Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1241242244246247391

Comments

  • http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/7011/honda-accord-coupe-ex-v-6.html --> right there...5.9 seconds. However, the Nissan Altima also does it in 5.9 with the 3.5/5-speed, and it doesn't look like [non-permissible content removed] in the front (accord with the oversized headlights) and also doesn't get a yawn from everyone that hears what you drive (Toyota Camry).
  • drjamesdrjames Posts: 274
    Do you think it's fair to be comparing a car with a manaul transmission to another with automatic transmission in performance times? Oh, and to be taking a coupe and comparing it with a sedan? lol... that's funny. As for the styling of the Altima or Accord? They hardly encite any emotion these days. As for what I drive? Yes I own a Camry, but also a Boxter S and Lexus RX and can tell you more people approach me about the Camry, period.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    How did I know you were going to cite Car & Driver. In case you didn't know, they are one of the most biased automotive publications to date. They love all Hondas and BMWs.

    Don't believe me? This is the same magazine that claimed a 2005 Infiniti G35 MT hit 60 in 5.9 seconds. They also claimed the new Jaguar XK does 60 in 5.9. According to Car And Driver the Honda Accord coupe can run with Infiniti G35's and Jaguar XK's? Keep telling yourself that.

    Last month they claimed the new BMW 335i did 60 in 4.8 seconds. Or about as fast as the last Porsche 911 Carrera 4S and faster than an Astin Martin V8 Vantage.

    Also consider the C&D test was performed in 2003, before the new SAE ratings. For all you know that version of the Accord may have had substantially less than 240 hp.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    In any case, with the hybrid it mostly a case of paying more now in order to save money on gas later. I don't know how the pricing is on that Camry, but it would not be worth paying even $2000 extra in order to save $300 per year or so on gas.

    As indicated in the story of someone canceling a trip due to the cost of the gas, many people are extremely irrational when it comes to gasoline prices.
  • guestguest Posts: 774
    "You can drive aggressively, or lackadaisically, but why would someone want the worst of all world's with the domestics? "

    Wow! can you say.. Brainwashed.. :surprise:

    Hate to tell ya.. I am very happy with my "domestic" product. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Hate to tell ya.. I am very happy with my "domestic" product.

    I was happy with domestics too. Used to think all brands were basicly the same quality. Then I bought my first Honda, and found out they are not all created equal. Until you know what you're missing, it's easy to be satisfied.
  • Car and Driver may be biased towards honda and bmw simply because they make GREAT cars, however, bias does not mean that they lie on their technical testing of the cars, like 0-60, etc. They can't just subtract a second off the time for no reason at all.

    What is the problem with the accord running with a Jag and the G35? I mean, even a neon srt-4 can run with and actually beat those cars 0-60 and the 1/4.

    What about the bmw 335i, what's the problem here? The fact that it's as fast as an M3? That's right. Motortrend dyno tested a new twin-turbo 335i, and guess what, it came out to be significantly more than the rated numbers. 350hp/350 lb-ft at the crank. Way more powerful than an M3. Makes sense, doesn't it?

    Car and driver also tested the sedan version of the accord, and it got 0-60 in 6 seconds, so it didn't matter what the bodystyle was. However, it is worth noting that automatic-equipped accords usually do 0-60 in about a second more than the manual transmission ones.

    But honestly, I have no idea why I'm defending the accord. I'd rather be driving an altima with some actual low-end torque.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    It's only common sense that a 298 Infiniti G35 is much faster than an 03 Accord V6 Coupe with 240 hp (maybe less since it was before new SAE ratings). Look at the specs of both cars for yourself including power to weight ratio and there is no way that the Accord can keep up with a G35.

    The reason I brought up the 335i is becaused C&D's review of it was highly inaccurate. They also tested the new 335Ci and recorded a time of 5.1 seconds. The coupe is lighter than the sedan by about two hundred pounds, it should have been faster, but somehow C&D thinks the sedan is magically faster.

