2007 Saturn Aura XR: Welcome to the Steroid Era

Josh hit the nail on the head with his description of the Aura's acceleration. When I'm going 40mph or faster, when I punch the accelerator, it feels great. The passing power is wonderful. From a lower speed or from a stop, the wheels spin or the steering wheel gets ripped from your hands. The power is there but I'm always afraid to use it.

Hi Sabastian,
 
Our Aura comes standard with stability control, but traction control is not available, hence the wheelspin issue. As for similarly powered competitors, honestly I haven't driven any of them yet (I'm the new guy here), so I can't comment on that.
 
I do agree with you about sport compacts for enthusiasts on a budget (like me - my personal car is an old Integra GSR), but now that I've driven our long-term M3, I finally understand what all this rear-wheel drive fuss is about. 333 totally usable horsepower? Power oversteer on demand? Sign me up.
 
Josh

Common "issue" with more cars than just the Aura, all due to a response of horsepower wars to people thinking with their right foot..."more power."
 
Not that more power isn't great, and the 3.6L in this vehicle is a honey, but FANTASTIC reference back to the late 90's/early 00's sedans that not only were more trim (and still very roomy and refined), but also that did have many engines in the 180-210 hp range that seemed perfect. No one ever carped on wanting more, until a few started doing it just because...and boom...everyone had to do that.
 
Or, just as we did, LOVE our new loaded '08 Malibu specifically ordered with the 2.4L 4-cyl. From a family that has owned nothing but V8's for 6 years, it took an '07 Malibu 4-cyl rental to finally clue me into the whole "4-cyl sedan" sweetness. It's lighter, zippier, church mouse quiet, and spunky enough to be fun and also economical.
 
With new CAFE requirements, expect some numbers in engine size and power output to start going down. That will shock some people, but with a little time, reality will sort it out--having more and more power (and then usually weight) isn't necessarily always a good thing.

Whoops, our new guy Josh made an understandable mistake: Our 2007 Saturn Aura XR has traction control.
 
The issue probably arose because there is no real interference from the car when wheel slip is encountered. It limits torque, but not by enough to stop the spin. It's non-intrusive and there's no tell-tale flashing warning light, only a small script reading 'low traction' that goes away before you have a chance to read it.
 
-mike

Come on, Mike! Where's the link to your previous blog entry? :o)
 
http://66.160.188.111/roadtests/1841

The attraction of a powerful engine in a family car isn't punching it from a stop, it's the seemingly effortless power available at part throttle and low revs.
 
Generous relaxed power is going to mean excessive and rude when you step on it at low speed. So don't.

Dear Josh,
 
Agree completely with your sentiments. My family still has a 2000 Acura TL with the Honda 220 horsepower 3.2 SOHC motor. Our consensus is that 220 is about the upper limit for a front-driver. That engine is wonderfully smooth and makes a delicious intake noise. It offers all the acceleration one could need without the whipsaw ohmahgod torque steer that some of these new bruisers are packing. I hear, too, that Honda has sacrificed some of the smoothness and aural quality of its V-6's as it has bored them out and increased stroke over the years. Car and Driver said the 3.7 in the new MDX is the first Honda V-6 it went so far as to characterize as 'unrefined.'
 
Gabe

Yeah, I remember reading that about Acura's 3.7, Gabe, though I haven't driven the MDX myself. There's arguably been a similar regression with Nissan's VQ-series V6s: the 3.0-liter in the old Maximas (and 300ZXs) was turbine-smooth, if you ask me, but now that the displacement is up to 3.5 liters or more, complaints have surfaced about coarseness at higher rpms.
 
Incidentally, my apologies for the traction-control gaffe, folks. The way those wheels were spinning, it sure didn't FEEL like it had traction control - but if I had read Mike's earlier post (see SubyTrojan's link) more closely, all would have become clear.
 
Josh

Well why would you really ever floor a family FWD sedan off the line anyway? That's just silly. The power is most useful for passing maneuvers. And this extra power is needed because of all the weight added on by all the stuff we "must" have in cars. We have to have 20 heated/cooled cupholders, 16 way power seats, more airbags than the Mars rover, and more climate zones than planet earth. All those things add weight, and more weight means the need for more power.

Please stop complaining and get the trim panels aligned per the TSB that has been mentioned here countless times.

Josh,
I completely agree with you! I don't understand why you would buy a family sedan with a bigger engine (that one may never need) that gets worse fuel economy than the standard one. In my case, my '08 Accord's standard 177-horsepower provides plenty of power and averages 23-25 mpg. Plus, it's more refined than our old Mariner's V6.

The ongoing HP war between the family sedans continues to amuse me. Each new model must have higher numbers than the past and gets knocked down in the comparison tests if it is lower than the other guys.
I find it entertaining each time I see the where they mention something like one is rather slow at 6.5 seconds for 0-60. While the other one did so much better at 6.1 seconds. Seriously, does anyone need or use that in one of those cars? Does anyone notice that in their driving?
As mentioned above some HP does comes in handy for passing, especially for those wonderful short uphill passing lanes through mountain roads. But even then is there any use to close in on 300 HP for these cars?
Also why is it that they generally only put the better automatic transmissions with the bigger engines? Wouldn't more speeds be even more usefull with less power?
It will be interesting to see how the new CAFE requirements will affect this trend.

As a 2007 Aura XR owner, I have to say I am shocked at this review. Just how hard are you mashing the gas pedal, and in real world situations, how often do you need to do this??
 
Yes, I have spun the wheels once or twice, but I have never encountered the torque steer you describe. I consistently get GREAT acceleration from stops without all this craziness you describe (and I step on it rather hard myself) My guess is you are driving this thing like you are drag racing, not like a normal family would use this car. I LOVE the power, from a standstill and especially in passing situations. I am happily blowing by slower traffic daily in my Aura with a big grin on my face.
 
As for the interior trim, I can't comment...my XR has the silver trim, not the fake wood, and it seems to line up just fine.
 
I just wanted to get an actual Aura owner's opinion out there to offset some of the things I am reading from the reviewers.

How convenient.
 
This complaint only comes on the Aura blog. No complaint with the same situation in the Camry, Altima, or Accord. And people wonder why myself and others feel there is an import bias at Edmunds.
 
By the way Josh gave away his bias with his comment he would take an old Camry or Accord. Josh also apparently has heard that many reviewers like how the Aura's traction and stability controls work.
 
Having owned an Aura XR for over a year, maybe the editors should learn what I learned 25 years ago as a novice driver. Rarely do you floor a car from standstill. Half throttle works just as well in a majority of the situations.

Hi hexxum97,
 
mjd1123 (post #2) is one apparent owner who seems to agree with me. Though I don't doubt that your experience has been different.
 
It's true that I was driving the Aura pretty hard - certainly harder than most families would drive it. But I do think it's relevant to the average consumer that the Aura XR's behavior under hard acceleration at low speeds is on the volatile side.
 
For example, if you're ever in a tight spot at low speeds and need to accelerate quickly to get out of it, it's comforting to know that your car will behave predictably. The Aura XR isn't very comforting in this regard.
 
