Low Road Noise Vehicles
- Thread starter supton
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dareo
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
Might be able to find a cream puff Buick of low miles. Quiet, comfortable, slushbox, 3800 is reliable. I only say Buick since often Toyota is so expensive used that its not even funny.
Park Avenue (yes, I'm biased; stipulated) or LeSabre?
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
Might be able to find a cream puff Buick of low miles. Quiet, comfortable, slushbox, 3800 is reliable. I only say Buick since often Toyota is so expensive used that its not even funny.
Park Avenue (yes, I'm biased; stipulated) or LeSabre?
I somewhat disagree on the suggestions to buy anything and spend a weekend deadening the car. You can trim a few dBs with sound deadening, but you will never achieve the same level of quiet just by slapping on layers of sound absorbing material (atleast not efficiently). Luxury cars are designed from the ground up to be quiet and incorporate design features from the structure up to be quiet. eg: chassis improvements, engine mounts, suspension design, engine balancing, thicker windshield, improved seals, etc. A guy in his garage simply cannot replicate some of these design features on an econobox feasibly.
I've personally deadened the last two vehicles I've owned (Genesis Coupe and Mazda Protege) and I am extremely meticulous with my deadening in terms of using the proper materials and methodology. It does make a noticeable improvement especially with regards to quality of sound from the speakers, but you have to be realistic with your expectations.
I've personally deadened the last two vehicles I've owned (Genesis Coupe and Mazda Protege) and I am extremely meticulous with my deadening in terms of using the proper materials and methodology. It does make a noticeable improvement especially with regards to quality of sound from the speakers, but you have to be realistic with your expectations.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: dareo
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
I always thought this too, but my Neon was almost like an anvil once it got a good head gasket. So many original parts still on it and survived lots of autocross and a couple track days on r-compound tires, which is the hardest thrashing you can imagine on a daily driver.
Anyways, a 2.4l manual cloud car cream puff car might be better than $5k Camry that already has 200+k miles, IMHO at this price point, condition and care by the previous owner is pretty important. It is the only common early 2000's car with double arms all round 4cyl and a manual trans. I would atleast look at a nice one to see if I liked it.
My experience with a 98 R/T is the same. 7300 redline engine that pulled like a freight train for its size and 36 mpg with mods!
But hardly the poster child for road noise!
Originally Posted By: dareo
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
I always thought this too, but my Neon was almost like an anvil once it got a good head gasket. So many original parts still on it and survived lots of autocross and a couple track days on r-compound tires, which is the hardest thrashing you can imagine on a daily driver.
Anyways, a 2.4l manual cloud car cream puff car might be better than $5k Camry that already has 200+k miles, IMHO at this price point, condition and care by the previous owner is pretty important. It is the only common early 2000's car with double arms all round 4cyl and a manual trans. I would atleast look at a nice one to see if I liked it.
My experience with a 98 R/T is the same. 7300 redline engine that pulled like a freight train for its size and 36 mpg with mods!
But hardly the poster child for road noise!
Originally Posted By: nobb
I somewhat disagree on the suggestions to buy anything and spend a weekend deadening the car. You can trim a few dBs with sound deadening, but you will never achieve the same level of quiet just by slapping on layers of sound absorbing material (atleast not efficiently). Luxury cars are designed from the ground up to be quiet and incorporate design features from the structure up to be quiet. eg: chassis improvements, engine mounts, suspension design, engine balancing, thicker windshield, improved seals, etc. A guy in his garage simply cannot replicate some of these design features on an econobox feasibly.
I've personally deadened the last two vehicles I've owned (Genesis Coupe and Mazda Protege) and I am extremely meticulous with my deadening in terms of using the proper materials and methodology. It does make a noticeable improvement especially with regards to quality of sound from the speakers, but you have to be realistic with your expectations.
Well said!
