and plasticity. It just doesn't feel to be made to last in the long run. Why people buy these things in such volume is beyond me.
How long since you actually set foot on a modern American car??
I just couldn't live with myself if I bought an American car. No other reason, just that one...
I myself probably wouldn't go that far as there are a few models that I would consider. (i.e.: S550 Coyote, Explorer, Camaro SS, C7, C8 and the outgoing ATS-V come immediately to mind......and I'd definitely give props to the discontinued SS)
I've spent some time in the Charger and it's not a vehicle that I've found particularly 'endearing', performance notwithstanding. (Not to mention wifey wouldn't be too happy if I brought home a Dodge Charger instead of an Infiniti Q50.) However, I do make it a point to consider one or two vehicles that I'm not strongly considering when purchasing in the associated segment. (When swapping my 16 TLX V6 for the 19 version, I did check out the Charger and the Passat GT....both had their strengths and weaknesses; enough so that I'd get either on the used market particularly given their relatively low resale value.)
How long since you actually set foot on a modern American car??
Auto show in 2016. Rented a Jeep Patriot in 2017 and I was modern American cars everyday at work. They seem nice, I just can't get myself to like them though. I just perfer older Japanese designs.
Originally Posted by F23A4
I myself probably wouldn't go that far as there are a few models that I would consider. (i.e.: S550 Coyote, Explorer, Camaro SS, C7, C8 and the outgoing ATS-V come immediately to mind......and I'd definitely give props to the discontinued SS)
I've spent some time in the Charger and it's not a vehicle that I've found particularly 'endearing', performance notwithstanding. (Not to mention wifey wouldn't be too happy if I brought home a Dodge Charger instead of an Infiniti Q50.) However, I do make it a point to consider one or two vehicles that I'm not strongly considering when purchasing in the associated segment. (When swapping my 16 TLX V6 for the 19 version, I did check out the Charger and the Passat GT....both had their strengths and weaknesses; enough so that I'd get either on the used market particularly given their relatively low resale value.)
The Chevy SS was a masterpiece as was the 2004 GTO! Holden had some nice stuff!
I see the Explorers have trim issues.
Camaro SS is pretty sweet. Way better than the bloated Challenger!
Think things shift around depending on what you are buying is used for. We need a big box on wheels with some off road capability.That leaves two choices Expedition EL & Suburban. For the past 10 years it was the Expedition EL 4X4. Our 2019 Suburban 4X4 is a Body on Frame truck that is civilized with the mag real time suspension to smooth things out, Interior is soft touch with all the normal car stuff. Reasonable economy for something weighing 3 tons, C&D tested "Our test vehicle exceeded the EPA highway estimate, earning 23 mpg on the same fuel-economy route. We got an actual 25MPG Raleigh to our beach place a bit over 200 miles over pretty much flat terrain.
Running gear is Camaro SS. 6.2V8 420BHP , 10AT, Posi, Brembo, Magnetic Ride Control & all the safety nannies for braking, lane retention, blind spot radar etc. Could have just as well done with out some of the nannies but they come with the truck. Truck is pricey but these are usually 10 year items for us & the BMW/Audi/MB just dont have the load capacity.
Think things shift around depending on what you are buying is used for. The US IMHO still makes the best light trucks in the world. The entire BMW X series for global sales are built in South Carolina which is the largest BMW factory in the world.
We need a big box on wheels with some off road capability.That leaves two choices Expedition EL & Suburban. For the past 10 years it was the Expedition EL 4X4. Our 2019 Suburban 4X4 is a Body on Frame truck that is civilized with the mag real time suspension to smooth things out, Interior is mostly soft touch with contrasting stitching on the leather.
all the normal car stuff. Reasonable economy for something weighing 3 tons, C&D tested "Our test vehicle exceeded the EPA highway estimate, earning 23 mpg on the same fuel-economy route. We got an actual 25MPG Raleigh to our beach place a bit over 200 miles over pretty much flat terrain.
Running gear is Camaro SS. 6.2V8 420BHP , 10AT, 4X4, Posi, Brembo, 22" Alloys, Magnetic Ride Control & all the safety nannies for braking, lane retention, blind spot radar etc. Could have just as well done with out some of the nannies but they come with the truck. Truck is pricey but these are usually 10 year items for us & the BMW/Audi/MB at similar pricing just dont have the load capacity.
