Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1118119121123124712

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    There is no way you can justify needing more than a good modern 4 cylinder engine
    And of those 'good modern' 4 bangers let's say the Honda, Toyota and Nissan engines every one of them is pulling something close to 20lbs./HP which starts to become a problem in this regard as these cars get larger and heavier. The better V6s will only cost you about 3-4 mpg (or $10.00/month) assumming 27 vs. 30 mpg, 12k/year, and $3/gallon. 10 bucks a small price to pay IMO - it is possible these days to have our cake and eat it too. I'll obviously opt for the securities offered by the 250hp (or more) - you are the one that can be judgmental and tell me that 'I don't need it'.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    The 335 is a turbo yes, cost $9K more no

    OK - $10K more then. I can get a 328 for $36K with the Premium Pac and the Sport Pac. The 335 is at least $44K with those Pacs, but try to find one with JUST those Pacs. You can't. The ones I've seen at 2 dealers were all loaded.

    gets way less MPGs (who cares tho! - its a 335!) probably 34 highway after being broken in, my 330 got 34 mpg at 65

    Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way.

    High HP is one of the things you use the least in 95% of your drives. 230 in a RWD setup is perfect. disagree, my turbo 4 gets floored quite a bit when merging

    I thought you had a 330? You got the only one coming out of the factory with a turbo 4 then. You have to floor turbos to get 'em up and out. I don't want that kind of wildness going on every time I step on the gas.

    The 335 is sweet, but impractical.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    Whoa there Sparky - I never said you shouldn't get a V6. Quite the opposite - I bought one myself and would probably do it again given the choice. But I don't try to justify it by saying it's safer or has better resale. It's a personal preference just like a stick vs. automatic tranny, leather vs. cloth seats, etc.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    It's a personal preference just like a stick vs. automatic tranny, leather vs. cloth seats, etc.


    Well I have seen Accords and the like with trailer hitches welded to them. Probably just for bike racks and such but one never knows!!! :surprise:

    If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Well I have seen Accords and the like with trailer hitches welded to them. Probably just for bike racks and such but one never knows!!!

    If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.


    My '93 actually has a hitch bike rack on it right now. ;) It brought my dining room set home in a 5x8 U-haul trailer with no problems at all, but it doesn't tow nearly as well as the much much newer Subie that is also a 4 cylinder.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    "I would rather not have to punch it as soon as I back out of my parking spot. "

    Ouch! :P

    "With the V6 you can wait until you get halfway down the ramp, and pick a spot to blend into the traffic without anyone having to slow down for you.

    Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against 4 cylinder Accords. My 92 Accord (140hp) was plenty fast enough for me for 12 years. It's just so much easier, and takes less advanced planning, with the 6 cylinder's highway acceleration."


    Your V6 is an automatic, right? So we are talking just under a one second difference from 0-60 MPH, say 7.5 seconds for an I4 manual versus 6.6 for a V6 automatic. I could get in the same gap you could as long as my response is within one second quicker than you. Not that much advanced planning.

    Under one second is not much time, but what are we talking in distance? From a dead stop to 60 MPH, your car would be 79 feet ahead of mine. (Once both vehicles are traveling at a steady 60 MPH, a 0.9 second difference in time equates to 79 feet, right?).

    Noticeable, sure, but not as much of a difference as some here are making it seem. Certainly not half of an on ramp, and definitely not some kind of safety concern.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    79 feet is a lot, when the gap between cars is only 40-50 feet. 1 second or less, can mean a lot in a tight situation. It's easier to merge into fast moving traffic with the V6, is all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's necessary, just nice to have.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    79' is a lot, as you could avoid even a 79' long semi which the I4 would be crushed by....
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    If the gap between cars is 40-50 feet, and the average car is 15 feet long, then if you and I were on the same onramp I'd get on the highway directly behind the car which you got in front of.

    Just one car back.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    But that is what onramps are for... they don't just dump you out onto the highway directly in front of a semi!

    Elroy and I on an onramp... if he was able to get right in front of a semi, I'd just have to pull right behind it. No big deal.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    Most of the V6 family sedans are "above aberage" in terms of acceleration, and most of the I4's are "average." I don't think that makes the V6's safer, however. Once you get quicker than average, in the hands of most drivers, the car becomes less safe. I for one know that I would be a less safe driver behind the wheel of a faster car. It's that tendency to think you can beat that semi while merging instead of just dropping in behind and then passing safely.

    This was proven for me when I was shopping for cars, in the insurance quotes I received. I looked at both the regular and the MazdaSpeed Mazda6. As far as insurance is concerned, replacement parts and crashworthiness should have been about the same, right? However, the faster car (the MazdaSpeed) would have been much more to insure (overall, "less safe" in the eyes of the insurance company).
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    More power can be more or less safe. It all depends on the driver. As far as insurance being more on higher performance cars, that usually applies more to "sports cars" because insurance companies assume these cars will be driven faster. The higher cost of the Speed6 over the regular 6 could be more about the higher cost of replacing the car (doesn't the Speed6 cost more), than it being less safe.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "OK - $10K more then"

    Ummm how about $6k more according to the BMW website? Base price of 328 vs 335.

    "Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way."

    So I have to ask, are you saying I'm lying? The 330 has better gas mileage than some of the 4 bangers.

    "I thought you had a 330?"

    I have and had a number of cars, so what?

    "The 335 is sweet, but impractical."