I somewhat disagree on the suggestions to buy anything and spend a weekend deadening the car. You can trim a few dBs with sound deadening, but you will never achieve the same level of quiet just by slapping on layers of sound absorbing material (atleast not efficiently). Luxury cars are designed from the ground up to be quiet and incorporate design features from the structure up to be quiet. eg: chassis improvements, engine mounts, suspension design, engine balancing, thicker windshield, improved seals, etc. A guy in his garage simply cannot replicate some of these design features on an econobox feasibly.
I've personally deadened the last two vehicles I've owned (Genesis Coupe and Mazda Protege) and I am extremely meticulous with my deadening in terms of using the proper materials and methodology. It does make a noticeable improvement especially with regards to quality of sound from the speakers, but you have to be realistic with your expectations.
Well said!
This is a reply that I wrote in another post but, fits well with this post as well. Read below:
I've turned into my Dad!
He liked simple, quiet, comfortable vehicles that he could see well out of and he drove more slowly.
Though, the vehicles he drove were land bardges that floated along the highways so, traveling fast was not an option.
I still drive faster than he did as our vehicles today drive in a nice straight(rock solid) line with good percision when the roads become challanged.
Noisey, comfortable interiors with blind spots never bothered me in the past but now, I have become more particular as I have gotten older and my eyes and reactions are not what they were.
So, my criteria for vehicles has certainly changed. Now, I want smooth, quiet, comfortable vehicles that I can see well out of but, I want percision too and I still like to drive at a bit higher speeds than Dad!
I've turned into my Dad!
He liked simple, quiet, comfortable vehicles that he could see well out of and he drove more slowly.
Though, the vehicles he drove were land bardges that floated along the highways so, traveling fast was not an option.
I still drive faster than he did as our vehicles today drive in a nice straight(rock solid) line with good percision when the roads become challanged.
Noisey, comfortable interiors with blind spots never bothered me in the past but now, I have become more particular as I have gotten older and my eyes and reactions are not what they were.
So, my criteria for vehicles has certainly changed. Now, I want smooth, quiet, comfortable vehicles that I can see well out of but, I want percision too and I still like to drive at a bit higher speeds than Dad!
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm slowing turning into my dad too! I remember never wanting power steering, electric windows or even a/c. Just stuff to break. These days if it wasn't for the mpg hit, and worries about breakage, I'd be all over an automatic.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
Originally Posted By: supton
Yeah, I'm slowing turning into my dad too! I remember never wanting power steering, electric windows or even a/c. Just stuff to break. These days if it wasn't for the mpg hit, and worries about breakage, I'd be all over an automatic.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
I'm turning into my dad, too. I find myself getting irritated with my power windows, power locks, fancy radio, etc.
Yeah, I'm slowing turning into my dad too! I remember never wanting power steering, electric windows or even a/c. Just stuff to break. These days if it wasn't for the mpg hit, and worries about breakage, I'd be all over an automatic.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
I'm turning into my dad, too. I find myself getting irritated with my power windows, power locks, fancy radio, etc.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: dareo
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
I always thought this too, but my Neon was almost like an anvil once it got a good head gasket. So many original parts still on it and survived lots of autocross and a couple track days on r-compound tires, which is the hardest thrashing you can imagine on a daily driver.
Anyways, a 2.4l manual cloud car cream puff car might be better than $5k Camry that already has 200+k miles, IMHO at this price point, condition and care by the previous owner is pretty important. It is the only common early 2000's car with double arms all round 4cyl and a manual trans. I would atleast look at a nice one to see if I liked it.
My experience with a 98 R/T is the same. 7300 redline engine that pulled like a freight train for its size and 36 mpg with mods!
But hardly the poster child for road noise!
I was thinking the old cloud cars had a Neon 2.0L and manual trans, with double a-arm front suspension, so they would get decent mileage and be quiet and smooth on the highway.
The EPA ratings only have the Sebring with 29mpg hwy though, and the Neon with 36mpg. Seems like a big difference.
It was my entry for a quiet, reliable highway cruiser with good mileage for under $2000...
