|
In Reply to: Observations on July R&T Comparison Test (long) posted by Barnacle Bill on June 08, 2002 at 06:59:47:
So what does R&T use for their comparison test? You guessed it. The same Platinum X-Type with every option available. Then what do they do? Place it 10 out of 11 for being too expensive. They reported it would have scored mid-pack were it not for the price. The final blow was when they gave a perfect score to the 330i for "RIDE" and a lower score for the X-Type. Having owned a 330Ci (with the sport package), to score that car higher for ride than the X-Type, your butt has to be shot with novocaine.
Mike
Although I ended up not purchasing in this class at all, I continue to follow developments in the "entry level sport/luxury sedan" class. The July issue of R&T has a comparison test of 11 of these. In addition to the usual track & skidpad testing, they drove the cars around for 3 days in the mountains & deserts of Arizona. Before the results, a few observations:
They basically like all the cars - just some a little more than others. "Depending on your tastes, you can buy any of these cars and be happy. They are all fast and fun to drive, and they can all keep up with each other effortlessly." "This is a very good group of cars".
% of the test cars mostly had 3.0 liter engines. The exceptions were the Acura (3.2l), Cadillac (3.2l), Infiniti (3.5l), Mercedes-Benz (3.2l), Saab (2.3l Turbol) & Volvo (2.3l turbo). HP ratings were as follows:
Infiniti G35: 260 HP
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S: 260 HP
Saab 9-5 Aero: 250 HP
Volvo S60 T5: 247 HP
Jaguar X-Type 3.0: 231 HP
BMW 330i: 225 HP
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro: 220 HP
Cadillac CTS: 220 HP
Lincoln LS: 220 HP
Lexus IS 300: 215 HP
Mercedes-Benz C320: 215 HP
The test cars all had manual transmissions except the Acura & Infiniti. Coincidentally, the two with the most HP. The Infiniti ran a close second place in acceleration (too close for the difference to be statistically significant, in fact). So, if the manual had been available it probably would have, for example, won 0-60 time by 0.4 seconds instead of losing by 0.1 (0.3 being considered the boundary of statistical significance). Personally, if manuals were not available all around I think they should have tested all cars with auto trannies, to level the playing field.
The majority of the test cars were RWD, the exceptions being Acura (FWD), Audi (AWD), Jaguar (AWD), Saab (FWD) & Volvo (FWD). The Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Infiniti, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz & Volvo were equipped with their respective optional sport suspension packages. The Lexus was equipped with its optional limited-slip differential.
In addition to rankings by score, each of the 11 testers offered their personnal choice. Those broke down as follows:
BMW 330i: 5
Infiniti G35: 2
Lexus IS 300: 1
Saab 9-5 Aero: 1
Mercedes-Benz C320: 1
Cadillac CTS: 1
Based on total score, the rankings were:
Infiniti G35
BMW 330i
Lexus IS 300
Saab 9-5 Aero
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Mercedes-Benz C320
Cadillac CTS
Volvo S60 T5
Jaguar X-Type 3.0
Lincoln LS
They calculated this total score with 200 possible points each for "Performance", "Subjective Ratings" and "Price". Within the first two categories, things were further broken down into sub-categories each with a maximum number of points of between 10 & 30 available. The best car in each subcategory (or in price) got the maximum points and the rest got points linearly scaled down from there.
I was pleased to find 3 of my personal top 4 in their top 4. The difference being that the Jag was out of their top 4 and the Lexus (which left me unimpressed when I test drove it) was in instead. Note that this ranking does NOT correlate very well with HP - #3 Lexus tied for last place in HP, #6 Acura tied for 1st place in HP, #10 Jaguar was a respectable middle-of-the-pack #5 in HP. However, the Lincoln also comes in a 3.9l, 252 HP V8 trim, which probably would have helped its showing (the rest of the cars were in their highest-performance trim, excluding "M" & "AMG" types).
Factoring price out, the rankings become:
BMW 330i
Infiniti G35
Saab 9-5 Aero
Lexus IS 300
Mercedes-Benz C320
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Jaguar X-Type 3.0
Cadillac CTS
Volvo S60 T5
Lincoln LS
Not a lot of change, but now the top 3 are in my personal top 4. Only the MB & Jag move more than 1 place when you factor price in or out. I'd say this reflects both being somewhat over-priced for what you get, so that factoring in price drags them down in overall ranking.
Looking only at performance (0-60 time, 1/4 mile time, slalom speed, skidpad, braking 60-0 & 80-0, fuel economy), the rankings become:
BMW 330i
Infiniti G35
Lexus IS 300
Saab 9-5 Aero
Mercedes-Benz C320
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro
Volvo S60 T5
Jaguar X-Type 3.0
Cadillac CTS
Lincoln LS
Note the same top 4 as the other rankings. The Cadi dropped down below the Jag here.
Looking just at 0-60 time:
BMW 330i
Infiniti G35
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Saab 9-5 Aero / Jaguar X-Type 3.0 (tie)
Mercedes-Benz C320
Lexus IS 300 / Volvo S60 T5 (tie)
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro
Cadillac CTS
Lincoln LS
The Jag turned in a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds, which is within statistical insignificance of Jaguar's 6.5 second (IIRC) claim. That trailed #1 BMW by 0.6, though. Infiniti trailed BMW by only 0.1 second, which is statistically a tie.
Looking at 1/4 mile time only:
BMW 330i / Infiniti G35 (tie)
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Saab 9-5 Aero / Mercedes-Benz C320 / Jaguar X-Type 3.0 (tie)
Lexus IS 300 / Audi A4 3.0 Quattro (tie)
Volvo S60 T5
Cadillac CTS
Lincoln LS
Again, I think Infiniti would have taken a clear lead in both acceleration tests had it been the manual which will be available this fall. The Jag's hanging in the upper half of the pack.
Looking at Slalom only:
BMW 330i
Infiniti G35
Lexus IS 300
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro / Acura 3.2 TL Type-S / Mercedes-Benz C320 (tie)
Saab 9-5 Aero
Lincoln LS
Jaguar X-Type 3.0 / Volvo S60 T5 (tie)
Cadillac CTS
Looking at Skidpad only:
BMW 330i / Infiniti G35 (tie)
Audi A4 3.0 Quattro
Mercedes-Benz C320
Lexus IS 300 / Saab 9-5 Aero / Lincoln LS (tie)
Volvo S60 T5 / Cadillac CTS (tie)
Acura 3.2 TL Type-S
Jaguar X-Type 3.0
By these two measures of "handling", the Jaguar's much-hyped AWD doesn't seem to be doing it much good (at least on the dry roads & tracks of this test). Audi's seems to work better, although it doesn't take the lead from the best RWD cars in either test.
Finally, here are some quotes regarding the X-Type:
"So how, you ask, did a car as nice as the Jaguar X-Type end up second to last in this great big comparison test?
That's easy: Price."
"There were other factors, too, of course.
The chief complaint about this car was that, while it looks pretty much like a Jaguer (with Contour overtones and undertones, as one cynic remarked), it lacks some of that subtle grace and suspension magic that has always defined the marque."
"Overall, the X-Type is a comfortable, pleasant and useful car with a well-developed chassis. It's a competant cross-country cruiser - albeit and expensive one - that can also handle the mountains."
So, my personal advice to Jaguar for a better showing in this kind of test is, next time they re-engineer the platform, make it RWD with AWD an option as on BMW's, and tune the RWD version for class-leading performance. I think if the car came out closer to the top in the overall rankings, it would not be out of line on price.
© 1997 -
2009
Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.