BTW funny thing on the 0-60 i Things are shifting to high 3 low 4's very quickly. C&D road tested the Tahoe version of our SUV & got 5.7 second 0-60.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-03-2019 at 12:55 PM.
Think things shift around depending on what you are buying is used for. We need a big box on wheels with some off road capability.That leaves two choices Expedition EL & Suburban. For the past 10 years it was the Expedition EL 4X4. Our 2019 Suburban 4X4 is a Body on Frame truck that is civilized with the mag real time suspension to smooth things out, Interior is soft touch with all the normal car stuff. Reasonable economy for something weighing 3 tons, C&D tested "Our test vehicle exceeded the EPA highway estimate, earning 23 mpg on the same fuel-economy route. We got an actual 25MPG Raleigh to our beach place a bit over 200 miles over pretty much flat terrain.
Running gear is Camaro SS. 6.2V8 420BHP , 10AT, Posi, Brembo, Magnetic Ride Control & all the safety nannies for braking, lane retention, blind spot radar etc. Could have just as well done with out some of the nannies but they come with the truck. Truck is pricey but these are usually 10 year items for us & the BMW/Audi/MB just dont have the load capacity.
Bear, I had an Escalade Platinum as a loaner when my Caddy was doing a service (some important software update for the CUE system)...a real condo on wheels,that thing is so comfortable and surprisingly quick given the mass....fit and finish was excellent, the 10 speed automatic transmission shifts so smoothly it almost resemble a CVT....no steering feel whatsoever but that is not what an extra large comfortable SUV was built for....even braking was strong.
Camaro SS is pretty sweet. Way better than the bloated Challenger!
Camaro and Challenger have very different mission...the Dodge is a full size GT, unbeatable (for a 2 door) on long trips, an enormous trunk, the only pony car where you can put a couple of adults in the back (particularly important if you are a family man that wants a coupe as a main car) and it handles quite well for its mass.
The Camaro is a Canyon carver with a useless trunk and rear seat. The Mustang fall somehow in between, but still much closer to the Camaro than the Challenger (especially on practicality)
Camaro and Challenger have very different mission...the Dodge is a full size GT, unbeatable (for a 2 door) on long trips, an enormous trunk, the only pony car where you can put a couple of adults in the back (particularly important if you are a family man that wants a coupe as a main car) and it handles quite well for its mass.
The Camaro is a Canyon carver with a useless trunk and rear seat. The Mustang fall somehow in between, but still much closer to the Camaro than the Challenger (especially on practicality)
I just never got the appeal of the Challenger. I think it's weird to have a huge car that only has two doors, but to each their own. I do see inside them quite often and they do look really nice on the inside.
I detailed my cousin's 2013 Mustang a few years ago and I must say, it was a very nice car!
Bear, I had an Escalade Platinum as a loaner when my Caddy was doing a service (some important software update for the CUE system)...a real condo on wheels,that thing is so comfortable and surprisingly quick given the mass....fit and finish was excellent, the 10 speed automatic transmission shifts so smoothly it almost resemble a CVT....no steering feel whatsoever but that is not what an extra large comfortable SUV was built for....even braking was strong.
Agree, I was pretty surprised by it when my son in law suggested I take a look at one. No real road feel through the wheel but it does go where its pointed. Truck is the RST Black edition so the brakes are black Brembos. The non black edition of the car had red ones. Only shine is some trim on the headlights, wheels & around the blacked out bowtie logos.
Took these at the beach house was first trip in it. Maintained a pretty constant 85mph speed limit +10 for the whole 200 mile interstate part of the trip. Drives smaller than its 19ft.
Have not seen the Caddy but for a Chevy this has a lot of leather including the door cards & most of the dash. Hard surfaces around the Center Stack & along the lower left dash section that has trailer brakes, light switches, HUD controls, 4X4 & High/Low range dials. Console is all leather & the console door has a depression in the middle that is one of those no plug in phone chargers. More nice touches than my Expedition. Closer to the big Lincoln. 4 heated/cooled bucket seats & a 3rd row bench with individual DVD players etc. Lincoln has nicer materials but the $98,000 MSRP was a shade more then I wanted to spend for an SUV. The Caddy with the same equipment but nicer furnishings would have pushed over $100,000.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-03-2019 at 09:33 PM.
