What would you buy for $25,000

[Raza]

I still don't really get it. What confuses me is that normally, you rev-match when there are no gears engaged in the transmission; IOW, between clutch engagements. Since there is no "time gap" in neutral when you shift an automatic, when exactly do you blip the throttle?

There's a little lag in the shift time.  Generally, right after to click back to shift down, you lay into the throttle a little. 

It's really not a new, or confined to my car.  I had to do it in the E320, and every other Mercedes I've driven in manual mode, including the SLK Black Series (as noted by Evo, not me; I haven't driven it).  If you mistime it, you get a surge of acceleration.  It takes some practice. 

Some transmissions even do it for you now.  When I drove the Audi A4 3.2 auto, it blipped on downshifts.  I believe I remember reading that the Infiniti M does it for you as well.

[Eye of the Tiger]

[Vinsanity]

ah. Thanks Chris. From what I understand, it sounds like the slight acceleration would defeat my purpose of slowing down for a red light anyways

[TBR]

You are a little strange...

[2o6]

You are a little strange...

What's wrong with it?

[CALL_911]

What's wrong with it?

What isn't wrong with it? I mean, just look at the damn thing!

[FordSVT]

ah. Thanks Chris. From what I understand, it sounds like the slight acceleration would defeat my purpose of slowing down for a red light anyways

No, I know exactly what he means, I did the same thing in my Sentra. Didn't have a tap-shift feature, just a PRND21 lever. There's an ever so slight delay when you go from D-2 or 2-1 where the tranny seems disconnected from the engine. Just a split second. If you time it just right, you can blip the throttle between gears without it providing any acceleration. It is rather useless, really, but it's something to pass the time in your boring-o-matic.

[2o6]

What isn't wrong with it? I mean, just look at the damn thing!

I like it.

[TBR]

Besides being hideous (disclaimer for ChrisV, since he seems to be paying attention to this thread: I am aware that is a personal opinion), it is the worst of both worlds: impractical and boring.

Plus it is a Lexus.

[2o6]

SO? What's wrong with a lexus.


I happen to like the soarer.

[TBR]

The last part was sarcastic, the first wasn't. Impracticality is fine if a car is fun, but by all accounts the SC430 isn't fun.

[CALL_911]

The last part was sarcastic, the first wasn't. Impracticality is fine if a car is fun, but by all accounts the SC430 isn't fun.

Sure it is.


(rolling it down a cliff, and watching it explode)

[2o6]

Why not? This Soarer would be my highway cruiser.

[TBR]

Why not? This Soarer would be my highway cruiser.

I would want a trunk that could actually haul a weekend's worth of luggage and a liveable backseat in a highway cruiser. Maybe my expectations are just different, but if I am to buy a car to use principally as a highway car it has to be practical for long trips, the SC430 is not. Give me a S4 convertible any day (or even a 9-3 Aero 'vert).

[Raza]

Personally, if I'm going to buy a car for cruising, I'd pick up an old SL or something like that. 

[JYODER240]

I like it.

You should drive one. I'll never understand how they made a car that rides so firmly handle so bad.

[Vinsanity]

when I was shopping, my coworker told me I should get an SC430. I probably would have if I the ones in my price range met my mileage/model year criteria (fewer miles and at least as new as the TL I had)

[Raza]

when I was shopping, my coworker told me I should get an SC430. I probably would have if I the ones in my price range met my mileage/model year criteria (fewer miles and at least as new as the TL I had)

They don't handle well, and Yoder's right; for how poorly they handle, they're not particularly comfortable. 

[ChrisV]

I wouldn't mind the engine out of an SC430, however, in a project car. 

[FordSVT]

I wouldn't mind the engine out of an SC430, however, in a project car. 

Meh, there are better, cheaper engines I'd consider before that one for any kind of project car.

[ChrisV]

Meh, there are better, cheaper engines I'd consider before that one for any kind of project car.

You forget, I have the SC400 engine for my '63 Comet. The SC430 is just a 4.3 liter version of that engine, with VVT. Good power potential and very compact design (one of the smallest DOHC V8s in existence). The 1UZ/2UZ V8 is rapidly becoming the engine swap of choice in Australia and NZ, over the GM V8, and gaining a foothold here, due to it's low cost in the aftermarket.

This is the one I have in my garage:



I paid $700 for it.

[FordSVT]

Hmm. Good for you then!