    And no, the current M3 still has about 30 more hp than the 335i and is still much, much lighter.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "Last month they claimed the new BMW 335i did 60 in 4.8 seconds. Or about as fast as the last Porsche 911 Carrera 4S and faster than an Astin Martin V8 Vantage."

    Just as an fyi. If you link over motortrend.com, they dynoed a 335i. They measured 300hp at the rear wheels. So it is not improbable for a 4.7/8 sprint to 60 with an automatic. And, also C&D does adjust the numbers, but that car is still fast and tops out at 150 with US specs. If you look at the torque band you can see the power kicking in at 1400 rpm.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10519/2006-honda-accord-ex-v-6.html

    Here's the same number, 0-60 in 5.9 sec. ACCORD SEDAN, not a Coupe.

    Yes I own a Camry, but also a Boxter S and Lexus RX

    (((APPLAUSE)))
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ever heard of different conditions affecting engine/launch abilites? Different grip will affect launch times significantly.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    People keep saying how the Nissan 3.5L engine is so great. But in all the tests I've seen, the little 3.0L Honda engine performs just as good. Vtec is the equalizer.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    What are you saying? C&D is bias because they fudge their test numbers on Hondas and BMWs. It's one thing to feel C&D is bias on their opinions but to believe they're being dishonest on acceleration times is carrying your argument to lunacy.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    "People keep saying how the Nissan 3.5L engine is so great. But in all the tests I've seen, the little 3.0L Honda engine performs just as good."

    And lets don't forget that Honda has a 3.5 V6 too that compares quite nicely to Nissan's 3.5 V6.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    And lets don't forget that Honda has a 3.5 V6 too that compares quite nicely to Nissan's 3.5 V6.

    Yes, unfortunately Honda drivers must move up to much more expensive Acuras to experience that engine in a sedan. For now, Honda drivers are left with a lot less (38 lb-ft?)torque than Nissan ALtima drivers (although Honda doesn't have a torque steer problem in its Accord like Nissan's Altima).

    It is a sweet engine, but it is quickly becoming one of the smallest top-engines in the class at only 3.0 liters.

    Nissan - 3.5L
    Toyota - 3.5L
    Chrysler - 3.5L
    Hyundai - 3.5L
    Saturn - 3.6L
    Chevrolet - 3.9L

    Ford/Mazda/Mercury make do with 3.0 liters like the Accord, however. The Honda offers the most horsepower of the 3.0L V-6 choices out there.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    This will most likely change next year with the new Accord. Even if it only gets the 3.2 V6 it will likely be more than competitive with the other V6 engines you mentioned in driveability. And there is such a thing as having too much torque in a FWD Platform. Useable torque is more important.

    Take the Audi A3 with the 2.0t and 3.2 V6. The V6 has way more power and torque but performs only marginally better. Unless AWD is a priority it seems the extra power and torque is hardly worth the extra cost of the A3 V6.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I definitely agree (which is why I brought up the torque steer issue). I think the Accord with the TL's 258 hp 3.2L should be quite sufficient to compete with this current class of cars. Frankly, I still think 200 horsepower seems like a lot (coming from a 4-cylinder Accord owner... one with 130 hp, the other with 166 hp). Anything extra is just icing.
  • The 298hp Infiniti COUPE IS faster than the accord. It does it in 5.5 seconds. The G35 SEDAN has 260, and that's what got the 5.9 second time in car and driver. Since the G35 Sedan weighs more than the accord, yet has 20 more hp, the identical times make perfect sense.

    How can you even argue about a tenth of a second, anyway? Every single vehicle is different, and the test conditions are highly different as well. So the sedan is faster on that particular day. Oh well.

    And yes, the 335i IS more powerful than an M3, because it is highly underrated from the factory. It makes around 350hp, 20 more than the M3, and 350lb-ft, 90(!) more than the M3. All that extra torque cancels out the extra weight. Makes sense for it to be fast, doesn't it?
  • It performs just as good IF you drive it to the limit the whole time. If you don't redline it at 7 grand, it won't pull as hard as the Nissan engine will. That's just low-end torque. And don't forget, Nissan has "vtec" too. It's called cvtc. They just don't need to plaster 17 stickers all over every car that has it.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    there's no contradiction.. reading comp might be improved tho..