Agree, I was pretty surprised by it when my son in law suggested I take a look at one. No real road feel through the wheel but it does go where its pointed. Truck is the RST Black edition so the brakes are black Brembos. The non black edition of the car had red ones. Only shine is some trim on the headlights, wheels & around the blacked out bowtie logos.
Took these at the beach house was first trip in it. Maintained a pretty constant 85mph speed limit +10 for the whole 200 mile interstate part of the trip. Drives smaller than its 19ft.
Have not seen the Caddy but for a Chevy this has a lot of leather including the door cards & most of the dash. Hard surfaces around the Center Stack & along the lower left dash section that has trailer brakes, light switches, HUD controls, 4X4 & High/Low range dials. Console is all leather & the console door has a depression in the middle that is one of those no plug in phone chargers. More nice touches than my Expedition. Closer to the big Lincoln. 4 heated/cooled bucket seats & a 3rd row bench with individual DVD players etc. Lincoln has nicer materials but the $98,000 MSRP was a shade more then I wanted to spend for an SUV. The Caddy with the same equipment but nicer furnishings would have pushed over $100,000.
Very nice truck.....yes, definitely the non Cadillac models are the best value for the money...I do not have any problem with hard plastic as long as it is used for the "below the waistline" parts and it is nicely textured (and in all recent GM products I got inside, the hard plastic bits are well made).
Yes, no steering feel but at least is quite precise and not vague....
No why the hell would you want a type S doing 5 seconds
Originally Posted by Midnight Mystery
What do you want, more or less?
I'm interested to hear an answer to this too. I don't know if 0-60 in 5 exceeds or falls short of expectations. Back to the OP and subject at hand, is it possible for Acura (or anyone) to build a 400hp sedan for around $50k? I feel like that's a bit optimistic, maybe somewhat delusional, to expect such high performance for that cost. I'll let you guys answer that. I would ordinarily spend some time researching and crafting a post for debate, but I don't have time (nor really care enough). I just don't imagine that power to cost is possible for a lux or near-lux manufacturer.
I did scroll through these lists and my first impressions of the 4 second car list were a) most are Euros b) most are coupes and c) most are WAY more than $50k, except for the WRX and EVO, which is just another reminder to me that those are outstanding performance to cost ratio cars. Again, I'm just trying to gauge the potential for success with Acura not just making but also selling a Type S. https://www.zeroto60times.com/4-seco...-60-mph-times/ https://www.zeroto60times.com/5-seco...-60-mph-times/
I'm interested to hear an answer to this too. I don't know if 0-60 in 5 exceeds or falls short of expectations. Back to the OP and subject at hand, is it possible for Acura (or anyone) to build a 400hp sedan for around $50k? I feel like that's a bit optimistic, maybe somewhat delusional, to expect such high performance for that cost. I'll let you guys answer that. I would ordinarily spend some time researching and crafting a post for debate, but I don't have time (nor really care enough). I just don't imagine that power to cost is possible for a lux or near-lux manufacturer.
I did scroll through these lists and my first impressions of the 4 second car list were a) most are Euros b) most are coupes and c) most are WAY more than $50k, except for the WRX and EVO, which is just another reminder to me that those are outstanding performance to cost ratio cars. Again, I'm just trying to gauge the potential for success with Acura not just making but also selling a Type S. https://www.zeroto60times.com/4-seco...-60-mph-times/ https://www.zeroto60times.com/5-seco...-60-mph-times/
I wouldn't put too much stock in 0-60 because so much of that is dependent on traction, launch control, gearing, and driver ability. In the real world, how often is someone going to spend 20 seconds turning on launch control or dumping the clutch at 4000RPMs? I'd be much more interested in 5-60 or quarter mile times, as those are much more indicative of the cars power and acceleration in real world situations.
As an example, the old 265hp WRX does 0-60 in 4.7 seconds compared to the 305hp STI, which does it in 5.2 seconds. Why? Because the WRX only has 5 gears so you only have to shift once to hit 60, whereas in the STI you have to shift twice. In practice, the WRX is slower because it doesn't pull as hard, doesn't accelerate as quickly in gear, and is only faster on paper in that one particular scenario. If it were 0-55 instead of 0-60, the STI would be faster. And of course, the STI is considerably slower than a 335i that has around the same 0-60 (I would know, I've owned both).