Apparently its a car only a mopar man wants.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: dareo
If you don't like TDI maintenance i would bet you will hate high mileage Chrysler maintenance.
I always thought this too, but my Neon was almost like an anvil once it got a good head gasket. So many original parts still on it and survived lots of autocross and a couple track days on r-compound tires, which is the hardest thrashing you can imagine on a daily driver.
Anyways, a 2.4l manual cloud car cream puff car might be better than $5k Camry that already has 200+k miles, IMHO at this price point, condition and care by the previous owner is pretty important. It is the only common early 2000's car with double arms all round 4cyl and a manual trans. I would atleast look at a nice one to see if I liked it.
My experience with a 98 R/T is the same. 7300 redline engine that pulled like a freight train for its size and 36 mpg with mods!
But hardly the poster child for road noise!
I was thinking the old cloud cars had a Neon 2.0L and manual trans, with double a-arm front suspension, so they would get decent mileage and be quiet and smooth on the highway.
The EPA ratings only have the Sebring with 29mpg hwy though, and the Neon with 36mpg. Seems like a big difference.
It was my entry for a quiet, reliable highway cruiser with good mileage for under $2000...
Apparently its a car only a mopar man wants.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: supton
Yeah, I'm slowing turning into my dad too! I remember never wanting power steering, electric windows or even a/c. Just stuff to break. These days if it wasn't for the mpg hit, and worries about breakage, I'd be all over an automatic.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
I'm turning into my dad, too. I find myself getting irritated with my power windows, power locks, fancy radio, etc.
I dunno, I've started liking that junk... I contemplated adding remote start, so that the windshield would start defrosting by the time I got outside, the Jetta's windshield is always covered in scratches from the ice scraper; dad has had remote start for years... But it's not worth the $$$ for that feature, it's not that hard to walk outside and then back in.
Most of that stuff is just fine, provided it doesn't break, IMO.
I have started liking the handsfree phone though, and the aux input on the radio. I just hate how aftermarket radios look though.
Originally Posted By: supton
Yeah, I'm slowing turning into my dad too! I remember never wanting power steering, electric windows or even a/c. Just stuff to break. These days if it wasn't for the mpg hit, and worries about breakage, I'd be all over an automatic.
Back then it was just getting out of school, messin' with vehicles, and chasing girls. Today I seem to have far more on my mind than back then. Funny how time changes us.
I'm turning into my dad, too. I find myself getting irritated with my power windows, power locks, fancy radio, etc.
I dunno, I've started liking that junk... I contemplated adding remote start, so that the windshield would start defrosting by the time I got outside, the Jetta's windshield is always covered in scratches from the ice scraper; dad has had remote start for years... But it's not worth the $$$ for that feature, it's not that hard to walk outside and then back in.
Most of that stuff is just fine, provided it doesn't break, IMO.
I have started liking the handsfree phone though, and the aux input on the radio. I just hate how aftermarket radios look though.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I was thinking the old cloud cars had a Neon 2.0L and manual trans, with double a-arm front suspension, so they would get decent mileage and be quiet and smooth on the highway.
The EPA ratings only have the Sebring with 29mpg hwy though, and the Neon with 36mpg. Seems like a big difference.
It was my entry for a quiet, reliable highway cruiser with good mileage for under $2000...
Apparently its a car only a mopar man wants.
My target keeps changing, as I keep looking at it every which way.
I started taking the back way into work, it's shorter but takes more time due to the towns you go through. Truck feels like its in its element here, ticking off what I think might be 20mpg doing this. But anything would do great, alternating from 30 to 55, with long stretches where I can coast down in speed instead of slamming on the brakes. But low(er) speeds mean less road noise too.
Odd, my parents avoid the highway when they can too... hmm...
I was thinking the old cloud cars had a Neon 2.0L and manual trans, with double a-arm front suspension, so they would get decent mileage and be quiet and smooth on the highway.
The EPA ratings only have the Sebring with 29mpg hwy though, and the Neon with 36mpg. Seems like a big difference.
