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.
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
Yes I agree but then C&D "flip" this paradigm on its head when they give the victory to the M340i vs.the G70.....the M340i is faster, actually with a worse balance between ride and handling (according to C&D) but it stickers for 16K more than the Genesis (the two cars provided by the manufacturers for the comparison test) so C&D has to decide...should we judge "how much car I can get for this amount of dollars" or "which car is better between the two even if they do not cost the same"....their evaluation is inconsistent from test to test.
The Scat Pack is noticeably quicker and with better brakes, better seats and better infotainment, you can get a better appointed Charger if you spend the extra coin.
Let's remember that C&D gave the "victory" to the M3 in a comparison test with a GT-R....nonsense...
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.
Any test of the Charger and Challenger has been very positive even in V6 form.
I guess Mercedes and other high end manufacturers should revert to grainy plastic for their dashboard and door panels.
The Charger interiors are obviously not luxurious in terms of real luxury cars I agree...but compared to a TLX IMHO they are, hands down, not question about it.....not to mention the fact they are even better from an ergonomic standpoint.....by definition modern cars add "lipstick on a pig" when you get to higher trims.....compare a base 3 Series with a top of the line...same interior design and functionalities, just much nicer materials layered on top if you hit the option list...
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.
It surprises me this big difference in dyno tests...they both use a mechanical center differential...were you testing the old WRX (the 2.5 265 HP to be precise) or the new 2 liter??
It surprises me this big difference in dyno tests...they both use a mechanical center differential...were you testing the old WRX (the 2.5 265 HP to be precise) or the new 2 liter??
2015 model wit the FA20DIT. The WRX (both old and new) has open diffs, whereas the STI has 3 LSDs that add more drivetrain losses. Also entirely possible that the FA20DIT is somewhat underrated, as tends to be the norm these days with turbo motors.
Weird so much difference....it would be interesting to compare other specimen to see if you got an anomaly in your hands.
The big difference in low end torque between the 2.5 and the new 2 liter is very evident when you drive it....I actually did not enjoy driving the STI that much precisely because the engine was so old school turbo...all or nothing....
Any test of the Charger and Challenger has been very positive even in V6 form.
I guess Mercedes and other high end manufacturers should revert to grainy plastic for their dashboard and door panels.
The Charger interiors are obviously not luxurious in terms of real luxury cars I agree...but compared to a TLX IMHO they are, hands down, not question about it.....not to mention the fact they are even better from an ergonomic standpoint.....by definition modern cars add "lipstick on a pig" when you get to higher trims.....compare a base 3 Series with a top of the line...same interior design and functionalities, just much nicer materials layered on top if you hit the option list...
Based on our experience and automotive backgrounds, it's inevitable that we will never agree...so agree to disagree.
Weird so much difference....it would be interesting to compare other specimen to see if you got an anomaly in your hands.
The big difference in low end torque between the 2.5 and the new 2 liter is very evident when you drive it....I actually did not enjoy driving the STI that much precisely because the engine was so old school turbo...all or nothing....
Again, I'm not disputing that in the real world the twin-scroll turbo makes the car quicker. All that I'm saying is that when you do a 0-60 pull, it doesn't matter (especially for AWD turbo cars) because your RPMs are not going to be below 4000 at any point, which is well above where the STI makes peak torque at.
I can't emphasize this enough: my point is that 0-60 is not a good measure of how quick/powerful a car is, and that 5-60 (no cheating with brake boosting) is a much better metric. It's that test which illustrates how the WRX is quicker in the real world than the STI.
Another example to illustrate that point: the Charger Hellcat does 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and the RS5 does the same in 3.5 seconds. They're both equally quick, right? But no, the Hellcat will do 5-60 in 3.7 seconds while the RS5 does it in 4.6 seconds, which is a much better indication of just how fast the car is. I've had the chance to drive both. The Hellcat is scary fast. The RS5 takes off violently like a rocket from a standstill and is incredible, but if you hammer the throttle while you're already moving it merely feels "quick". It does not pull that much harder than my E85 STI did, whereas the Charger pulls hard all the time.