Plus, while it's true that you can modulate the 3.6-liter's power to guard against tire-spinning or torque-steer, you're not driving a stick, obviously, so if you accidentally get on the gas too much, you might suddenly find yourself wrestling with the wheel - or smoking your front rubber.
 
I agree that the XR's passing power is excellent, but personally I'd take a small hit in that department if it meant greater predictability and usability across the spectrum. Just my two cents.
 
Josh

And aurakr - I'll definitely be on the lookout for similar behavior in our other hyper-powerful long-term family sedans (i.e., the "imports") whenever I happen to get the keys. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't driven them yet, so I can only comment on the Aura for now.
 
Josh

I think I can elaborate more on what Josh is saying here about tight spots and low speeds. My daily commute involves driving on a parkway in Long Island, NY that has treacherous entrance and exit lanes. When merging onto the parkway it is necessary to let up a little on the gas to take a look and see if anything is coming in the right lane before merging into it. You can't speed up because then you'll be in the right lane and get slammed into from behind. You can't stop because then you'll have to wait a long time to have enough space to merge. There is very little room for error. You have to reduce your speed slightly, take a look if the coast is clear, then stomp on the gas to merge.
 
When there is enough space, I need to be able to give the car some gas and have a predictable response. If I apply too much throttle, the car hesitates a second and then takes off with a burst of power, sometimes pulling the steering wheel left or right. If I apply too little throttle (basically the amount I would apply in any other car), the car doesn't shift as I would expect and merging becomes a life threatening proposition.
 
I've gotten used to just leaving myself more space and compromising between the two extremes. I've had my Aura XR for almost a year now and this is my main dislike of the car. My previous car, a 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix GT (with the excellent 3.8 V6), had much more predictable behavior.
 
The power issue also comes into play simply when trying to get out of a tight parking spot in the Aura. Sometimes taking my foot off the accelerator allows the car to roll, sometimes it doesn't. It's not fun to have to actually apply the accelerator to get out of a parking spot when there are cars parked within inches of your front and back bumpers, where in another car I just can keep my foot over the brake and just roll slightly as I turn to get out. I try to avoid parallel parking altogether unless I know there is no chance of me getting boxed in. Again, this wasn't an issue in my old car.
 
Once at highway speeds though the Aura really shines.

mjd1123, that's precisely why I prefer my family sedans with a four cylinder engine and a manual transmission, and without traction control or a drive-by-wire throttle. I want to know exactly what the car will do.

Ahhh, the Acura 3.7. Is it as refined as the 3, 3.2 and the newer 3.5 versions? No. Its not that its NOT refined but I think the engines overall age and architecture are to blame as I dont think the J series was ever intended to be this BIG.
 
Compared to the Nissan/Infiniti VQ35 I do think the Honda/Acura V6s still have a pretty good advantage regarding smoothness and refinement.

Hi everyone/Josh -
 
Josh. Nice post. I didn't feel your post was taking aim at the Aura, but at the current plethora of overpowered FWD vehicles.
 
I completely agree with this sentiment. FWD is not made to handle this much power.
 
That being said, some FWD cars can handle it better than others. The MazdaSpeed 3, for example, has more power than any of these family sedans (yes, it's peak HP is lower, but it's 280 lb/ft of torque at 3000 rpms is higher, and it weighs about 400 pounds less).
 
It has very little torque steer unless turning the wheel hard while accelerating hard. How does it do it? Engine management in 1st and 2nd gears to limit torque when turning the wheel, equal-length half-shafts, and a few other tweaks. And it came out alright. Still, the fact these things have to be modified should tell you all you need to know...
 
I, honestly, don't understand traction control. At least, the only car I've owned with it is my wife's 2003 Saturn Ion 5-speed. In this car, literally all it does is force a fuel cut-off so that the engine doesn't rev off 1000 rpms. It doesn't actually benefit you at all, and I always turn it off in the snow because it will limit my ability to modulate spin.
 
The only benefit to it on my wife's car is that traction control added ABS.
 
On another note: I've been pretty pissed at Honda about their addition of a 3.5 liter to the Accord. It's not a superior engine in anyway. They've added Variable Cylinder Management....great, but by adding it they limit low-and-mid range power. And they barely gain any fuel economy.
 
So why not just use a more efficient 3.2 liter, which would also fit a FWD model better? They already had a great one from the Acura TL.
 
Family sedans have been at the same place now for 10 years. Offer a 4-cyl model that can get NEAR 30mpg, and offer a 6-cyl model that can conceivably get near 30mpg...but only on pure highway. More likely it'll get 22-24 mpg combined.
 
One last interesting note: Everyone says these v6s offer more effortless passing power at part throttle. Do they? As noted by performance numbers, they appear to offer almost identical maximum acceleration numbers as the previous generation of engines....are you sure the manufacturers aren't just tuning the drive-by-wire systems to give 90% of fuel at 50% of throttle to make you feel like the car is leaping at on modest throttle pushage?
 
Joe

to all those complaining about power, i say this;
 
learn to drive.
 
seriously, Theres a full range between full power, and barely holding the pedal down to cruise at a fixed speed.
 
If you know your car, and know that at wot it will wheel spin, then why would you even use WOT. The car is telling you that it has more then enough power to use 50-70% throttle in those situations.
 
To me its stupid to assume that if you need to get going you need to floor it. that maybe true if you drive a 3400lb car with a 140hp, but not when you have 250hp.
 
rough example:
 
if you car has 140 hp, and you need to get going, you might need all that power
or 100% throttle.
 
if your car has 250hp, and you need to get going, you might only need 140hp,
or about 50-60% throttle.
 
The end result will be the same, at 50-60% throttle the car with 250hp will get you going as fast as you need, and have power to spare for other situations.
 
If you are not able to do that when driving, i'm sorry your a bad driver.

"Plus, while it's true that you can modulate the 3.6-liter's power to guard against tire-spinning or torque-steer, you're not driving a stick, obviously, so if you accidentally get on the gas too much, you might suddenly find yourself wrestling with the wheel - or smoking your front rubber. "
 
I see you will fit right in here. YOu dont like the Aura and you want to single it out for characteristics common to similar cars. I am so glad someone already corrected you on the traction control issue. Every car with stability control has traction control and ABS. Furthermore torque steer isnt an issue on this car unless you FLOOR it. How many people actually do that? I have only done it a few times in the last 6 months. As for wheelspin, I have seen no such issue except when snow is on the ground. If you drive like a crazy 16 year old maybe you will have these issues but normal people will NEVER have the problems you are talking about. With traction control engaged its nearly impossible to have much wheelspin in the Aura. As you said, if you dont like it get the weaker engines.
 
If you floor the car there is a hesitation to downshift that you dont notice in regular driving. full throttle acceleration is pretty rare amongst responsible adults and thus this "surge" of power after the downshift isnt something you will notice often. Also, I have never experienced any torque steer when the car is already in motion, only when slamming the pedal down from a complete stop.
 