    The TCH does have V6 power ( ~ 190 hp )

    I chose however not to get it and got the Prius instead, because

    The ~190 hp V6 is excessive for my needs.

    There is no contradiction at all.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    They just don't need to plaster 17 stickers all over every car that has it.

    Um, what car does Honda have now that says VTEC other than on the engine cover, where, if I'm not mistaken, Nissan has CVTC, Toyota has VVT-i, Chevrolet has "Vortec," Dodge has Hemi, etc...?

    Nowhere on my Accord does the moniker "i-VTEC" show up except hidden under the hood.

    I agree, Honda's 3.0 liter engine has less torque than the Nissan's 3.5... it SHOULD have less, it is down by 1/2 a liter in engine size. The Honda on the other hand has less of a history of torque steer than does the Altima.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Low-end torque is great if you drag race people from stoplight to stoplight. Don't know about you, but I don't drag race with my family car. Where I do want the most power, is when passing, and merging into high speed traffic. This is where the 3.0 liter Accord engine shines, and will pass the Altima and it's mighty 3.5 liter engine.
  • jrock65jrock65 Posts: 1,371
    "This is where the 3.0 liter Accord engine shines, and will pass the Altima and it's mighty 3.5 liter engine."

    Yeah, right...
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Yeah, right...

    Yes, right. In 1/4 mile testing of the two cars (edmunds own tests) the Altima pulled stronger off the line (more low-end torque), but by the end of the 1/4 mile the Accord catches up, to make it a dead heat. From 45mph and up, the Accord is faster. Believe it, or not.
  • ontopontop Posts: 279
    The new M3 will have a 400hp V8
  • jrock65jrock65 Posts: 1,371
    First, the Edmunds comparison test was done in 2003, when the Altima V6 had a 4 speed auto. The 2006 has a 5 speed auto.

    Also, nowhere in the article does it say that the Accord is faster from 45 mph and up.

    All you can tell from that article is:

    Altima V6 4 speed auto: 60 to 90.8 mph in 8.3s
    Accord V6 5 speed auto: 60 to 90.6 mph in 8.2s

    If it were a 2006 V6 Altima 5 speed auto versus a 2006 V6 Accord 5 speed auto, my money would be on the Altima, at any passing stage.

    In any case, that's all old news. The 270 hp 2007 Altima and the 268 hp 2007 Carmy are clearly ahead of all the others in this power pissing match.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    No. The G35 I referred to was a 2005 MT they used in a comparison test. As of 2005 both sedan and coupe versions of the G35 had 298 hp. The C&D road test of the Accord was performed in 2003, before the new SAE ratings. Therefore it mau have had much less than Honda's claimed 240 hp. Even so, look at power to weight ratio on both the G35 and Accord. There is no way the Honda is just as fast as the G35.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    It's not just skewing the numbers. Car & Driver dislikes Toyota very much.

    They recently had an article titled "10 Best and Worst Automotive Makeovers" or something like that I forget.

    Anyways two of the cars that stuck out to me the most was the Toyota Camry and Pontiac G6.

    The G6 is not a stellar car, but C&D couldn't stop praising it for being that much better than the Grand Am it replaced.

    This is what they had to say about the Camry:

    "... grafted on a ponderous schnoz and a cellulite-puckered rump, the latter crime more grave. The result looks like an aging starlet who’s had work done, only to be exposed and damned by the invention of HDTV."

    If that doesn't convince you, just read some of their recent road tests of any Toyota/Lexus product.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    Yes perhaps, however it's odd that these "different launch conditions affecting engine launch abilities" usually favor Hondas and BMWs.

    In the real world, we all know that a Porsche Carrera is quicker than a 335i.
  • to626nto626n Posts: 14
    Come on, this is just as fast as a 298 hp G35 MT? Sounds a little fishy.

    Would love to see these two cars drag, my money is on the G35.
This discussion has been closed.