I'm interested to hear an answer to this too. I don't know if 0-60 in 5 exceeds or falls short of expectations. Back to the OP and subject at hand, is it possible for Acura (or anyone) to build a 400hp sedan for around $50k? I feel like that's a bit optimistic, maybe somewhat delusional, to expect such high performance for that cost. I'll let you guys answer that. I would ordinarily spend some time researching and crafting a post for debate, but I don't have time (nor really care enough). I just don't imagine that power to cost is possible for a lux or near-lux manufacturer.
I did scroll through these lists and my first impressions of the 4 second car list were a) most are Euros b) most are coupes and c) most are WAY more than $50k, except for the WRX and EVO, which is just another reminder to me that those are outstanding performance to cost ratio cars. Again, I'm just trying to gauge the potential for success with Acura not just making but also selling a Type S. https://www.zeroto60times.com/4-seco...-60-mph-times/ https://www.zeroto60times.com/5-seco...-60-mph-times/
There are quite few cars with over 400 HP for less than 50K
The Charger Scat Pack hit 60 in less than 4 seconds, it is a sedan and can be had for under 50K
WRX and EVO are not longer the best "performance for the dollar" cars anymore, modern American performance cars are.
The WRX is still fairly outstanding value wise because you can get a 270 HP fully mechanical, real center differential AWD car for FWD less powerful hot hatch money...but the STI is not longer a strong value proposition.
The modern WRK can hit 60 quicker than the STI because it is a modern twin scroll turbo engine (a bucketload of torque immediately available) compared to the old school 2.5 liter turbo used on the STI which is weak at low revs.
The modern WRK can hit 60 quicker than the STI because it is a modern twin scroll turbo engine (a bucketload of torque immediately available) compared to the old school 2.5 liter turbo used on the STI which is weak at low revs.
Actually that's not true. The current WRX hits 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, which is also slower than the older model with the single turbo (again, due to the extra shift to hit 60). It doesn't matter that the turbo spools faster; in AWD cars you're launching it at 4500RPMs where you're already at high boost. The twin-scroll turbo helps with reducing turbo lag, which is more noticable in real-world driving, but not in 0-60 launches.
Actually that's not true. The current WRX hits 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, which is also slower than the older model with the single turbo (again, due to the extra shift to hit 60). It doesn't matter that the turbo spools faster; in AWD cars you're launching it at 4500RPMs where you're already at high boost. The twin-scroll turbo helps with reducing turbo lag, which is more noticable in real-world driving, but not in 0-60 launches.
The twin scroll turbo (meaning a lot of low end torque) does help you a lot even in the 0-60 (especially manual) because you do not get there with only one gear....
Why do you think modern 2 liter turbo can often hang with significantly more powerful NA 6 cylinder cars in the 0-60 run (for example, think of BMW 328i vs. G37) but it's game over after that?? Very flat and fat torque curve
I'm interested to hear an answer to this too. I don't know if 0-60 in 5 exceeds or falls short of expectations. Back to the OP and subject at hand, is it possible for Acura (or anyone) to build a 400hp sedan for around $50k? I feel like that's a bit optimistic, maybe somewhat delusional, to expect such high performance for that cost. I'll let you guys answer that. I would ordinarily spend some time researching and crafting a post for debate, but I don't have time (nor really care enough). I just don't imagine that power to cost is possible for a lux or near-lux manufacturer.
I did scroll through these lists and my first impressions of the 4 second car list were a) most are Euros b) most are coupes and c) most are WAY more than $50k, except for the WRX and EVO, which is just another reminder to me that those are outstanding performance to cost ratio cars. Again, I'm just trying to gauge the potential for success with Acura not just making but also selling a Type S. https://www.zeroto60times.com/4-seco...-60-mph-times/ https://www.zeroto60times.com/5-seco...-60-mph-times/
Am not a raw horsepower numbers guy because today in the adds its a meaningless number. Over all performance in starting & passing numbers should be key to any buying decision. 0-60/5-60/.25 mile are interesting but as said they are mostly about spec sheet debates rather then daily driver usefulness unless you are actually running the car in some events.