The hp race actually started in 1998 when the Grand Prix and Regal had 240hp. I love it when people act like the Altima was the first family car to be well over 200hp. It was the first IMPORT family car. There is a difference.

"to all those complaining about power, i say this;
  
learn to drive.
  
seriously, Theres a full range between full power, and barely holding the pedal down to cruise at a fixed speed.
  
If you know your car, and know that at wot it will wheel spin, then why would you even use WOT. The car is telling you that it has more then enough power to use 50-70% throttle in those situations. "
 
All true, but what fun would it be to use that type of logic? This is Aura bashing central so every mole hill must be truned into a mountain. I think this like reason number 20 why they don't like this car.

opfreak,
 
I know how to drive. This is the only car I've ever driven where I've had this experience. Do you own an Aura by any chance? When my Aura was in the shop (a common experience that I hope will become more uncommon now that the issues I had were resolved) I had a rental 4-cylinder Cobalt and a rental 4-cylinder Mazda6 that made me feel much more confident about merging into traffic despite their overall slowness. The throttle response was excellent in both of those cars.
 
One thing I should mention that I found interesting. A friend of mine also has an Aura XR. We did a comparison one day...he drove mine, I drove his. One thing we both agreed on was the feel of the accelerator was much better in his than mine (mine requires a lot more oomph from your right foot just to get the car to move). His felt more "normal." The only difference was his was built a few months after mine.
 
1487,
 
I have a love/hate relationship with my Aura. I love the looks and the features for the price. I hate the questionable build quality and reliability I've experienced along with other smaller issues like the ones in this blog topic. I think Edmunds is reviewing this car quite honestly (except for that whole silly "better than the bus" topic).
 
GM made this car to attract Camry and Accord buyers. To me it would seem to attract GM buyers (the Grand Prix/Regal crowd especially). Then the GM buyer would buy the Aura, realize after a few days it drives nothing like any other GM car, and not be sure about buying another GM car in the future. That's my experience personally anyway.

1487,
  
Sorry, but here in LA the roads get very slick when it rains (something about oil build up during the dry season) and spinning the Aura's front tires during brisk, not hard, acceleration is easy with traction control on. Easier than in the Altima, and easier than in the Accord. Though, of course, they'll all do it 'till the cows come home if you nail the throttle and initiate a down-shift.
  
Though as I said in my correction post, the traction control (torque limiting) in this application is very good and very subtle. It never fights the driver or upsets the drive. It just backs the prodigious torque off a bit and the spinning gets slower. (Read my '08 Corvette second opinion for a glimpse of another really good traction system from GM: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=123805/pageId=133243 )
  
And AuraKR, if you think there's an import bias here, be prepared for a shock when you meet some of our new long-termers.

mjd1123
 
Is your XR one of the first ones. Maybe you need to go to the dealer for re-flash on the transmission. It sounds like your friend's XR transmission is responding much quicker.
 
About the build quality you speak of, again my XR(bought January 07) has only been to the dealer for its 5000 mile service. No issues at all. Reliability has been perfect. The car currently has 8500 miles, wife drives it work everyday, 20 mile round trip. If ever a driver could find something wrong with a car it would be her, and she absolutely loves it.
 
Don't be so hard on opfreak. My dad taught me a long time ago that most people really do not know how to drive. If a person drives a low horsepower car or one that requires lots of rpms for power, they usually have trouble if they switch to a very torquey engine. Sure manufacturers have developed systems to help stop the car from spinning its tires, but really the driver is still the most important part of the equation.
 
boxermike
 
The import bias is not in the cars Edmunds wants to drive. It shows in the blogs so far that have said in the following
 
Aura: Is it better than a bus?
Aura: Not good for families
Aura: Unforgettable road trips
 
We have already discussed the first one.
The second one was from a blogger who said because it didn't get 30 mpg it wasn't a good family car. No mention that the Accord or Camry V6 don't get 30 either.
The third one was James saying the Aura wasn't as good a road trip car as the Accord, even though the Aura handles better, stops better, accelerates better, is quieter, has a better ride(amazing better handling and ride) and gets equivalent mileage. Do I have to continue?

I don't really understand why everyone attacks Inside Line for having an import bias. I have never noticed one, especially not with the Aura.
 
From what I recall here is what the blogs have said about the Saturn: great powertrain with a smooth and responsive engine, smooth ride, good handling, great looks, questionable build quality.
 
And for the Accord they have said: great powertrain with a smooth and responsive engine, smooth ride, good handling, great looks, great build quality.
 
There is no import bias, the cars are mirror images of each other in what they excell at, the only difference is that the Accord is more luxurious. Therefore, at the end of the day why would they not choose the more luxurious option when the cars are so identical?

"I have a love/hate relationship with my Aura. I love the looks and the features for the price. I hate the questionable build quality and reliability I've experienced along with other smaller issues like the ones in this blog topic. I think Edmunds is reviewing this car quite honestly (except for that whole silly "better than the bus" topic). "
 
You are in the minority out of the Aura owners who have posted here. Actually, you are the first one to say you agree with IL's comments and negative impressions of the car. I have had no problems driving the car smoothly. Torque steer simply isnt an issue under normal circumstances. In fact, most reviews of the car didnt even mention that as a problem. Seeing as though this car has DOHC V6, 6 speed auto, modern platform and a relatively narrow width I fail t see how its primarily aimed at GP and Regal drivers.
 
"And AuraKR, if you think there's an import bias here, be prepared for a shock when you meet some of our new long-termers."
 
Yes we know you like the CTS and G8 and we undoubtedly will here that they are so good its hard to believe they are GM products. I am glad that your fleet is more balanced than it used to be because I complained via email and on Karl's blog about the the mix in the past. Since GM's products (and to a lesser extent Fords) are getting so much better it would be hard for you to maintain any credibilty and not like anything from GM. That said, you guys have been very hard on the Aura and seem to be judging it by a double standard. Its boring but the Accord isnt. It has too much unusable power but the Accord does not. Its a forgettable car but the Accord/Altima are not. Whether you like it or not the Aura is VERY similar to those cars in every conceivable way. It all comes down to prices, styling preference and equipment preferences.
 
As for the wheelspin, its absolutely not been an issue for me in this car, even in the rain. We just got snow and its the first time my traction control has really been active.
 
"There is no import bias, the cars are mirror images of each other in what they excell at, the only difference is that the Accord is more luxurious. Therefore, at the end of the day why would they not choose the more luxurious option when the cars are so identical?"
 
Aura looks better, costs less when comparably equipped, Aura is more exclusive since 25k arent sold every month, Aura has better warranty, Aura has numerous features not found on Accord. Those would be just be a few reasons. BTW, the Aura doesn't have poor build quality. It has a few issues that have been noted like the trim alignment between the doors and dash. Look at the car yourself if you have doubts. The exterior build quality is excellent and the interior is class competitive with a few minor things that could be improved. For 2008 the armrest has been improved so that issue has been resolved.
 
