<b>May C&amp;D Comparo - Spoilsport Sedans!</b>

My how things have changed! Well, it looks like they loved the M45 Sport once again, and Japan completely swept the top 3 spots.

They didn't use the 545i or E500 because they would have been way over the $55k price limit. No surprise on the M45 Sport, but I am surprised the RL finished second.

1. Infiniti M45 Sport
2. Acura RL
3. Lexus GS430
4. Mercedes-Benz E350
5. Audi A6 4.2 Quattro
6. BMW 530i
7. Cadillac STS V8
8. Jaguar S-Type 4.2 VDP Edition

<b>Here is the PDF file:</b>

http://secure.grubbs.com/cardriver.pdf

stability control off, they encountered tank slapping (unintended yawing back and forth that is hard to catch) in the Acura, and still rated it that highly, and yet when the they actually figured out how to tighter the line and make the A6 turn (drop throttle oversteer), they didn't use it to greater effect.

We shall have to wait for a fair test of all AWD cars in the same price range in less than perfect weather to know how it really stacks up;-)

Why test all those cars with M+S rated tires? Of course Infinity won the handling portion, etc. Not blaming C&amp;D necessarily--didn't the Audi marketing types know what they were up against?

How did Acura spank <i><b>everyone</b></i> on the vehicle results (page 13)? I've driven the car and there's no way the Acura has a nicer interior than the Audi. The only one they got right IMO is rear seat room. Hmmm.

Gotta admit that the luxo sport sedan segment is very competitive. That's good news for consumers.

For the most part, C&amp;D liked the A6 4.2 a lot when they tested it back in their 11-04 issue. Only dislikes were: harsh ride with sport package and some rattles from dashboard trim, the latter of which they said was due to the sport suspension and and summer performance tires included with the sport package. They also loved the interior back in 11-04 and said it retains the quality of the old A6's interior and that it was more spacious and comfortable front and rear than the old A6's interior (which was no slouch in space and comfort, front and rear. What did those fools at C&amp;D bitch about this time with the A6 4.2?

I heard it is very spacious and comfy.

There is a link to the PDF file in the original post, you can download it to get the whole review.

But here is what they said on the A6 4.2:

Highs: Attractive styling, detailed interior, four-wheel traction, good power.

Lows: Controversial nose, overly sensitive throttle and brake responses, a tad sterile.

Verdict: A paragon of all-season, high-performance luxury.

That seems accurate to me--the rear seat in the Audi is a better place to be in my opinion.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

That way they can't be accused of doctoring the cars. That company is responsible for ordering up cars they think will reflect well under a variety of conditions. They also maintain the cars.

However, I think the company that AoA uses is either clueless or in the back pockets of other car companies. They <b>always</b> chicken out on the sport package or don't have the right tires. They also don't check out cars after some cheapskate puts in 87 octane fuel and fouls the plugs (I was there when an S6 came in from the fleet off it's feed - the plugs were all gunked up - we cleaned the plugs, put in some BGK44, and it was up and running fine. Of course it had been out there all that time, giving people a poor impression of the S6). It makes me really upset to see Audis do less well than they could, because somebody out there doesn't seem to know their job.

Any car magazine that uses a scoring system to evaluate cars isn't worth an opinion. They ignore important issues if they can't adapt that to a 'score'. You may as well ignore what they say, you'd get no more an emotional analysis from C&amp;D than you would from a computer.

they largely ignore the less quanitifiable aspects of such purchases. What some might call the "emotional" appeal. To many buyers, certain emotive qualities are more important than the last 1/10 second of acceleration, a backup camera, or 10 points of JD Powers reliability. Things like styling and tactile qualities (there's your trunk) are hard to quantify.

As the architect Le Corbusier said- you don't measure architecture by whether the roof leaks.

10% of their score is given over to pure emotional response ("gotta have it factor"), with large components of other areas also having subjective assesments like the trunk thunk being worked in (e.g. the ergonomics rating)

The trunk thud isn't very cute anymore when your car won't start.

all the cars in the test are very capable- more than capable for what most people will need them for. And reliability is much higher for all brands than it used to be. So I think the emotional factors play a bigger role in car-buying decisions than they used to.

What one person loves, another hates. So it's pointless to put preferences in a report.

Case in point, the new BMW's

however, i will bet that the RL sells poorly because it does not connect with customers emotionally.

If they were subjective and their preferences didn't agree with yours, you would simply call them morons :-)

And the RL doesn't have much of a bar, it is far outselling the previous RL already.<ul><li><a href="http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3000?mid=2005020151708&amp;mime=asc">http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3000?mid=2005020151708&amp;mime=asc</a</li></ul>

but yeah, the previous model was one of those cars you forgot even existed.

I remember seeing it here but can't find it.

Hmm, I think that's funny. First because C&amp;D always adds the emotional aspects - which most people criticize vehemently as subjective.

Also because Le Corbusier's opinion isn't a particularly good one. His designs were very cold and sterile and these days they go uninhabited and have fallen into disrepair.

Gator