Another example to illustrate that point: the Charger Hellcat does 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and the RS5 does the same in 3.5 seconds. They're both equally quick, right? But no, the Hellcat will do 5-60 in 3.7 seconds while the RS5 does it in 4.6 seconds, which is a much better indication of just how fast the car is. I've had the chance to drive both. The Hellcat is scary fast. The RS5 takes off violently like a rocket from a standstill and is incredible, but if you hammer the throttle while you're already moving it merely feels "quick". It does not pull that much harder than my E85 STI did, whereas the Charger pulls hard all the time.
Oh, do not get me wrong, I absolutely agree that 5-60 is much more realistic.....years ago a friend of mine in Canada bought a 428i and we played with another friend G37 Coupe (both cars automatic and AWD)....the 428i owner was convinced his car could hang with the G37 according to the 0-60 test numbers posted on C&D...well in "real life" it was not even close, the 428i got spanked all the time...the best it could manage sometimes was a nice early "jump" for the first few yards and then it was game over.
On top of that, when you go well over 400 HP, 0-60 start to lose a lot of meaning, you have to start considering 0-100 or 0-120.....same thing with my Cadillac CTS-V...because it's a RWD and it has hard time hooking up its rear tires (same issue as the Hellcat vs. the RS5), 0-60 is not very indicative of the car acceleration capabilities.....
Yes I agree but then C&D "flip" this paradigm on its head when they give the victory to the M340i vs.the G70.....the M340i is faster, actually with a worse balance between ride and handling (according to C&D) but it stickers for 16K more than the Genesis (the two cars provided by the manufacturers for the comparison test) so C&D has to decide...should we judge "how much car I can get for this amount of dollars" or "which car is better between the two even if they do not cost the same"....their evaluation is inconsistent from test to test.
The Scat Pack is noticeably quicker and with better brakes, better seats and better infotainment, you can get a better appointed Charger if you spend the extra coin.
Let's remember that C&D gave the "victory" to the M3 in a comparison test with a GT-R....nonsense...
Doesn't really fit as regardless of how the Dodge is dressed up its not up to the level fit, finish, materials, reliability of the Stinger anymore then a Genesis G70 @ $55,000 is to a Cadillac V sedan @ $101,000 fit can be made.
Yeah the BMW M340 is pricey but BMW is never going to be a bang for the buck. That said I did 'build" one pretty well equipped for $60,000. Its not going to compete with Genesis on price while its still sharing platforms with Kia any more then Audi or MB will. Nothing against Genesis bought a Genesis 345BHP R-Spec Coupe for my grandsons graduation a few years ago. Very nice car but I bought a BMW Coupe for myself.
On the test C&D seems a bit conflicted. they said:
In a pure contest of speed, the Genesis simply can’t keep up with the BMW. The G70 3.3T Sport is quick, but the M340i seems to be powered by the hand of Zeus.
Both cars' powertrains are smooth and refined, but the silken nature of the BMW’s inline-six and the smoothness with which its transmission snatches gears truly are marvelous. In its Sport Plus driving mode, the quickness of its shifts increases further, but there’s never any untoward lurching or pause in the power delivery. The tuning and calibration abilities of BMW’s engineers have reached another level.
Although the two sedans manage to generate good grip around the skidpad, the Genesis’s 0.91 g is dummied by the BMW’s 0.96 g. The BMW’s brakes also outperform the Genesis, stopping from 70 mph in 156 feet to the G70’s 164. It also is noteworthy that the BMW carries more speed down twisty two-lane roads.
About the Genesis they say this:
"on the way to the office, and in the real world of daily commuting, it’s the Genesis G70 that offers a superior ride-and-handling compromise.
The BMW is more expensive, but it also feels more expensive. Climb in, and the firm actions of its engine start button and electronic shifter set the tone. This is a premium product in every way. Like its dynamics, the interior of the M340i duly impresses, save for the iDrive infotainment interface that pales to the Genesis's setup in terms of intuitiveness and ease of use."
On measured metrics The M340 swept 100% all 11 of them from 0-60 to MPG. They go on to say
"All things being equal, you have to pick the BMW M340i here. It’s significantly quicker, its powertrain is more refined, and it has the richer interior, larger back seat, and bigger trunk."
However they sum it up with "Compared to the M340i, the G70 3.3T Sport represents an incredible value." Agree its a good value car. Acura is a good car value also. The BMW is according to C&D "more refined, richer interior, superior performance & premium product in every way" Oh BTW its costs more so it looses, really?