For $41,000MSRP you can get a Stinger very nicely equipped with AWD, 365BHP TT V6, 8AT, LSD, Brembo Brakes etc. 4.4 - 0-60mph.
This is an example a 485BHP Scat Pack Dodge C&D comparo test with 365BHP Stinger with the Stinger giving away 120BHP. In general the Stinger gives up 1/2 second in performance but by any measure is a very quick car even though its 35BHP short of 400BHP. On nice to have stuff for your daily drive its well up on the Dodge.
C/D TEST RESULTS - Stinger Price 365BHP as tested $40,915 Zero to 60 mph: 4.4 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.5 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 sec
C/D TEST RESULTS - Dodge Charger R/T Scat Pack Price 485BHP as tested $45,930 Zero to 60 mph: 3.9 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.2 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 sec
C&D Bottom line they said "But for several thousand dollars less, the Kia strikes us as the better-rounded choice of the two, with performance numbers only slightly behind the Dodge's and a more premium demeanor and distinctive appearance that make it feel like a considerably more special vehicle overall. Although we appreciate the Dodge's in-your-face attitude, it's the Stinger's more nuanced approach to sports-sedan excellence that sways us.'
They also said about the Dogde,
"Our test car was equipped with ordinary-looking cloth upholstery with a houndstooth pattern, and the dashboard materials fall closer to the rental-car end of the spectrum than you'd think given its $40K-plus pricing."
My add is "Choose Wisely". When guying at the performance end of the spectrum you really need to do your homework & be very very honest with yourself as what you will be comfortable in once the new wears off. Pure performance in high volume daily drivers always comes with major trade-offs. That could be price, comfort, featues & general long term livability.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-04-2019 at 12:13 PM.
Am not a raw horsepower numbers guy because today in the adds its a meaningless number. Over all performance in starting & passing numbers should be key to any buying decision. 0-60/5-60/.25 mile are interesting but as said they are mostly about spec sheet debates rather then daily driver usefulness unless you are actually running the car in some events.
For $41,000MSRP you can get a Stinger very nicely equipped with AWD, 365BHP TT V6, 8AT, LSD, Brembo Brakes etc. 4.4 - 0-60mph.
This is an example a 485BHP Scat Pack Dodge C&D comparo test with 365BHP Stinger with the Stinger giving away 120BHP. In general the Stinger gives up 1/2 second in performance but by any measure is a very quick car even though its 35BHP short of 400BHP. On nice to have stuff for your daily drive its well up on the Dodge.
C/D TEST RESULTS - Stinger Price 365BHP as tested $40,915 Zero to 60 mph: 4.4 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.5 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.0 sec
C/D TEST RESULTS - Dodge Charger R/T Scat Pack Price 485BHP as tested $45,930 Zero to 60 mph: 3.9 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.2 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.6 sec
C&D Bottom line they said "But for several thousand dollars less, the Kia strikes us as the better-rounded choice of the two, with performance numbers only slightly behind the Dodge's and a more premium demeanor and distinctive appearance that make it feel like a considerably more special vehicle overall. Although we appreciate the Dodge's in-your-face attitude, it's the Stinger's more nuanced approach to sports-sedan excellence that sways us.'
They also said about the Dogde,
"Our test car was equipped with ordinary-looking cloth upholstery with a houndstooth pattern, and the dashboard materials fall closer to the rental-car end of the spectrum than you'd think given its $40K-plus pricing."
Well actually that is one of these comparison tests when I do not agree with C&D in their final judgement at all and they do often contradict themselves (I guess final score and judgement depends on the tester)
The big Dodge crush the Stinger performance wise pretty much across the board, The Charger is roomier and its seats are much more comfortable (personal experience). If you want you can option the Charger with beautiful Laguna leather seats much nicer than the leather used on the Stinger and with what I suppose is faux leather and contrast stitched dashboard and upper door panels. Not to mention the HK stereo (optional) on the Charger blows the Stinger audio system out of the water and the UConnect infotainment system is better as well
The performance difference between a Scat Pack and a Stinger is very noticeable to the driver
The Stinger is beautiful, it is practical with the hatch and available AWD and a very good value for the money, I just think the Dodge offers even more.
