G35 vs. 330i sedans why did you choose one over the other?

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:40:07 -0700, "Hagrinas Mivali"
> wrote:

>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:40:27 -0400, "Dave Stone" <n=> wrote:
>>
>> >The early 90's Q45 was a pretty cool car imho...
>>
>> I used to think so, until I drove one. Dog-slow and horrible
>> handling.
>
>(snip)
>
>I don't know what model you drove or when you drove it, or how well
>maintained it was, but my Q45 is powerful and handles quite well. A lot can
>happen to a vehicle in 13 years.

It was one of the first-gen cars. I will give you that the car was so
awful, that I'm willing to entertain the idea that it was not
representative. I mean, this thing was gutless slow, and handled
*poorly*.

I'll note that the only time I've driven a Lexus LS400, it was a
similar experience - very disappointing. Maybe cars with that long a
wheelbase are just not going to do it for me. But what happened to
the omph that one would expect from a DOHC V8?

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was one of the first-gen cars. I will give you that the car was so
> awful, that I'm willing to entertain the idea that it was not
> representative. I mean, this thing was gutless slow, and handled
> *poorly*.
>
> I'll note that the only time I've driven a Lexus LS400, it was a
> similar experience - very disappointing. Maybe cars with that long a
> wheelbase are just not going to do it for me. But what happened to
> the omph that one would expect from a DOHC V8?
>

I drove an LS400 when I was shopping for my Q45. A lot of people around
where I live thought of them as similar cars. But they were nothing alike.
The Lexus lacked power and handled much more like a sedan, while the Q45
still had the feel of a sports car, which surprised me. The Lexus was a
very polite car; too polite for my tastes. It did have some nice features
and gadgets that the Q45 lacked, but it also lacked balls. At the time, I
thought that the Lexus might be a perfect car, but for my wife and not for
me. The Lexus dealer was convinced that once I drove it, I'd be back. I
actually might have gone back before I tried the Q45, but not after that.

1) You're right, just as a bus is not an automobile.

2) One of those mysteries of life...Ask my friend Zaphod Beeblebrox about
that. He's back, you know.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Hagrinas Mivali" > wrote in message
...
[.........]
>
> You must be confused, then. That's not an automobile at all. How can a
> butterfy own a dog anyway?

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> 1) You're right, just as a bus is not an automobile.

I had to go look that one up. I knew that it must move by itself, according
to the etymology. But they don't really move by themselves. They need a
driver. But in what sense does the driver drive the vehicle to do anything?
It's not as if the driver is driving a wagon and must get the horses to
move.

But getting back to automobile, it must be a passenger vehicle, and it must
be self propelled. It usually has four wheels, which would certainly rule
out any dogs. But it does not have to have four wheels. A bus carries
passengers and is self propelled. Or at least it could be with cruise
control. There was a movie called Speed that was about this bus that had to
move at a constant speed...where was I? Oh, yes. A bus does carry
passengers, but a dog does not. I guess a St. Bernard could carry
passengers, especially children, but it does not have four wheels. I know
that it's not an absolute requirement to have four wheels, and St. Bernards
are self propelled, so they may be buses. But I don't think they qualify as
vehicles, so that would rule it out. In any event, I looked at the photo you
referenced, and that looks nothing like a vehicle or a St. Bernard. It
doesn't even look like the 9th century man from Clairvaux who was the
original St. Bernard. I don't think he had a car or a bus, so I have no clue
why they named a dog after him.

Does that clear things up?

Quite.

"...etymology..."