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-04-2019 at 11:21 PM.
It's hard to tell this is an Acura forum with how often other cars are discussed here. I guess I dunno anything anymore. I dunno how Acura will survive with brands like Kia and Genesis breathing down its neck and BMW and Audi pulling so far ahead. I didn't even know what a G70 was until it was brought up on this forum - or that it was car of the year last year. Wow. I must live under a rock. No matter how many commercials I see, Genesis is still a Hyundai, and buying a Hyundai or Kia was never on my radar. Show me a Kia Spectra with 120k in great condition and we'll talk.
I dunno how Acura and Dodge are being compared to each other. In my lifetime, that never happened, but I guess the Charger on paper is a bigger, badder sedan. I sure wouldn't buy an FCA vehicle based on the millions and millions of recent recalls in the last few years, but to each their own. My interest in Chrysler died when my parents swore of the brand after owning their 93 Concorde and 99 LHS - those were absolute hunks of junk. My friends have 6 year old Calibers and Journeys that are rusting out, need engine rebuilds at 70k miles and are worth nothing on trade. Ouch.
Acura is even getting stiff competition from itself in the form of the new Honda Accord. There is almost no reason besides the badge to spend the extra money... certainly not for performance. Back to the OP, the TLX has its work cut out for itself just to match the existing competition, let alone beat it. I dunno how that will happen.
As long as my Lexus keeps working the way it's supposed to day after day, year after year, they earned a new customer for life, regardless of what anyone else builds for whatever price. Lexus offers any sedan you want, FWD, RWD or AWD, in any size IS through LS, hybrid through V8, for whatever you want to spend. They top reliability charts and hold their value insanely well. My GS is a blast to drive... worlds better than my TLX. Acura can't even keep up with it's most direct competitor Lexus anymore.
Doesn't really fit as regardless of how the Dodge is dressed up its not up to the level fit, finish, materials, reliability of the Stinger anymore then a Genesis G70 @ $55,000 is to a Cadillac V sedan @ $101,000 fit can be made.
The reliability aspect is yet to be seen for the Stinger and the Charger has been reliable so far.
The level of fit and finish in the Charger is not bad at all. definitely is not Audi level obviously and still a little bit below Kia (I stress by not that much) but if you "dress up" the Charger it does change the impression of the cabin, same as when you compare a bare bone BMW 3 Series (try to rent one in Europe, with cloth seats) with one with all the bells and whistles.
The F30 level of assembly quality was not much better than the Charger.
The criticism was leveled mainly to the main dashboard plastic and that can change quite dramatically with the specific package.
I think that the "win" for the Stinger was totally personal preferences for the testers and some stigma still attached to the Dodge brand. The small difference in the level of fit and finish cannot overcome all the other aspect where the Charger is clearly superior including its electronics and infotainment system IMHO.
C&D would probably give a win to a 320i over a Scat Pack....
In other tests, C&D actually praised some aspect of the Charger.
Their judgments can swing wildly from test to test and it happened with many cars.
For example, when the North American VW Passat was introduced it won a comparison test and it was praised for its clean and elegant design, shortly after in another test it was criticized for being bland and looking like an American Impala (which I agree). Go figure!!
I don't remember if it was Car And Driver or Motortrend but in a comparison test a Golf GTI ended up ahead of your grandson Genesis Coupe!! A FWD hot hatch ahead of a much more powerful, faster and actually well finished RWD nice looking coupe.....
The reliability aspect is yet to be seen for the Stinger and the Charger has been reliable so far.
The level of fit and finish in the Charger is not bad at all. definitely is not Audi level obviously and still a little bit below Kia (I stress by not that much) but if you "dress up" the Charger it does change the impression of the cabin, same as when you compare a bare bone BMW 3 Series (try to rent one in Europe, with cloth seats) with one with all the bells and whistles.
The F30 level of assembly quality was not much better than the Charger.
The criticism was leveled mainly to the main dashboard plastic and that can change quite dramatically with the specific package.
I think that the "win" for the Stinger was totally personal preferences for the testers and some stigma still attached to the Dodge brand. The small difference in the level of fit and finish cannot overcome all the other aspect where the Charger is clearly superior including its electronics and infotainment system IMHO.