BTW, I dont think the Accord is a bad car by any means. I like it better now than I did when it was new. Is it "clearly" better than the Aura or Malibu like Edmunds says? I think not. When they did their consumer test half picked the Malibu and half picked Accord. Doesnt seem like regular folks thought the Accord was the clear cut winner that IL editors believe. What I find so incredible is that they all seem to have the same dim view of the Aura and everyone acts like they drive the car only because none of the superior cars are available. Its like some sort of punishment.

I wish people would stop complaining about the "import bias" at Edmunds. I feel like they write about the cars honestly. The majority of the editors hated the Accord Hybrid, and they also blogged on the Camry's subpar interior build quality.
 
You can't expect them to write a blog like this about the Aura, and then review the Accord blog and say, "Gee, we better write the same thing about the Accord, or else some readers are going to get pissed."
 
Every car has its flaws, and I think that the editors are just trying to get them out in the open. Before you go off on a rant about import bias, get out of your little "everyone hates the Aura, it's not fair" bubble and look at the bigger picture. Edmunds loves the Enclave (nothing but good things to say, except that ugly seat pattern), for example.
 
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the Accord's power hasn't been written about in this manner because it is more manageable than the Aura's? Hmmm....
 
I think that the problem is that the Aura is a nice car, but compared to more recent (and much better) GM offerings (CTS, Malibu, Enclave, etc.), it's falling short.

"You can't expect them to write a blog like this about the Aura, and then review the Accord blog and say, "Gee, we better write the same thing about the Accord, or else some readers are going to get pissed."
 
We just expect some objectivity. Sorry if that annoys you. Objectively speaking the Aura is as good as the Accord.
 
"Did you ever stop to think that maybe the Accord's power hasn't been written about in this manner because it is more manageable than the Aura's? Hmmm.... "
 
did you ever think some of us who own the car would know if the problems described are accurate? If I didnt own the car I would be a little more likely to accept what was said at face value. So far I believe 3 owners have posted in response saying they have no such problems launching this car smoothly. Have you driven the car? Can you corroborate the complaints? IN addition, as I mentioned torque steer hasnt even been on the radar in most reviews of this car so its not like "everyone" agrees on this issue.
 
The Malibu is about 95% similar to the Aura. and for the record Edmunds doesnt seem to believe the Malibu is much better. Both are inferior to the Accord and Altima according to edmunds. Considering the price points of the CTS and Enclave I would hope they are superior to the Aura which starts at $20k.

Yes, I have driven the new accord, and yes, i have driven the Aura. I did find the power more manageable in the Accord; you know exactly what it will do every time. Personally, I like the Aura's engine better...I was speaking on behalf of those who don't.
 
As far as Edmunds liking the Accord and Altima better, you must take into consideration that they liked the Malibu (which, as you say, is basically the same car as the Aura) better than the number one selling car in the US, the Camry. Car and Driver and MotorTrend also like the Accord the best out of all the family sedans. This isn't just Edmunds.
 
I was talking about the CTS and the Enclave because they represent big leaps forward in their class for GM; great cars amongst the good ones. The Aura is competitive, yes, but doesn't stand out in its class like the CTS does.

1487,
 
The Buick Regal GS had a supercharged 3800-series V6 developing 240 horsepower. In this respect, it was a 'special' model, since normally aspirated V6's were also available. I believe that, historically speaking, Josh was correct to identify the Altima as really upping the arms race. The main players in terms of volume - Accord and Camry - shrugged off the Regal's 240 horsepower. But Honda and Toyota couldn't ignore the 240 horsepower VQ. I wish they had.

The amount of time people spend arguing/posting about the supposed IL bias is ridiculous. Do you think you're going to accomplish something? Its also ironic to criticize Edmunds blog posts, and then back up you pro-Aura arguments with statements that cannot be verified, like "Aura looks better". Am I the only one who finds that funny? lol.

1487,
 
In terms of the size and features for the money (plus it's American made) is where I see where the Aura could attract GP/Regal owners (I was one previously).
 
aurakr,
 
It's already been flashed which got rid of an annoying thunk when shifting from Park to Reverse (which obviously wasn't even the problem I was attempting to correct).

"The import bias is not in the cars Edmunds wants to drive. It shows in the blogs so far that have said in the following
  
Aura: Is it better than a bus?
Aura: Not good for families
Aura: Unforgettable road trips "
 
Aurakr, if I'm merely satiated by, but not fond of fish and chips, am I showing a bias against British food?
 
If I don't like tea, am I showing a bias against liquids? Or is it more reasonable to assume that this one particular item doesn't wet my palate?
 
You seem to be confusing 'bias' and 'preference' in your post.

1487 -
 
I've read a fair amount of your comments and I consider myself a fairly objective person. You come across as intelligent and well-informed, with occasional spouts of mind-numbing blindness. That's how I read it, at least :)
 
My favorite example to date, from your post above: "We just expect some objectivity. Sorry if that annoys you. Objectively speaking the Aura is as good as the Accord."
 
Neither of us can make that statement. It's foolish to think we can. We're car-guys, but we don't own both. We haven't spent thousands of miles driving both. We haven't done back-to-back test driving of both (from your comments, I believe you've been in a new Accord but haven't driven one yet).
 
Insideline has a staff of people who have spent years driving a wide variety of cars. They occasionally make comments that they don't back up (not that they aren't able too, just that they don't in the body of the text). Things about feel, or response, or some other immeasurable aspect of a domestic car. As pointed out above, they've done the same for foreign cars as well. Accord Hybrid and Camry interior are great examples...
 
In my opinion, the Aura offers more features/options for 25k than the Accord. But, in my opinion, I like the Accord more (for it's interior and some design features). Is that bias? Or is that just a personal opinion formed upon experiencing both cars?
 
It's funny. Edmunds is accused of bias, but they laud the CTS and Enclave. Two vehicles which are universally agreed to offer the current pinnacle of GM design. Yet Edmunds is still treated like it's institutional domestic bias when they do not laud other GM products. Does that not indicate something else, to you?
 
As for torque steer, my vehicle has 139 lb/fts of torque and sticky 215/45/17 tires. I can easily chirp/spin the tires with 60-70% throttle input in 1st or 2nd gear at the right time. If you haven't spun your tires yet, you are probably being very gentle on your 250 lb/ft car :)
 
Furthermore, alot of people are ignoring that not all FWD cars are created equal. Engine programming, engine placement, transmission design, and driveshaft/half-shaft design all contribute to torque steer. Not all cars are created equal.
 
Furthermore, plenty of cars have design flaws. An out-of-round front tire...or one, on one side, that is actually shorter than the other by a millimeter. Out of whack air pressures. A slightly bent wheel from a pothole.
 
There are so many parameters that can exacerbate torque steer.
 
BTW, several posters have exhibited the mindset that "You can't expect to floor your car and have it just bite and go. That's juvenile." It's a ridiculous mindset. If a car can't propel itself in a straight line under full throttle with steering corrections, then there is a design flaw.
 
In this case, it's a front wheel drive setup with too much torque (and as you can see from my comments, in my 139 ft/lbs can overwhelm my FWD setup).
 