Also, you're using big words for this automotive newsgroup.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Hagrinas Mivali" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 1) You're right, just as a bus is not an automobile.
>
> I had to go look that one up. I knew that it must move by itself,
> according
> to the etymology. But they don't really move by themselves. They need a
> driver. But in what sense does the driver drive the vehicle to do
> anything?
> It's not as if the driver is driving a wagon and must get the horses to
> move.
>
> But getting back to automobile, it must be a passenger vehicle, and it
> must
> be self propelled. It usually has four wheels, which would certainly rule
> out any dogs. But it does not have to have four wheels. A bus carries
> passengers and is self propelled. Or at least it could be with cruise
> control. There was a movie called Speed that was about this bus that had
> to
> move at a constant speed...where was I? Oh, yes. A bus does carry
> passengers, but a dog does not. I guess a St. Bernard could carry
> passengers, especially children, but it does not have four wheels. I know
> that it's not an absolute requirement to have four wheels, and St.
> Bernards
> are self propelled, so they may be buses. But I don't think they qualify
> as
> vehicles, so that would rule it out. In any event, I looked at the photo
> you
> referenced, and that looks nothing like a vehicle or a St. Bernard. It
> doesn't even look like the 9th century man from Clairvaux who was the
> original St. Bernard. I don't think he had a car or a bus, so I have no
> clue
> why they named a dog after him.
>
> Does that clear things up?
>
>
>

Interesting. We had exactly the opposite experience.

In 1993 we were shopping for either an LS400 or a Q45. It was end of the
model year and the Q's were slow sellers so with our $36,000 budget we could
have either a 1992 LS400 lease turn-in or a brand new 1993 Q45. Same
equipment. Being a bargain hunter and having read all the car book
comparisons I knew the Q was faster and more sporty, I was sure that the Q
was the better deal.

Well we drove the Q first and it felt like a well-executed American sedan.
Very nice (except for the 2nd gear start up), but not "Oh my God!" nice.
Then we drove a 1992 LS400 lease turn in with 17,700 miles on it. It was a
revelation. It really was a "Oh my God. This is REALLY NICE." moment. A MUCH
better luxury/sport sedan than the Q, but a bit slower in acceleration. Much
better ride and pretty much the same handling except at he ragged edge,
maybe.

We bought the LS and still have it. Never regretted the choice. Still a
great car. Later put on performance (instead of quiet ride) tires and now it
handles at least as well as the Q.

By the way, we had a '92 LT1 6-speed Corvette with the Z07 autocross
suspension at the time, so I know what excellent handling is (as well as a
rough ride).


GRL

"Hagrinas Mivali" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It was one of the first-gen cars. I will give you that the car was so
> > awful, that I'm willing to entertain the idea that it was not
> > representative. I mean, this thing was gutless slow, and handled
> > *poorly*.
> >
> > I'll note that the only time I've driven a Lexus LS400, it was a
> > similar experience - very disappointing. Maybe cars with that long a
> > wheelbase are just not going to do it for me. But what happened to
> > the omph that one would expect from a DOHC V8?
> >
>
> I drove an LS400 when I was shopping for my Q45. A lot of people around
> where I live thought of them as similar cars. But they were nothing
alike.
> The Lexus lacked power and handled much more like a sedan, while the Q45
> still had the feel of a sports car, which surprised me. The Lexus was a
> very polite car; too polite for my tastes. It did have some nice features
> and gadgets that the Q45 lacked, but it also lacked balls. At the time, I
> thought that the Lexus might be a perfect car, but for my wife and not for
> me. The Lexus dealer was convinced that once I drove it, I'd be back. I
> actually might have gone back before I tried the Q45, but not after that.
>
>
>

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting. We had exactly the opposite experience.
>
> In 1993 we were shopping for either an LS400 or a Q45. It was end of the
> model year and the Q's were slow sellers so with our $36,000 budget we
could
> have either a 1992 LS400 lease turn-in or a brand new 1993 Q45. Same
> equipment. Being a bargain hunter and having read all the car book
> comparisons I knew the Q was faster and more sporty, I was sure that the Q
> was the better deal.
>
> Well we drove the Q first and it felt like a well-executed American sedan.
> Very nice (except for the 2nd gear start up), but not "Oh my God!" nice.
> Then we drove a 1992 LS400 lease turn in with 17,700 miles on it. It was a
> revelation. It really was a "Oh my God. This is REALLY NICE." moment. A
MUCH
> better luxury/sport sedan than the Q, but a bit slower in acceleration.
Much
> better ride and pretty much the same handling except at he ragged edge,
> maybe.
>
> We bought the LS and still have it. Never regretted the choice. Still a
> great car. Later put on performance (instead of quiet ride) tires and now
it
> handles at least as well as the Q.
>
Hmmm, if he *thinks* his Lexus handles well, then its obvious he never drove
a BMW....