C&D would probably give a win to a 320i over a Scat Pack....
In other tests, C&D actually praised some aspect of the Charger.
Their judgments can swing wildly from test to test and it happened with many cars.
For example, when the North American VW Passat was introduced it won a comparison test and it was praised for its clean and elegant design, shortly after in another test it was criticized for being bland and looking like an American Impala (which I agree). Go figure!!
I don't remember if it was Car And Driver or Motortrend but in a comparison test a Golf GTI ended up ahead of your grandson Genesis Coupe!! A FWD hot hatch ahead of a much more powerful, faster and actually well finished RWD nice looking coupe.....
Yeah there is some weird stuff going on with the magazines. R&T just announced the Hyundai Veloster N as Performance Car of the Year. Came up with very convoluted reasoning for the choice.
It beat in no particular order.
Toyota Supra
Lexus RC F Track Pack
Lotus Evora GT
McLaren 600LT Spider
Lamborghini Huracan Evo
BMW M2 Competition
Mazda MX-5 Miata Club
Mid-Engine Chevrolet Corvette
Porsche 911 Carrera S
Nissan GT-R Nismo
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-05-2019 at 03:10 PM.
I bought the car when he was in Senior year, the Xterra he was driving was getting unreliable & was time for it to go. He got an internship in Shanghai for International Finance & Business. I paid the car while he was away. When he came home & got a job I transferred the car to him & he picked up the payments.
Grandsons Genesis
My 440
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-05-2019 at 03:22 PM.
I bought the car when he was in Senior year, the Xterra he was driving was getting unreliable & was time for it to go. He got an internship in Shanghai for International Finance & Business. I paid the car while he was away. When he came home & got a job I transferred the car to him & he picked up the payments.
Grandsons Genesis
My 440
The Genesis is a gorgeous coupe with a tremendous value for the money....
I think it was less successful than it deserved in the marketplace because at the same time the American pony cars improved so dramatically...
The Genesis is a gorgeous coupe with a tremendous value for the money....
I think it was less successful than it deserved in the marketplace because at the same time the American pony cars improved so dramatically...
Agree its aHyundai/Kia product so it automatically takes a hit. That said it results in very nice pricing along with a free maintenance deal as a sweetener. Has a 5X60,000 everything warranty & a 10X100,000 power train. Did not see any reason not to take a shot. Think its 2 or 3 years old now. Only been to the dealer for oil/filters stuff. He did a 3 week combo snow board safari - visit the kids he graduated with last year. NC to GA to TX to CA to ILL to VT to MA & back to NC. No issues with the car or the Jeep Wrangler that was also on the trip.
It's hard to tell this is an Acura forum with how often other cars are discussed here. I guess I dunno anything anymore. I dunno how Acura will survive with brands like Kia and Genesis breathing down its neck and BMW and Audi pulling so far ahead. I didn't even know what a G70 was until it was brought up on this forum - or that it was car of the year last year. Wow. I must live under a rock. No matter how many commercials I see, Genesis is still a Hyundai, and buying a Hyundai or Kia was never on my radar. Show me a Kia Spectra with 120k in great condition and we'll talk.
I dunno how Acura and Dodge are being compared to each other. In my lifetime, that never happened, but I guess the Charger on paper is a bigger, badder sedan. I sure wouldn't buy an FCA vehicle based on the millions and millions of recent recalls in the last few years, but to each their own. My interest in Chrysler died when my parents swore of the brand after owning their 93 Concorde and 99 LHS - those were absolute hunks of junk. My friends have 6 year old Calibers and Journeys that are rusting out, need engine rebuilds at 70k miles and are worth nothing on trade. Ouch.
Acura is even getting stiff competition from itself in the form of the new Honda Accord. There is almost no reason besides the badge to spend the extra money... certainly not for performance. Back to the OP, the TLX has its work cut out for itself just to match the existing competition, let alone beat it. I dunno how that will happen.
As long as my Lexus keeps working the way it's supposed to day after day, year after year, they earned a new customer for life, regardless of what anyone else builds for whatever price. Lexus offers any sedan you want, FWD, RWD or AWD, in any size IS through LS, hybrid through V8, for whatever you want to spend. They top reliability charts and hold their value insanely well. My GS is a blast to drive... worlds better than my TLX. Acura can't even keep up with it's most direct competitor Lexus anymore.