No offense, but many of your previous posts that I've read make that a predictable answer. You're Challenger/Charger-based posts inevitably end up as FCA marketing to sway and convince. IMO, outside of engine performance, and possibly infotainment interface, there is nothing about the Challenger/Charger's exterior/interior design, switch gear, seating materials, etc., that I find desirable over my current TLX A-Spec. Excluding engine performance, my perception of these FCA offerings is they fall into the rental-car spectrum, as quoted above from the C & D article.
If I was choosing, it'd be the Stinger. Others, including yourself, will differ. However, both offer more than enough performance for normal driving environments.
The twin scroll turbo (meaning a lot of low end torque) does help you a lot even in the 0-60 (especially manual) because you do not get there with only one gear....
Why do you think modern 2 liter turbo can often hang with significantly more powerful NA 6 cylinder cars in the 0-60 run (for example, think of BMW 328i vs. G37) but it's game over after that?? Very flat and fat torque curve
Car and driver also did 4.7 in the old WRX (manual)
No offense, but many of your previous posts that I've read make that a predictable answer. You're Challenger/Charger-based posts inevitably end up as FCA marketing to sway and convince. IMO, outside of engine performance, and possibly infotainment interface, there is nothing about the Challenger/Charger's exterior/interior design, switch gear, seating materials, etc., that I find desirable over my current TLX A-Spec. Excluding engine performance, my perception of these FCA offerings is they fall into the rental-car spectrum, as quoted above from the C & D article.
No offense but you never drove a performance Charger properly optioned..there is nothing "rental" about....actually a top spec Charger is quite more upscale and luxurious than your Spec A TLX...that is not an opinion (if you do not like the look, that is a different story), I can specifically mention the details...from the Laguna leather sport seats to the leather (possibly faux leather still better than the grainy TLX plastic) and contrast stitched wrapped dashboard and upper door panels, real metal paddle shifters, real metal instrumentation and center console bezel, Alcantara wrapped steering wheel and so on....
Read again the C&D piece...I repost the "rental" comment for you
"and the dashboard materials fall closer to the rental-car end of the spectrum"
The comment is specific for the standard main plastic of the dashboard and upper door panels standard not the interior in general...on that particular detail I would have to agree, is not very appealing....but you can get a premium stitching package as I said...
As my "marketing for FCA", let me state it again, I do not own a Charger or a Challenger, any Jeep south of the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler is unremarkable at best (and, incidentally, they use the same crappy ZF 9 speed transmission of the TLX) and FCA still produces one of the worst if not the worst car currently on the market, the Dodge Journey, something I refuse to drive even as rental (and I did refuse twice)
I'm saying that it does not surprise me that the new WRX can be faster than the new STI in the 0-60 despite 37 less HP on paper (they are both 6 speed in manual form).
In your comparison between the old WRX and the new WRX you conveniently leave out the fact that the old car was 300 pounds lighter...ouch...
I obviously agree that all else being equal, if you can hit 60 with less gear change, a 5 speed will be quicker
Considering that I owned both (actually technically the STI was my wife's car and we had 3 WRX in the family, all three owned by my stepson, one previous generation WRX and two current ones) I can personally tell you how much more low end torque the new 2 liter DI twin scroll turbo engine has compared to the old 2.5...it literally jump like a grasshopper as you release the clutch even with minimum gas where in the STI 2.5 you have to rev hard...
I'm saying that it does not surprise me that the new WRX can be faster than the new STI in the 0-60 despite 37 less HP on paper (they are both 6 speed in manual form).
In your comparison between the old WRX and the new WRX you conveniently leave out that the old car was 300 pounds lighter...ouch...
Considering that I owned both (actually technically the STI was my wife's car and we had 3 WRX in the family, all three owned by my stepson, one previous generation WRX and two current ones) I can personally tell you how much more low end torque the new 2 liter DI twin scroll turbo engine has compared to the old 2.5...it literally jump like a grasshopper as you release the clutch even with minimum gas where in the STI 2.5 you have to rev hard...
Funny, I also owned a GR STI and a FXT with the same 2.0 FA20 motor as the current WRX.
If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, they measured a current 3402lb STI at 4.8 (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...d-test-review/) and a current 3314lb WRX at 4.8 (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/). So, neck and neck, even though the STI is heavier and has more drivetrain losses (I know for a fact the STIs are only putting down 240hp to the wheels while the WRX is around 235hp because I had them run back-to-back on the same dyno on the same day). And to my point again, the rolling start 5-60 time for the WRX is faster than the STI.