That's just a simple reason why FWD is not preferred for vehicle dynamics. It can handle having all that power transmitted to the same wheels that steer.
 
Joe

yes the new accord edmund has wont well spin, because honda to save 1mpg killed all low end and mid-rang torque. i wonder if the coupe would have similar problems.
 
and to those defended edmunds, why? the bias is overwhelming against the aura. accept that and move along, their big boys if they want to they can defend themselves.
 
but if you want more of their objective writing. the g35 got a blog post 'perfectly fine' if that was about the aura it would be 'prefectly boring'
 
or the tdi post 'The Diesel Experience'
which rambles on for the second post DEFENDING the slow acceleration.
 
no theirs no basis here against the aura :-/

Opfreak -
 
C'mon, you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
The VW tdi post defending slow acceleration is on a car with an engine designed for fuel economy but which has surprising in-gear acceleration which is not reflected in 0-60 and quarter mile testing.
 
The G35 post that stated "perfectly fine" was in fact a post saying "this is not the car for me, even though it's a good car." Posts about the Aura have been "hey, it's got a lot going for it, but it's still not quite there."
 
They got alot of crap for comments on the aura interior build quality. They've gone and backed those comments up with subsequent videos and photos. How is that bias?
 
Regarding the Accord: I totally agree. Even if the accord has other designs that limit torque steer/wheel spin (such as suspension design giving a better tire footprint in a straight line), how would we know? They've limited the power, and so you don't know what you are missing.
 
The coupe's powerband is supposed to be quite rich (on the 6-speed), so I imagine tire-shredding is easy enough. I do wonder if torque steer is an issue there, as I don't remember reading about it one way or another.
 
As a side note: I'd much rather have the ability to overwhelm my tires (fwd, rwd, or awd) than not. Much like if I can't skid when braking, then I don't have enough braking power. You'd always rather have the limits dictated by your desires/skills than by the car itself.
 
Joe

gabbo- The regal GS was not a 'special' model, it was a upper level trim version much like an Accord EX or Camry XLE. The Grand Prix GTP was similar and both shamed the mid size class in acceleration since '97 (0-60 in 6.6 sec). No other competitor was close- only the limited additional Taurus SHO had comparable horsepower at the time (235 from a V8).
  
The initial post by Josh was a complete load of non sense and I can't believe anyone is trying to defend that crap. If you don't know how to modulate the throttle in a powerful FWD car, you definitely don't need to be writing about cars. I think he'd be much more effective at covering the democratic nominee race than spewing such foolishness as above. Only a complete idiot floors the gas when they don't want maximum acceleration. Besides, those of us who pay for our own gas realize that is not an efficient driving style. Having driven an Aura XR, I love the confidence of big acceleration on demand as opposed to the weak four banger in my car. Since the press has hated GM during my entire lifetime, I realize they aren't fond of the driving high torque FWD applications. The s/c 3800 effectively produced 280 lbs-ft at either 3200 or 3600 rpm while the naturally aspirated version was making over 200 lbs-ft south of 1000 rpm- or just off idle. To put it into perspective, that's more torque at < 2% throttle than at the '98 Accord's 3.0L peak. If you aren't used to it, then I can see why you might find these power characteristics alarming since everyone seems to love the gutless low RPM performance of Honda engines. Learn how to drive and it shouldn't be a problem. FYI- I just drove an Aura in the snow on Friday and didn't experience any wheel slippage/spinning. If you know how to control the muscles in your right foot, i don't see how anyone could have a problem. The High Feature while completely different in architecture is almost an evolution of the 3800 engine. They way it produces such prodigious low end grunt is very unique to 4 valve per cylinder V6s. Everyone talks about the VQs torque but it still doesn't match the 3.6s feel of limitless thrust at such low rpm

joe why should i be honest, when the blogs posts arent?

Chavis -
 
"Only a complete idiot floors the gas when they don't want maximum acceleration."
 
Chavis...I floor the gas quite often because I want maximum acceleration and it's the most efficient way to accelerate (maximum throttle to a specified speed or more efficient than part throttle). To Josh's point, the current trend in FWD cars is to have to be going faster, in higher gears, to be able to effectively use full throttle.
 
Furthermore, torque steer is not cool. Especially when you get it in straight or minor-turn situations. It upsets balance. As I pointed out above, it could be for a variety of reasons beyond just normal fwd/big engine design. Or it could be a problem with the car.
 
Josh says he's driven the Aura and he's posting on it, and a wider trend in family sedans in general. What's wrong with that?
 
I think some people on here want to bring back the fairness doctrine for cars.
 
Opfreak - Cause you are honorable and would rather not spread dishonesty by being dishonest?
 
Joe

Again, as an Aura XR owner, I have driven the car for about a year now and have never had the trouble with torque steer or tire spin spoken of in this blog entry. I have driven in every kind of condition (and I have a lead foot, my last car was a Camaro Z-28) and I can honestly say I have never had to "floor it" to get the acceleration I needed. My XR pulls stongly and smoothly from a dead stop or when passing everytime. Never have I felt like the wheel was going tp be pulled out of my hands. It just really makes me question how some people are driving this car to get the results that they speak of.

Side Note: Is it just me or do about 75% of the posters on here own Auras? Seriously...this is pretty amazing.

Whew! I'll say this much for the Aura: it gets people fired up. As Will Ferrell said in SNL's Neil Diamond: Behind The Music skit, "Hey, cool out! Just everyone cooool out."
 
Joe, great point about the MazdaSpeed3's torque-limiting system in first and second gear. I was actually talking about this with a colleague yesterday, and we agreed that the Aura XR could benefit from a similar system. Of course, there are other ways to limit torque steer, some of which the 'Speed3 also employs, as you noted. Unfortunately, not many of them seem to have found their way into our Aura.
 
chavis10 - having a little difficulty understanding your criticisms. I never said (or implied, or demonstrated) that I didn't know how to modulate the Aura's throttle; my point was that the Aura makes you think too much about said modulation, since much of its power is unusable at low speeds. Also, I wholeheartedly agree that "only a complete idiot floors the gas when they don't want maximum acceleration" - but I can't see what that has to do with anything I've written here. When I floored the Aura's gas, believe you me, I wanted maximum acceleration; the problem was, I often didn't get what I wanted due to wheelspin and torque-steer issues.

Hey Josh,
 
Since an owner on here (hexxum) reports aggressive driving without any signs of torque steer/wheel spin...would it be possible to check the auras front tire pressures? I forget if the Aura has a TPMS, and, if so, if it gives an actual digital readout.
 
Alot of people get hung up on your experience and think you must be exaggerating. Environmental factors are sooo important. How many miles are on this cars tires vs. hexxums, and how were those spent; are the tire pressures equal; were you driving on still-damp roads; does one of the wheels have a bend in it...
 
Hexxum - Again, my 139 lb/ft car w/ an LSD and sticky tires tends to torque steer with slight tire pressure variations (I just found today that my pass. side front tire was 2 1/2 PSI higher than my driver's side...after I had felt a pull to the right for the past week or two). It doesn't take much.
 