The competition from the Accord clearly has more to do with Honda taking it's sweet time in developing the next generation TLX, which will probably debut at the same time as the 10.5G Accord. Clearly the 1G TLX has been a dead man walking for a couple of years already, with things like A-Spec packages buying it some time. (I do find it curious that the stagger between the debuts of the 10G Accord and 2G TLX will be a full three model years; the Accord is nearly 1/2 way through its model cycle.)
With respect to Lexus, I tend to regard the ES as a more direct competitor to the TLX than the GS, particularly give their respective current configurations. (i.e.: FWD transverse V6, bolted to a platform originated from a sedan in their non-premium lineup) That said, it's unlikely Honda will ever go the V8 RWD route; so, we should let that one rest. And just a reminder for those moments when the insatiable urge to beat the dead horse that is the 1G TLX arises, this IS on its way:
As much as I'd love a coupe again, sedans themselves seem to be harder and harder to sell with crossovers taking over much less a coupe. I don't see them doing a coupe anytime soon especially with Honda dropping the Accord coupe.
As much as I'd love a coupe again, sedans themselves seem to be harder and harder to sell with crossovers taking over much less a coupe. I don't see them doing a coupe anytime soon especially with Honda dropping the Accord coupe.
Well. We still have the Civic Coupe, although I like the sedan much more.
I only say this because I see "coupe" in the new TLX shape. Like the Lexus RC or Infiniti Q50 Coupe.
With respect to Lexus, I tend to regard the ES as a more direct competitor to the TLX than the GS, particularly give their respective current configurations. (i.e.: FWD transverse V6, bolted to a platform originated from a sedan in their non-premium lineup) That said, it's unlikely Honda will ever go the V8 RWD route; so, we should let that one rest. And just a reminder for those moments when the insatiable urge to beat the dead horse that is the 1G TLX arises, this IS on its way:
I have a bad habit of hating my really-not-good-in-any-regard 1G TLX. I'll try harder to bite my tongue. That TLX concept is a good looking car - just like the current Model S! Still interested to see the specifications.
So anyone shopping for an M2 should seriously consider a Supra. I for one am delighted by these articles. I'm an Asian guy personally. I've had Supras in the family. I rode in a Supra Turbo as a kid and got to drive a collector I6 Celica Supra a few times. Nice that Supra lives up to it's legacy. If the day comes that I'm in the market for this type of car, it's good to know I won't have to spend much time shopping the competition. I will take it on the expressway though to ensure it doesn't vibrate.
So anyone shopping for an M2 should seriously consider a Supra. I for one am delighted by these articles. I'm an Asian guy personally. I've had Supras in the family. I rode in a Supra Turbo as a kid and got to drive a collector I6 Celica Supra a few times. Nice that Supra lives up to it's legacy. If the day comes that I'm in the market for this type of car, it's good to know I won't have to spend much time shopping the competition. I will take it on the expressway though to ensure it doesn't vibrate.
It's definitely in good company. I'm just wondering how the Supra would be long term. It just seems to be hit or miss with BMW's. Still don't understand why Toyota went the route with a collaboration. They've got the cash to do this stuff on their own.
^ I think it has more to do with timing than funding. While it obviously reduces the money for research, Toyota probably did not want to spend too much time in R&D in order to catch up with the rest of the sport cars market. I believe, without considering reliability, BMW's turbo inline 6s have been well received since 2006?
^ I think it has more to do with timing than funding. While it obviously reduces the money for research, Toyota probably did not want to spend too much time in R&D in order to catch up with the rest of the sport cars market. I believe, without considering reliability, BMW's turbo inline 6s have been well received since 2006?
Yeah, I don't think it's a matter of not having a great engine. It's the overall package with reliability (infotainment, electronics, transmission) along with that engine. The MKIV's were bulletproof and could be modified to crazy levels of power. I think i'd actually be hesitant to do much with the new one, but that's me with limited knowledge of the capabilities of the B58 I6. I guess time will tell. . .
11-04-2019, 02:06 PM
Came up with very convoluted reasoning for the choice.