BTW, when you say it "jumps like a grasshopper", I'm pretty sure that's due to the hyper-aggressive throttle tip-in that Subaru has been using in their newer cars to make them feel faster than they really are.
I've been in the auto industry a long time in capacities that allow me interaction with all makes and models. I repeat, there is nothing about the Challenger/Charger, even in the highest trim levels, that I would ever consider "luxurious". Lipstick on a pig is still a pig lol.
I've never been a "stitched dash" person, whether leather or faux. So, that design element never screams luxury to me. I don't call the interior of my TLX luxurious, but nicely appointed. And yes, in the combination of design and use of materials, I prefer my TLX over any Challenger/Charger trim combination. Additionally, my TLX doesn't suffer the problems stated in numerous threads on this forum, so the ZF9 is a moot issue for me.
Again, IMHO, the only reason Challenger/Chargers get any recognition is because of the extreme HP/TQ numbers of the Hellcats, Demons, etc.
Well actually that is one of these comparison tests when I do not agree with C&D in their final judgement at all and they do often contradict themselves (I guess final score and judgement depends on the tester)
The big Dodge crush the Stinger performance wise pretty much across the board, The Charger is roomier and its seats are much more comfortable (personal experience). If you want you can option the Charger with beautiful Laguna leather seats much nicer than the leather used on the Stinger and with what I suppose is faux leather and contrast stitched dashboard and upper door panels. Not to mention the HK stereo (optional) on the Charger blows the Stinger audio system out of the water and the UConnect infotainment system is better as well
The performance difference between a Scat Pack and a Stinger is very noticeable to the driver
The Stinger is beautiful, it is practical with the hatch and available AWD and a very good value for the money, I just think the Dodge offers even more.
Agree you can always add stuff to the car but you are already $5,000 in a hole on the test car & the Stinger still has a lot of extras in it base price. Its all about choices. At $40K even you get a very complete car with the Stinger or $40K even a quicker Dodge stripper. Consider this will the base Dodge R/T-SP hold its advantage in the test with the All Season radials 245X20 on 9" wide wheels vs Michelin Pilot Sport, Summer Tires (Fr: P225/40R19, Rr: P255/35R19)
Go up to $44/45K in the Stinger near what the tested Dodge cost & you get
19-inch Alloy Wheels, GT style
3.5-inch Thin Film Transistor (TFT), LCD Meter Display
Accent Trim, Aluminum
Alloy Pedals
Aluminum Look Door Sill Scuff Plates
Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror
Brembo® Brakes
Door Handles, Body Color
GT Front Grille, Black Chrome
GT Hood Trim, High Gloss Black
GT Rear Bumper
Limited-Slip Differential (LSD)
Michelin Pilot Sport, Summer Tires (Fr: P225/40R19, Rr: P255/35R19)
Sport Steering Wheel
Tilt and Telescopic Steering Column
Variable Gear Ratio (VGR) Rack
Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror w/ HomeLink® and Compass
Smart Cruise Control with Stop and Go (SCC with S&G)
Sunroof w/ Power Sunshade
Supervision Meter Cluster w/ 7.0-inch Thin Film Transistor (TFT), Color LCD Display
UVO eServices w/ 8-inch Touch-Screen Display and Voice-Command Navigation System
Ventilated Front Seats
Wireless Phone Charger
lcantara®-Wrapped Steering Wheel and Center Armrest
Chamude® Headliner
Functional Side Vents, Carbon Fiber
GT Front Grille, Carbon Fiber
Outside Mirrors, Carbon Fiber
Sunroof w/ Power SunshadeUVO eServices w/ 8-inch Touch-Screen Display and Voice-Command Navigation System
Wireless Phone Charger
Just a thought on adding stuff. The Stinger with a $500 Burger Tuning JB4 tuning a 70/30 mix of 91 & E85 gets 441HP at the rear wheels. Thats roughly 490BHP at the crank
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-04-2019 at 01:53 PM.
It's true that you get a lot for what you spend on a Dodge Charger. However, the current model is at least 14 years old. They have been refining the same car for over a decade and it costs a lot less money to refine something vs starting from scratch.
11-01-2019, 04:06 PM
?