Btw, Josh - Have you driven an MS3? I just started considering one (again) today....I'm kind of all over the place between keeping my SI for another 40-60k, getting an MS3, getting a 135i (lease), getting a 335i (CPO)....
 
Just curious :)
 
Joe

Joe (and Hexxum),
 
What caught my eye was Hexxum's claim that "I can honestly say I have never had to 'floor it' to get the acceleration I needed." Maybe he's not experiencing the wheelspin/torque-steer issues because he doesn't floor it. I dunno.
 
As for environmental factors, I'm sure the wheelspin I encountered was facilitated by the slight dampness of the pavement that morning (as noted in my entry); can't say the same for the torque steer though, which was evident even when the tires stuck.
 
And no, I haven't driven the MS3. In fact, of the cars you mentioned, I've only driven the 135i. Honestly, I'd grab a very low-mileage E46 M3 instead if I could swing a $30-35k purchase. Drove our long-termer last week for the first time and was totally smitten.

Sadbuttrue-
 
I think you got my point exactly. rarely, if ever, do I need to floor it in my Aura. Even with half throttle I feel like I am getting more than anough acceleration because of the way this engine pulls. As I said, i'm a bit of an aggressive driver, so I'm not taking it easy on this car in my daily driving.
 
I am tempted to try flooring it a few times to see what happens. But, my point was, how often do you really need to do this in real world driving? (Especially with the amount of low-end power the Aura has) So yes, I don't doubt you get torque steer when flooring the gas...my point was why do you need to do that in this car? This is also my first front wheel drive car, so I don't have much to compare it to. (When I floored it in my Camaro the back end would just completely break loose, whole different story!)

Fair point, Hexxum. It's true, the Aura still pulls pretty hard even if you don't floor it. For that reason, most owners will probably tend to leave some space between the pedal and the metal in daily driving.
 
If I were designing a family sedan, though, I'd want to make sure that it felt safe and predictable under as many different circumstances as possible. And the Aura XR's full-throttle behavior at low speeds just doesn't feel safe and predictable to me. One solution would be to dial down the horsepower to a more reasonable level for a FWD car, but I understand that the Aura's gotta keep up with the Joneses in that department. A more realistic solution, perhaps, would be for Saturn to come up with their own version of the Mazdaspeed3's torque-limiting system, so that you'd get the same impressive passing power but less of the squirrelly stuff at low speeds.
 
Josh

Joe- WOT is efficient for the engine in terms of making power and breathing (not MPG). This simply means its making more power do to a larger volume of air AND fuel. When the throttle is open 100%, your car is sucking down more fuel then in a part throttle situation.
  
Josh, you seem to be the only person who thinks the Aura's low end performance is "unusable." Again, you probably haven't had much experience which high torque FWD engines if the Aura's full throttle acceleration scares you. Does the wheel tug under full power, yes. Is it completely controllable, yes. Just grab the steering wheel with two hands if you can't handle it with one. If you prefer torque-less engines, then we'll just accept that but don't write as if the Aura has some kind of design flaw.
  
The Aura weighs 3600+ lbs and has 251 lbs-ft. It DOES NOT need a torque limiting system. There is no chance in hell that a torque limiting system will be used on any GM FWD car. This is a GM mainstream sedan- not a fire breathing drag racer. I haven't read a single review that suggested anything remotely similar to what you suggest. Heck, Motor Trend even drove a Malibu cross country having nothing but love for the powertrain. The MS3 weighs 3100 lbs and makes 280 lbs-ft- that is a world of difference. Besides, Mazda was stupid for a creating an engine with more torque than the 3's chassis could handle. What good are the published specs if they are electronically limited in the first two gears? My 3 barely makes 150 lbs-ft so it's hard for me to imagine an extra 130 lbs-ft wouldn't have adverse effects.
  
I think you simply need more experience driving various FWD cars before you start playing the engineer and suggesting hardware revisions. Go find a used Grand Prix GTP with the s/c 3800- that will show you torque steer. That car didn't even have traction control the first year on the market.

"As far as Edmunds liking the Accord and Altima better, you must take into consideration that they liked the Malibu (which, as you say, is basically the same car as the Aura) better than the number one selling car in the US, the Camry. Car and Driver and MotorTrend also like the Accord the best out of all the family sedans. This isn't just Edmunds. "
 
At this point in time beating the camry doesnt mean much. Its a mediocre car in almost every respect.
 
"In this respect, it was a 'special' model, since normally aspirated V6's were also available. I believe that, historically speaking, Josh was correct to identify the Altima as really upping the arms race. The main players in terms of volume - Accord and Camry - shrugged off the Regal's 240 horsepower. But Honda and Toyota couldn't ignore the 240 horsepower VQ. I wish they had."
 
Sigh, now you want to determine which car's hp counts and which do not count. The Regal AND Grand Prix had 240hp in 1998. That is a fact. They were well ahead of the Japanese in the hp race at that time. My point still stands, the Altima was not the first mainstream, affordable famiyl sedan with well over 200hp.

joe,
 
please give me a break. I cannot understand why people like you are unable to grasp the idea that IL editors (just like anyone else)have personal preferences that are not always related to subjective characteristics of a car. That is fine for you and I since we are not in the business of recommending cars to consumers but I expect more objectivity from those responsible for giving consumers usable information. If you believe you are unqualified to disagree with IL editors that is your choice but do not assume that I am in the same boat. I have not driven the Accord and I am sure its a great car. That said, there is NOTHING the Accord can do (besides offer navigation) that the Aura cannot. The two cars offer similar hp, similar performance and are overall VERY similar. You can try to twist the facts all day and amplify EVERY minor shortcoming of the Aura but you will never be able to prove the Accord is totally superios on objective grounds. Every minor flaw on the Aura has turned into one or more blog entries. Meanwhile few blog entries have centered on the Accord's flaws. One reason why the Accord they have has been so well received is that they chose the top EX-L v6 model that few people actually buy. Get a regular accord sans the BT, Nav, XM radio, etc. and it suddenly becomes a competent but hardly exceptional car. I do not need to drive the Accord for thousands of miles to know that I don't want one. What people seem to have trouble accepting is that nearly every midsize V6 powered car in this price range is very competent and can deliver similar levels of quiet and performance. Its not JUST that the Accord isnt far superior to the Aura, its not too far ahead of the Altima, Camry, 2009 Sonata or Malibu either.

"It's funny. Edmunds is accused of bias, but they laud the CTS and Enclave. Two vehicles which are universally agreed to offer the current pinnacle of GM design. Yet Edmunds is still treated like it's institutional domestic bias when they do not laud other GM products. Does that not indicate something else, to you? "
 
Here's whats funny. No one thinks its odd that Edmunds was so unimpressed with the Aura and Malibu when the rest of the press was very impressed with those cars. Yes, the CTS and Enclave seem to be popular here and that is great. 2 or 3 vehicles out of GM's entire fleet are popular with IL staff and people like you think that is proof positive that there is a domestic love fest going on here. The problem is that is a very small proportion of GM's offerings and nearly every HOnda, BMW, Mazda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. they test gets nothing but raves. I mean come on, they reviewed the Sequoia and didnt even mention the Dodge grade plastic interior and terrible ergonomics that carried over from the Tundra. Yes they criticized the camry once the new Accord and Altima came out but they had no issues with it when it was new and ranked it best in class.
 
