[DtEW]

Anybody receive their 01/01 R&T, and have read the Acura 3.2CL-S vs. BMW 330Ci comparison article?

Anybody sick and tired of these mismatched shootouts?

I mean, who doesn't know that a competent RWD chassis will just about always out-handle a competent FWD chassis?

Who doesn't know that a passable manual tranny is just about always faster than a passable automatic (given similar engine power)?

Who doesn't know that a $6000 premium (20% upcharge) will buy you a better car?

I could swear that these magazines are stacking the cards for the Bimmers. There's virtually no justification for comparing the CL-S against the 330Ci besides the number of doors. Why don't we have genuinely useful comparisons, such as:

1. 330Ci auto vs. CLK320 vs. SC300 - comparable number of doors, cost, power, drive configuration and tranny

2. 330i auto vs. C320 - comparable number of doors, cost, power, drive configuration and tranny

3. 330i auto vs. IS300 - comparable number of doors, power, drive configuration and tranny, only disparate cost

4. CL-S vs. C70 auto - comparable number of doors, power, drive configuration and tranny, only disparate cost


[This message has been edited by DtEW (edited December 10, 2000).]

 

[JW]

I think they're running out of ideas as far as comparisons are concerned.

I do like the angle of the 330Ci on pp. 68-69, though.

Also, I've noticed that R&T doesn't always order the sunroof option on their test cars. Anyone know why that is?

 

[cardinal_creek]

Originally posted by DtEW:
3. 330i auto vs. IS300 - comparable number of doors, power, drive configuration and tranny, only disparate cost


[This message has been edited by DtEW (edited December 10, 2000).]

I thought a similarly equipped 330i was about 10K more? According to Edmund's, a loaded one retails at $44,480.

 

[Martin M]

Just because two different car companies claim to have a product competing in the same class, doesn't necessarily mean they are competitors in the real world market.

If you have the money, obviously you will not purchase a 3.2CL over a 330ci, or a NSX over a 360 Modena, etc.

Sometimes I think they are running too close to their print deadline, therefore we see these wacky "shootouts".

Why don't they compare an Audi S4 to the 330ci? Same price, same size, comparable tranny, and two different ways of producing power.

Leave the CL-S, to the Volvo C70, and the Saab Viggen.

 

[ckolsen]

My take on that article was I got the impression that R&T wanted to send a message to Honda, that if they want to get better reviews, they should make the model more sporty, add a 5 speed manual, and maybe even make a RWD version, after all, it's almost blasphemy in the industry to make a powerful FWD sports sedan/coupe. I thought the article was extremely fair, noting the Acura's flatter cornering stance, better value, etc. Also, the article was meant to address people's questions about which company makes the most sporty sedan. MT compared auto to auto and people complained about THAT.
R&T does sometimes do money based comparisons (Best sports sedan for $30,000), then you might see a 325Ci vs CL-S comparison, just be patient.

 

[vvtipwr]

If you noticed it, most of the cars, however mismatched they are, are compared based on their marketing targets.

The S4 targets M3 buyers, and even though it is better comparing to a 330 because of price and size, they had a shootout with the s4 and a 99 M3.

The 3series, no matter what model, 325 or 330, is the primary target for the Lexus IS models as well as a CLS, and therefore, the magazines have tested the IS with a 330, with a 325 and CLS.

The fact that one car's price is cheaper becomes a advantage over the others, so therefore, price is not a common criteria these magazines use (they probably think buyers of luxo-sport sedan and coupes are willing to pay between 28k and 40k) and that's why I think we see mismatched comparisons sometimes.

 

[gto2050]

Originally posted by JW:
I think they're running out of ideas as far as comparisons are concerned.

I do like the angle of the 330Ci on pp. 68-69, though.

Also, I've noticed that R&T doesn't always order the sunroof option on their test cars. Anyone know why that is?

Their offices are in Newport Beach. Who could own a car in Southern California without a sunroof?

 

[urirx98]

Cl-s vs the 330 is a stupid comparison. THe loaded 330 is 10 gradn higher tham the cl-s, they did a comparisn of the cl-s vs teh bmw 328 adn tey picked the cl-s over it. They shoul dhave becasue its easily the beetter car. Standard things that are options on the bmw, like leather, HIDS, SS, memory seats and 6 cd in dash. U cant beat the standards on the acura. But that comparison to the 330 is rediculous. That car is fast and may beat the cl-s but it should for almsot 45 grand. Fr that price, id would have waited for the M3.

------------------
silver acura cl-s

 

[mrclam]

Originally posted by Martin M:


Why don't they compare an Audi S4 to the 330ci? Same price, same size, comparable tranny, and two different ways of producing power.

i think the reason for this is that the s4 is a prepped car designed with performance in mind whereas the 330 is more luxury oriented

 

[sigss]

I think Lexus should learn from BMW and offer a basic car with most if not all extra/luxury equipments as options. Not everybody wants a fully loaded car. You can buy the basic 330ci for about 35K with all the go-fast goodies. Tremendous performance deal!

 

[vvtipwr]

true, some people will say a 330 will cost over 40k to about 45k. But, that's with all "not-so-normal" options.