It was my entry for a quiet, reliable highway cruiser with good mileage for under $2000...
Apparently its a car only a mopar man wants.
My target keeps changing, as I keep looking at it every which way.
I started taking the back way into work, it's shorter but takes more time due to the towns you go through. Truck feels like its in its element here, ticking off what I think might be 20mpg doing this. But anything would do great, alternating from 30 to 55, with long stretches where I can coast down in speed instead of slamming on the brakes. But low(er) speeds mean less road noise too.
Odd, my parents avoid the highway when they can too... hmm...
It's great to have a variety, isn't it. Where our Acura MDX feels somewhat large and pretty cushy (with 100,000 miles on the OEM dampers), our Honda CR-V feels like a slot car in comparison. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other, though I usually choose the CR-V when given a choice. My wife prefers the MDX, so it works out well.
Hokiefyd, it is interesting how you refer to the sharp handling of the CR-V, and I know you have qualified that this applies to the previous generation. When I test drove a 2013 CR-V last summer it felt nothing like a Honda, it felt like a bowl of jelly. (And it let in a lot of road noise.) In comparison, the 2013 Camry SE I drove later felt like a slot car. Granted it's a different type of vehicle, but we all know that a Toyota Camry is far far from being a slot car.
Yes, Honda really softened the CR-V for the 2012 re-design. It's a fine vehicle, and it continues to sell well, but it really lost its edge. They did the same thing to the Acura RDX, which is based loosely on the CR-V. It lost its spunky character and turbocharged engine in favor of a larger feel with much more refined V-6 engine. Again, it's selling well (better than the previous version did), but the enthusiast in me prefers the earlier versions, the ones with more spunk.
I very briefly drove a 2013 Camry XLE alongside a 2013 Fusion Titanium at a Ford marketing event this summer, and was quite impressed with the Camry. It handled far better than my 2011 Camry did. It was quite controlled and very well damped.
Edit: I should day that I have also "tuned" mine with custom toe and camber changes and much better tires than what came on it. These things make a world of difference in how a vehicle drives. The alignment on our CR-V is set for much more aggressive turn-in and response, at the expense of tire wear. In comparison, I have our MDX's alignment set pretty neutral. It achieves unbelievably even tire wear (better than I've ever had on a vehicle I've owned), but neutral alignment generally dampens steering response. This, obviously, is the case with any vehicle. I once owned a 2007 Corolla that came with squishy tires. With a little tweak of the front toe and some nice Yokohama tires, that Corolla would stick to nearly any corner or cloverleaf. You had to push it very hard to get it to slide. I could take 30 mph cloverleafs at 60 mph and the car still felt very stable, though you could tell that it was nearing the limit of tire adhesion.
I'm confident that I could get a new CR-V to handle more like an older one. But as you said, they've gotten a little mushy right out of the box.
I very briefly drove a 2013 Camry XLE alongside a 2013 Fusion Titanium at a Ford marketing event this summer, and was quite impressed with the Camry. It handled far better than my 2011 Camry did. It was quite controlled and very well damped.
Edit: I should day that I have also "tuned" mine with custom toe and camber changes and much better tires than what came on it. These things make a world of difference in how a vehicle drives. The alignment on our CR-V is set for much more aggressive turn-in and response, at the expense of tire wear. In comparison, I have our MDX's alignment set pretty neutral. It achieves unbelievably even tire wear (better than I've ever had on a vehicle I've owned), but neutral alignment generally dampens steering response. This, obviously, is the case with any vehicle. I once owned a 2007 Corolla that came with squishy tires. With a little tweak of the front toe and some nice Yokohama tires, that Corolla would stick to nearly any corner or cloverleaf. You had to push it very hard to get it to slide. I could take 30 mph cloverleafs at 60 mph and the car still felt very stable, though you could tell that it was nearing the limit of tire adhesion.
I'm confident that I could get a new CR-V to handle more like an older one. But as you said, they've gotten a little mushy right out of the box.
Last edited:
- Status