Sure have.

An E36 M3 and a bunch of 2001 330i's and Ci's with sport packages and
without. No question but that they all handle better than the LS, but that
does not negate that the old LS is a good handler, just not as good. On the
other hand, the '92 LT1 would leave any of the Bimmers I've driven for dead
in the handling/acceleration department...and the LS (only more so, of
course). Different cars for different target audiences.

Never said that the LS was a great handler, just a good handler (very good
with better rubber mounted). It's just the truth. Why embellish about a 13
year old car, after all?



"bfd" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GRL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Interesting. We had exactly the opposite experience.
> >
> > In 1993 we were shopping for either an LS400 or a Q45. It was end of the
> > model year and the Q's were slow sellers so with our $36,000 budget we
> could
> > have either a 1992 LS400 lease turn-in or a brand new 1993 Q45. Same
> > equipment. Being a bargain hunter and having read all the car book
> > comparisons I knew the Q was faster and more sporty, I was sure that the
Q
> > was the better deal.
> >
> > Well we drove the Q first and it felt like a well-executed American
sedan.
> > Very nice (except for the 2nd gear start up), but not "Oh my God!" nice.
> > Then we drove a 1992 LS400 lease turn in with 17,700 miles on it. It was
a
> > revelation. It really was a "Oh my God. This is REALLY NICE." moment. A
> MUCH
> > better luxury/sport sedan than the Q, but a bit slower in acceleration.
> Much
> > better ride and pretty much the same handling except at he ragged edge,
> > maybe.
> >
> > We bought the LS and still have it. Never regretted the choice. Still a
> > great car. Later put on performance (instead of quiet ride) tires and
now
> it
> > handles at least as well as the Q.
> >
> Hmmm, if he *thinks* his Lexus handles well, then its obvious he never
drove
> a BMW....
>
>

"GRL" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting. We had exactly the opposite experience.
>
> In 1993 we were shopping for either an LS400 or a Q45. It was end of the
> model year and the Q's were slow sellers so with our $36,000 budget we
could
> have either a 1992 LS400 lease turn-in or a brand new 1993 Q45. Same
> equipment.

If it was $36,000 it most likely was not the one with 4 wheel steering and
touring package. I did test drive one of the base models, and I didn't buy
it, but it's hard to say all these years later how I would have felt had I
driven only the base model and the Lexus. I can't say I would have bought
the Q, but it's not really something I'd be able to answer. I didn't think
that the Lexus handled poorly. It just struck me as a bit too polite, and
not quite as much power. It was definitely a nice car, though.

A fair assessment of the old LS.

You can make driving a Gen 1 LS fun, but you have to push her to do it, but
you are rewarded with finding out that the handling limits are much higher
than you would have thought from her sedate behaviour day to day. No
edginess. She'd much rather behave in a polite manner, as you say. And, in
fact, that's the reason I have been shopping for a 3-Series of late...as a
summer toy.

A pleasure trading post with you.

Cheers.

GRL
"Hagrinas Mivali" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GRL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Interesting. We had exactly the opposite experience.
> >
> > In 1993 we were shopping for either an LS400 or a Q45. It was end of the
> > model year and the Q's were slow sellers so with our $36,000 budget we
> could
> > have either a 1992 LS400 lease turn-in or a brand new 1993 Q45. Same
> > equipment.
>
> If it was $36,000 it most likely was not the one with 4 wheel steering and
> touring package. I did test drive one of the base models, and I didn't buy
> it, but it's hard to say all these years later how I would have felt had I
> driven only the base model and the Lexus. I can't say I would have bought
> the Q, but it's not really something I'd be able to answer. I didn't think
> that the Lexus handled poorly. It just struck me as a bit too polite, and
> not quite as much power. It was definitely a nice car, though.
>
>