[Raza]

No, I know exactly what he means, I did the same thing in my Sentra. Didn't have a tap-shift feature, just a PRND21 lever. There's an ever so slight delay when you go from D-2 or 2-1 where the tranny seems disconnected from the engine. Just a split second. If you time it just right, you can blip the throttle between gears without it providing any acceleration. It is rather useless, really, but it's something to pass the time in your boring-o-matic.

This is the best description I've heard of what I'm talking about, from Evo's review of the SLK Black.

"The 'box isn't programmed to deliver a shift-smoothing blip, so you have to heel-and-toe to avoid messy locking of the rear wheels.  It can be very rewarding when it works, but occasionally you hit the downshift paddle while simultaneously blipping the throttle and the gearbox thinks you're going too fast for a downshift and sticks to its current gear.  The result is a sudden burst of acceleration when you want to be slowing..."

That's about exactly how the Passat's transmission acts.  Like most things, timing is ever so important. 

[Vinsanity]

They don't handle well, and Yoder's right; for how poorly they handle, they're not particularly comfortable. 

meh. I would buy one just to upstage the Lexus IS owners at work who rave all day about nonsense like IS > CTS

Particularly my girlfriend.

[Raza]

meh. I would buy one just to upstage the Lexus IS owners at work who rave all day about nonsense like IS > CTS

Particularly my girlfriend.

Which IS?  The current IS or the IS300?  Because, I do like the smaller IS300 with its sharper looks better, but the new one is like a Grand Prix with stupid rear doors. 

But the SC430, besides being mildly attractive after a few drinks, isn't really all that great.  A Jag XK8/R looks better, handles better, and supposedly rides better.  It also depreciates faster than a smooth stone in still water, so it makes a great used buy.

[Vinsanity]

Well the ones talking smack (more like teasing) are a couple of IS250 owners (admittedly, that was also on my shopping list until I decided to lower my price range). My gf drives an IS300, but she wanted to join the fun anyways.

Isn't there a reason Jags depreciate so quickly?

[Raza]

Well the ones talking smack (more like teasing) are a couple of IS250 owners (admittedly, that was also on my shopping list until I decided to lower my price range). My gf drives an IS300, but she wanted to join the fun anyways.

Isn't there a reason Jags depreciate so quickly?

I'd imagine low demand is the biggest reason.  I doubt they're any less reliable than a Mercedes or BMW or Lexus.  Considering transmission doesn't matter much to you, the next time you're sandwiched by two SUVs you should look into one.   

[Vinsanity]

I'd imagine low demand is the biggest reason.  I doubt they're any less reliable than a Mercedes or BMW or Lexus.  Considering transmission doesn't matter much to you, the next time you're sandwiched by two SUVs you should look into one.  

Well I dunno about now, but you probably know that the pre-Ford Jags were NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. And since the modern ones still look the same as the old POS's, people probably assume that the legacy of mechanical failure lives on.

Personally, if I got a Jag, I would feel like I had to wear my fedora hat every single time I drove the car
Heck, I already feel like I should wear it when I drive to work

[Raza]

Well I dunno about now, but you probably know that the pre-Ford Jags were NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. And since the modern ones still look the same as the old POS's, people probably assume that the legacy of mechanical failure lives on.

Personally, if I got a Jag, I would feel like I had to wear my fedora hat every single time I drove the car
Heck, I already feel like I should wear it when I drive to work

Well, they had electrical problems before Ford stepped in.  Since then they were fine.  And ChrisV's owned somewhere around 30 Jags, and they all never had a single problem.

[ChrisV]

  And ChrisV's owned somewhere around 30 Jags, and they all never had a single problem.

lol! No, I've owned 4. My father in law owned 3 '67 XKE's, as well.

There are definitely issues with pre-Ford jags, though not quite as bad as people make them out to be. The main issue for the early XJs was the stupidly complex dual fuel tank setup with multiple Lucas solenoids to control it. You can imagine how well those fare over time. One of the Jags I had was down to one fuel tank and had the rest of the system disconnected when I got it. It also was a Connecticut car with massive rust issues that ended up making it undriveable. The other XJ I had was in fact very reliable, even though it was an '86.



later XJs, and the new ones are much more reliable.

The issue with depreciation is due to being an expensive luxury sedan. ALL luxury sedans have massive depreciation, even Mercedes. I'd never buy a new one unless I was stupid rich and planned on keeping it forever to outlast the depreciation.