I just want to know why (especially when you factor in price point) people think the Aura/Malibu are so much worse than the CTS and Enclave. The latter two vehicles have fulyl optioned prices approaching $50k and thus they better be superior to the Aura. Logically speaking GM's vehicles should be better as the prices increase. This idea that the Aura is mediocre because its not as good as a Cadillac that starts at $33k is a joke.

"At this point in time beating the camry doesnt mean much. Its a mediocre car in almost every respect."
 
That's a pretty tough statement to make. Camry is the best selling car in America. Furthermore, in Edmunds' recent tests, it was quicker than all other contenders in both 4 and 6-cyl configurations and had the highest observed fuel economy with the 4-cyl engine (which is a big deal nowadays). Also, despite a few pieces in the news, most average consumers still see the Toyota badge as a mark of excellent reliability over the long term. Plus, didn't a Camry get first place in a recent MotorTrend test? I'm not saying that I like the Camry (at all), but it still has quite a lot going for it in the marketplace.

"Furthermore, torque steer is not cool. Especially when you get it in straight or minor-turn situations. It upsets balance. As I pointed out above, it could be for a variety of reasons beyond just normal fwd/big engine design. Or it could be a problem with the car. "
 
Torque steer isnt a problem in the car under normal circumstances which is one reason people are a little annoyed with this post. This issue hasnt even come up previously in the LT blog as far as I know. How many people accelerate at full throttle? Furthermore, NO ONE has more experience with taming high hp FWD cars than GM. The old STS had 295 lb-ft through the front wheels with minimal torque steer. And yes I have driven that car at a Cadillac driving event so I know first hand. The idea that GM cant control 251 lb-ft in the Aura and the wheel squirms wildly at the slightest provocation is totally absurd to anyone interested in applying logic. However, if you of the school of thought that we are not to disagree with IL editors since we dont drive cars for a living then I suppose it makes perfect sense.
 
As chavis said, maybe Josh should stick to cars with torque output he can handle like the civic and corolla. I would assume JOsh (this is CA afterall) has been raise on a steady diet of I-4 powered import cars and is unable to manage the powerful V6 that lurks under the Aura's hood. I understand that big engines are anathema to those who love high revving VTEC four bangers but the Aura is completely managable to those used to driving FWD cars with real power.

"That's a pretty tough statement to make. Camry is the best selling car in America. Furthermore, in Edmunds' recent tests, it was quicker than all other contenders in both 4 and 6-cyl configurations and had the highest observed fuel economy with the 4-cyl engine (which is a big deal nowadays). Also, despite a few pieces in the news, most average consumers still see the Toyota badge as a mark of excellent reliability over the long term. Plus, didn't a Camry get first place in a recent MotorTrend test? I'm not saying that I like the Camry (at all), but it still has quite a lot going for it in the marketplace."
 
let me make this simple for you. NONE of these cars is a bad car. The camry is simply outclassed at this point. Even the new sonata has it beat. Best selling means nothing to me. The corolla is the best selling compact, but its not the best. The F150 is the best selling vehicle in america but that doesnt mean its the best vehicle you can buy. The Impala outsells the fusion, Mazda6, Altima and many other cars of similar price but I know you wouldnt deem it superior. I see you cant stand for anyone to slight any import vehicle, even the camry. Most GM bashers would concede the Camry is in 3rd or 4th place amongst midsize sedans at this point. I never said its a bad car however.

1487 -
 
You've made alot of great arguments in the past, but you've ruined your statements with two sentences from above:
 
"That said, there is NOTHING the Accord can do (besides offer navigation) that the Aura cannot... I do not need to drive the Accord for thousands of miles to know that I don't want one."
 
That's hyperbolic prejudice. Furthermore, no one (that I've seen) is saying a car like the Accord is far superior to the Aura. I certainly don't think so. I do prefer it, but it's simply from the little things. It's not as good a value from a price/feature standpoint.
 
Further, I think you give GM too much credit. You think they conquered torque steer because you drove a Cadillac Seville (not STS) with 295 HP driven through the front wheels and didn't experience any?
 
How do you think they've achieved good mileage with those engines? They used a very tall geared 4-speed automatic. You didn't experience torque steer because the car has incredibly slow throttle tip-in (tuned for it's clients expectations of a smooth driving experience) combined with a 4-speed auto that was tuned for slow, infrequent shifts...on a very, very heavy vehicle.
 
Moving on from there...the Grand Prix GTP in 03/04 (can't remember which year) had wider front tires than rear in order to add traction (too much power through the front wheels), reduce torque steer (a massive problem in that car), and help balance the understeer of the vehicle. It still wriggled under moderate acceleration.
 
Torque steer is completely manageable on almost every front wheel drive car. The Nissan Sentra Spec-V had wheel-wrenching torque steer...but if you had two hands on the wheel it wasn't a problem. It still upsets balance and disrupts the driving experience.
 
In the case of the Aura...reading Josh's comments and post again, it sounds like the torque steer was exacerbated by wet/oily pavement. Josh, from what I understand torque steer is greatly exaggerated on such conditions because only some parts of the tire contact patch grip, resulting in tire squirm, resulting in torque steer. Do you have a chance to drive the Altima on typical So. Cal. dry, smooth roads?
 
Oh...one last comment on 1487's writings for now..."..popular with IL staff and people like you think that is proof positive that there is a domestic love fest going on here."
 
I think it is one of the indicators that there isn't the bias you claim. When I read their comments, and experience the cars they've commented on, I find what they say to be on-target.
 
Those new GM products, are, to use a phrase I used before, the current pinnacle of GM design/technology. And IL really likes them. Maybe they don't like others because they use an older design or are not the best thing on the market right now. Maybe all the cars are so good that the only thing left to do is pick on the little things?
 
Joe
 
P.s. Truedelta.com, an automotive surveying website created by a hard-working individual named Michael Karesh, has new data on vehicle launches and owner reported experiences. The Aura had some problems coming out, the Accord came out with much less owner-reported problems. Perhaps that is evidence of institutional bias as well?

I haven't seen this smoke billowing out of rear ends since I was invited to a NHRA race.
 
Why do people always mistake "preference" and "bias"? I've driven a 4 cyl car for 8 years now. I don't like driving my father's Deville. I guess I have a V8 bias.
 
This maddening argument is over something so insignificant it's laughable. WOT take-offs are not what sways purchases between vehicles. It's the driver's preference and driving style that determines the purchase.
 
It's true that the thought of "Well, it's a domestic car, so it's got lots of power, but will fall apart in 40,000 miles," and " Well, it's an import, so it's boring, but it'll last 300,000," can not be said anymore. Unfortunately, these sentiments are still in the heads of people. It will take time and good products (like Malibu, Aura, Acadia, etc) to help dissipate these misconceptions.
 