The one I priced on the website will only cost me 38k. The "must-have" luxury package is a waste of 4k if you ask me, because I can live without the rain-sensing wipers or the headlight wipers, or autodimming mirrors or wood trim. Add another grand for a useless winter package consisting of ski-rack. And these are what makes a 330 hit over 40k.

If you pick your options right(mine will come just with sport package, leather with aluminum trim, Xenon lights + moonroof), a comparably loaded BMW will top off at $37,500. Not too bad a deal I think.

 

[sigss]

And the manual tranny is the ZF Type C, the same one used in the previous M3 and 328i, which is of higher performance than Getrag.

 

[DJ]

The winter package doesn't come with a ski rack. It's a ski sack. (Along with headlight washers and heated seats.) And a 330ci with the sport package, xenons, leather, and moonroof comes out to $39,635.

Originally posted by vvtipwr:
true, some people will say a 330 will cost over 40k to about 45k. But, that's with all "not-so-normal" options.

The one I priced on the website will only cost me 38k. The "must-have" luxury package is a waste of 4k if you ask me, because I can live without the rain-sensing wipers or the headlight wipers, or autodimming mirrors or wood trim. Add another grand for a useless winter package consisting of ski-rack. And these are what makes a 330 hit over 40k.

If you pick your options right(mine will come just with sport package, leather with aluminum trim, Xenon lights + moonroof), a comparably loaded BMW will top off at $37,500. Not too bad a deal I think.

[This message has been edited by DJ (edited December 12, 2000).]

 

[DJ]

Lexus does offer base cars. And the 330ci does not sell for 35,000. Although if NASDAQ didn't bend me over the last few months i'd be driving a loaded one for 42,000.

Originally posted by sigss:
I think Lexus should learn from BMW and offer a basic car with most if not all extra/luxury equipments as options. Not everybody wants a fully loaded car. You can buy the basic 330ci for about 35K with all the go-fast goodies. Tremendous performance deal!

 

[sigss]

base MSRP for 330ci is 34990 and destination charge is 570. An average dummy should be able to get at least $600 discount.

 

[DJ]

No Sport Package? ewww...
You ever see the size of the rim/tire combo on the SpPkg 330i/ci? *drool*

Originally posted by sigss:
base MSRP for 330ci is 34990 and destination charge is 570. An average dummy should be able to get at least $600 discount.

 

[Golden]

Aaaahhhhh....B*LLSH!T!!!

This is in no way a stupid comparison. What was the quote in the article about the CL-S... I don't have it in front of me, but it went something like this... "at no time was I aware I was driving a FWD car..." Sure the BMW handles better, but not so much better that the avg car buyer is going to be able to tell. Same with power differences.... the BMW is a bit quicker, but not noticeably so. Remember when all you guys got your IS300's and were assuming it did 0-60 in 7.1 sec? No one noticed that it was slower than a CL-S until the magazines started saying it was. It doesn't feel much slower than a CL-S or 330 or anything else in this class.

It's time people start realizing that all these cars really do compete with each other on some levels. Not every single person in this car buying category is necessarily going to consider all the alternatives, but they still all compete to a certain degree. Cars don't have to be statistically identical to compete with each other. Who the hell made up that rule??? I'd never choose the 330 over the CL-S even if it was the same price, and likewise some of you wouldn't choose it over the IS. Why? Because everyone has their preferences. I could care less about the RWD and the manual tranny. Someone else may care very much about those things and hence eliminate the CL-S from their list... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't compete for at least some people. Things are not always so black and white.

------------------
2001 Acura CL Type S
"I always knew the gold ones were faster."

 

[4yoazz]

Well said golden. The Cl-s is a direct competitor to the 330ci. They're both 2 door coupes. Yes the CL-s has FWD and doesn't have a manual, but who cares? Obviously, they still have a market because they're selling them to somebody. This is what most of the IS owners have been saying from the beginning. The IS was not suppose to be a competitor of the CL-S nor the 330ci. Acura does not have a car currently in the IS or 330i's segment. Yeah, the Acura may not handle as well and may not be as fast but who cares? When you're behind the wheel you can't tell the difference. I'm not out racing my car trying to be macho. That's for people who need something to make them feel good about themselves. I like all good cars and I think all of the cars mentioned are good cars.


------------------

 

[sigss]

I think most people who like FWD cars have never owned a RWD car and most people who don't care about a manual trans. have never driven or don't know how to handle one. But if you have done both and are into performance and handling, then you'd never want anything else and would never even consider the CLS as a competitor to the BMWs.

 

[Golden]

Originally posted by sigss:
I think most people who like FWD cars have never owned a RWD car and most people who don't care about a manual trans. have never driven or don't know how to handle one. But if you have done both and are into performance and handling, then you'd never want anything else and would never even consider the CLS as a competitor to the BMWs.

I don't think you can generalize what other people like very accurately. My first car was RWD and every car I've owned up but two have been a manual. Would I buy RWD? Maybe... doesn't snow here, so it's not a big deal. Would I buy a manual? If it's my daily driver... hell no. I consider myself "into" performance and handling. I am not however, a big time auto-Xer or anything. If that was a big priority, then yeah, maybe I'd be more interested in RWD and a manual. But unfortunately, I wasn't born into money, can only afford one decent car and it must be all things to me. Therefore, some compromises are to be made.