3.2 2005 PASM vs 2.7 2007 Non-PASM
Just had a couple hundred miles in the dealer's brand new 2.7 loan car. These are my observations comparing with my own 3.2 car with 26k on the clock.
Clutch was lighter in the 2.7, but gearbox very notchy. I guess that'll get better with time, but it was a relief to get back to my 6 speed. Obviously the engine/gearbox not broken in yet, and I didn't touch the upper end of the rev range for respect of the break-in rules (aren't I good!), however I was impressed with how well it performed. Also the car was very quiet at 80pmh. Not so much whine as from mine. Mind you, I didn't notice the engine's throaty rasp either - maybe more sound deadening material on the new cars, or the engine note just wasn't as vocal. I do think that (once broken in) the 2.7 would be plenty enough for most people. That is, if they didn't try the 'S'!
Car had 18"s, shod with Continentals. Mine's got Michelin on. Can't say I noticed too much difference, but then it was wet and orrible on the roads. Maybe the Continentals had slightly better wet grip? I don't know. My fronts have 25k on then and my PASM isn't too hot at the moment. But I didn't think the Continentals were any worse than the Michelins.
Standard suspension was nice to play with, and I was quite impressed with the way it coped with bad surfaces. Very composed, predictable and sure footed. Comparing with my (faulty?) PASM, it was less likely to get upset by mid-bend bumps, which often makes mine lurch latterally and/or lose latteral grip. Not good when you don't have much room on a country 'B' road! You do get more body roll, and the steering isn't as sharp with the standard suspension as compared to the PASM when it's working well. It's also accurate to say that the standard suspension is towards the hard end of being in the middle of the PASM range. Standard suspension is pretty good, but it shows you how good the PASM setup is when it's working well. But at least you know what you're getting at all times with the standard suspension, and it's very livable with on 18"s.
Not sure which sound package the car had - possibly the Plus one? Didn't sound near as good as the Bose, but then I never listen to that either, but it was interesting to compare. Not having Bose meant there was a storage cubby between the head-rests. It should be noted that although this has a post-box shaped opening, the space is compromised by intrusion from the roof hook when it's folded - there's cover for that that projects from the roof of the cubby. So you can't fit a box in there, even though the opening would suggest you can.
No seat pockets on the new cars. I hate that!
I had a look at the cup-holders, and to be honest, apart from the lack of silver paint, they looked the same as on the old cars. They're just all black, that's all.
And that's all I have to say about that. (in a Forest Gump voice).
Clutch was lighter in the 2.7, but gearbox very notchy. I guess that'll get better with time, but it was a relief to get back to my 6 speed. Obviously the engine/gearbox not broken in yet, and I didn't touch the upper end of the rev range for respect of the break-in rules (aren't I good!), however I was impressed with how well it performed. Also the car was very quiet at 80pmh. Not so much whine as from mine. Mind you, I didn't notice the engine's throaty rasp either - maybe more sound deadening material on the new cars, or the engine note just wasn't as vocal. I do think that (once broken in) the 2.7 would be plenty enough for most people. That is, if they didn't try the 'S'!
Car had 18"s, shod with Continentals. Mine's got Michelin on. Can't say I noticed too much difference, but then it was wet and orrible on the roads. Maybe the Continentals had slightly better wet grip? I don't know. My fronts have 25k on then and my PASM isn't too hot at the moment. But I didn't think the Continentals were any worse than the Michelins.
Standard suspension was nice to play with, and I was quite impressed with the way it coped with bad surfaces. Very composed, predictable and sure footed. Comparing with my (faulty?) PASM, it was less likely to get upset by mid-bend bumps, which often makes mine lurch latterally and/or lose latteral grip. Not good when you don't have much room on a country 'B' road! You do get more body roll, and the steering isn't as sharp with the standard suspension as compared to the PASM when it's working well. It's also accurate to say that the standard suspension is towards the hard end of being in the middle of the PASM range. Standard suspension is pretty good, but it shows you how good the PASM setup is when it's working well. But at least you know what you're getting at all times with the standard suspension, and it's very livable with on 18"s.
Not sure which sound package the car had - possibly the Plus one? Didn't sound near as good as the Bose, but then I never listen to that either, but it was interesting to compare. Not having Bose meant there was a storage cubby between the head-rests. It should be noted that although this has a post-box shaped opening, the space is compromised by intrusion from the roof hook when it's folded - there's cover for that that projects from the roof of the cubby. So you can't fit a box in there, even though the opening would suggest you can.
No seat pockets on the new cars. I hate that!
I had a look at the cup-holders, and to be honest, apart from the lack of silver paint, they looked the same as on the old cars. They're just all black, that's all.
And that's all I have to say about that. (in a Forest Gump voice).