Arguing about every nuance of a vehicle is nitpicking. Every car has it's foibles. In time, even the Accord will make someone catch his/her breath and say "Oh My Word! That's terrible the way the car does this!"
 
I'm done complaining. You can continue bickering about oil on the road and why they attach the dash with hex bolts rather than Phillips screws.

Joe-
 
"How do you think they've achieved good mileage with those engines? They used a very tall geared 4-speed automatic. You didn't experience torque steer because the car has incredibly slow throttle tip-in (tuned for it's clients expectations of a smooth driving experience) combined with a 4-speed auto that was tuned for slow, infrequent shifts...on a very, very heavy vehicle."
 
The STS did have 295lbs-ft@4400 while the SLS had 300 lbs-ft at 4000. The STS had a 3.71 axle (relatively short) while the SLS had a 3.11(tall). The STS' throttle tip in was not slow and the car had completely different higher lift longer duration cams that pushed the powerband higher into the rev range. The car had a four speed because that was all that was available at the time- this was not some engineering choice to quell torque steer. The STS also had Perfomance Algorithim Shifting which was NOT tuned for slow infrequent shifts- in fact it was tuned for very fast shifting. It would hold gears when the car sensed lateral G's over a certain threshold to give you maximum acceleration though a curve and rapidly upshift when it sensed the car completely that curve. Please get your facts straight. I haven driven this car numerous times and it's performance was clearly above average for a 4000 lbs FWD car.
 
BTW, the increase of torque and weight of the FWD STS is proportional to the Aura 3.6l.
 
You are referring to the Grand Prix GXP with the 5.3L V8- it has 255/45 18s up front and 225/50s on the rear. The V8 makes 323 lbs-ft compared to 280 from the s/c 3800 so additional provisions were necessary if the driver were to aggresively lay down the additional grunt.
 
I don't think 1487 is giving GM too much credit but I don't think you are giving them enough. Look what happened to Acura when they tried to pump all that torque through the front wheels of the TL Type-S. They don't have experience with a lot of torque and it shows. GM has been doing this for years and non of their cars are out of control when the throttle is down- contrary to what Josh thinks. As you said, he was attempting to nail the gas on wet pavement yet expected the car to perform the miracle of laying down all its grunt with no protest. Hmmm... seems logical to me.

it entertaining going through 59 comments.
 
i think that the 02 altima was bashed for it's "white knuckle torque steer" as well. i really see the aura going the path of the 3rd gen altima. it's a bit rough in the 1st iteration, but when they redesign it, they'll take into account of what it's faults are and fix them.
 
i think because of this, the aura people need to be a bit more honest about their opinions else how can GM improve upon their creation?
 
oh yeah, cars do have too much power now. most people aren't using that much power anyways so in reality, they are just lugging extra weight

Chavis -
 
You are right. After reading your post, I read up more on that specific caddy and it seems like it's got some impressive stuff on board for it's 1998 launch (heck, even by today's standards it's got some good technology). I've driven a (as in 1) caddy w/ the northstar and 4-speed auto...and it felt like a cruiser....slow response, but then a great build-up, gear shifts were measured in seconds but never jarred the butt.
 
Regarding Acura: In 2004/2005 (pre TL-S) the 6-speed TL had a good amount of torque. They got rid of that for 2006 using a new driveshaft design and torque-limiting engine management. Acceleration times didn't suffer, and the torque steer was, for the most part, eliminated.
 
I've never met an uncontrollable torque-steering car...all can be controlled, to my knowledge...but I have met cars where it ruins the driving experience. I've driven some GM cars with really harsh torque steer (the GXP/GTP of a few years back), and driven GM cars with no torque steer (Buicks, primarily due to response tuning in my mind).
 
I don't care for the torque steer in my Civic SI...but it only bothers me when the roads are damp, so it makes the wheel squirm.
 
Then again, I actually consider a MazdaSpeed 3. So obviously I'm not immune to the allure of high-torque FWD domestics :)
 
Joe

Everyone buy a Toyota Camry!! lol

langjie- the Aura might have some faults, but the powertrain isn't one of them.
 
joe-
 
I was referring to the current Type S with the 5 spd auto. I don't believe it has a limited slip on the automatic. Overall, my point was that other manufacturers have to result to electronic limiting schemes to deliver the goods in their hi-po FWD cars, GM does not.
 
The STS had plenty innovative features and got even better with the '02 model year. It was definitely the best FWD luxury sedan ever in my book. Most folks don't know but it was the first car ever to have Delphi's Magnetic Ride Control- even before the Corvette.
 
Note to Josh (and others that can't handle the Aura's power). Wait till the transmission shifts to second and then nail the throttle. First gear is very short (4.48:1) so it'll upshift quickly to second if you lay off the gas from a standstill. When it does try applying WOT and see how that works for ya.

Hey Chavis,
 
Regarding your last point: wouldn't the trans shift back down to 1st under WOT?
 
I BELIEVE (not sure) that the new TL type-s has an LSD even on the auto, but I could be wrong.
 
Caddy offered some awesome rides (I loved alot of their looks)...but the FWD dynamic and cheap interior doors/dash turned alot of people away. I understand the need for large buttons for the demographic, but those large buttons wobbled within their settings and had a pretty overall cheap look and feel (i.e. they were set within a gigantic black/tan plastic cut-out).
 
Still, as you point out, GM advanced alot of cutting-edge technology into their caddies (unfortunately, their variable cylinder management of the 80's bombed due to reliability problems).
 
Joe

chavis,
 
wasn't trying to imply that the drive train was a fault, but there is always room for improvement (not just the Aura)

there is room for improvement but it would be nice if they could mention some of the positive attributes.

i think they did say it had plenty of "oomph"

Josh
 
Maybe you should spend your money on a Civic Si. 200hp. 130lb/ft. No torque steer.

Redliner -
 
My 06 Civic SI has torque steer. 139 lb/ft multiplied by the gearing is more than enough to cause tire squirm.
 
In fact, my car has about the same acceleration as the Aura (in an all-out straight line).
 
Joe

" think they did say it had plenty of "oomph"
 
Oh, well we have one positive attribute. Thats good to know.
 
The GP GTP and GXP were mentioned earlier but both had torque steer controlled very well. C&D tested the GXP when it was new and outlined the technology used to control torque steer and deemed it very effective. And this was a car with 323 lb-ft of torque. GM knows how to manage torque steer. The Japanese have much less experience with doing so and have never managed as much torque as GM has with its V8s. The most torque from a FWD Japanese car is 251lb ft I believe.

256 for TL type s
258 for Altima 3.5
258 for Eclipse
 
I know that the Altima, at least, has minimized the torque steer for the newer model (one of the biggest gripes with the 3rd gen)

I couldnt remember the torque on the Altima. Either way no Japanese brand has ever tamed as much torque as GM has with its V8 cars.

having to manage it is bad. not a big fan of "high performance" FWD cars in general