    Understood, it is impractical for you.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    would betcha, elroy5, that insurance rates for specific cars have a whole lot more to do with the age demographic (average age of a buyer of a specific car model or type) than it does on anything related to HP. A Mazdaspeed anything is, IMO, the perfected 'rice rocket' and certainly more appealing to the generally younger buyer. A Camry V6 should be cheaper to insure than that Speed6 simply because of that and despite those HP numbers being similar.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Exactly, Captain. I think the reason a V6 Accord would be more expensive to insure than the 4cylinder is more about the cost of the car, than the performance.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    Not only that, but Insurance companies live for finding excuses to charge more for insurance. Ohh.... you got the V6 version, BAM! We're charging you a lot more!

    Any excuse will do for criminally setup auto insurance business.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,325
    If the car oozes the words sport, or speed, Insurance company's turn on there profit driven charges.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    OK, Accord vs. Accord, but make it the Speed6 vs. the Accord6 where the vehicle MSRPs are about the same, the Speed6 should cost more to insure, the Speed buyer is probably younger and likes all that 'look at me - I can go fast' bling.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    OK, Accord vs. Accord, but make it the Speed6 vs. the Accord6 where the vehicle MSRPs are about the same, the Speed6 should cost more to insure,

    This is where I think we get into assuming the mentality of the driver. Assuming the Speed driver would be a greater risk would be wrong, IMO. That doesn't mean insurance companies don't do it, I would, however disagree with that. If both cars are "midsize sedans" and the MSRP is the same, the insurance cost should be the same also.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Assuming the Speed driver would be a greater risk would be wrong, IMO. That doesn't mean insurance companies don't do it,

    I don't think they do. Most insurance companies determine their rates statisticly. if 3 percent of accords sold are involved in an accident, and 4 percent of mazda speed 6's sold are involved in accidents, the speed 6 will get a higher rate. that's why you pay more depending on where you live, age, sex, record, and type of car.

    its all bassed on statistics.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Andres, your ignorance is glaring.

    In addition to all the driver demographics, vehicle demographics are taken into consideration. (At least they are in CT where I am an insurance agent.)

    Things like frequency of involvement in claims (accidents or theft/vandalism), damagability (the cost of vehicle repairs for standardized damage tests), and value of vehicle are factored into the rate. In CT, and I think most or all of the country, performance car ratings (high perf, intermediate perf or sport car) were dropped several years ago in favor of a more accurate measure of risk based upon actual make/model loss experience. (This evolution was probably helped when Caddy brought out the Northstar. Suddenly, Grandma was driving a "high performance" car and after time the statistics showed that Granny driving her Caddy had a better record than many others cars.)

    The words "sport" or "speed" have nothing to do with it. A Grand Cherokee Loredo Sport does not cost more to insure than a Grand Cherokee Limited. They're not in the class being discussed, they were just the first two examples that came to mind of the "same" vehicle with different sub-names not being rated differently due to a name.

    Another example was the 1984 Chrysler Laser and its Dodge counter part. They were the exact same car, except for the name. After a year or so on the market, the Chrysler became less expensive to insure than the Dodge. The Dodge didn't become more expensive, the Chrysler became less expensive. Why? Try loss experience and what type of driver was attracted to each car.

    Another myth is that manual shift cars cost more to insure than cars with A/T. If anything, the manual shift MIGHT cost less to insure due to the car (generally) having a lower MSRP than the car with A/T.

    The statistics are based on hundreds of thousands or millions of cars over a period of time.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    performance car ratings (high perf, intermediate perf or sport car) were dropped several years ago in favor of a more accurate measure of risk based upon actual make/model loss experience.

    Sounds a lot more logical and accurate to me.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    Re our recent thread about the influence of warranty coverage on your mid-sized car purchase decision... Chrysler has just blown past every other automaker with its new lifetime powertrain warranty on all new Chrysler vehicles, including the Sebring and Avenger mid-sized sedans:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121856

    I think this is a great move for Chrysler to catch the attention of buyers, similar to what Hyundai did eight years ago with its 10 year/100k warranty. But Chrysler needs to follow up just as Hyundai did, by greatly improving their products--specifically the Sebring and Avenger--as soon as possible.
  • artourartour Posts: 22
    I leased a Speed6 GT the end of Feb. 2006 and really loved and enjoyed the car very much. It was a real kick and pleasure to drive and I felt separated me from 99% of everything else on the road. It had speed, good looks, and all sorts of std. equipment most other cars did not have - keyless entry and starting, auto up/down all 4 windows, hid headlights, easy close trumk, adjustable height of headlights etc. But then the problems began which made me feel unconfident in the ability of the car to get me where I was going or getting home. First, the fuel pump went in Feb of this year in the middle of the snow storm here in the east. My wife & I were on 95 going to MD from NJ and the pump crapped out leaving us stranded and in real jepordy. It took a week and a half to get it fixed, and 4 months more to have Mazda pay me back for the expenses incurred. I decided to get rid of it and get something that has a better track record of durability, so I turned to the Legacy GT sedan. I am now driving the Legacy for around a week and like it too (not as much as the speed6 yet). BTW, I bought out of the Mazda lease 6 months early when I traded for the Legacy and wound up around $1,000 on the upside for the tradein. As I said, I like the Legacy too, but it doesn't make me feel as good driving it as the speed6 did. Maybe because the speed6 was a 6 speed stick and the only 08 Legacy turbo I could get my hands on is an automatic. Also, the speed6 is a much more user friendly car, more storage and all gauges and information is viewable at one time, the Legacy has a computer info center on one led - only one screen at a time.
    If anyone has any questions about my experiences, feel free to ask me.
    Artour
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Posts: 218
    I saw a commercial on TV about this tonight. The "fine print" at the bottom says not all models are covered under this new "warranty."

    The warranty is not transferable......Most people don't drive their vehicles for more than a few years. At least not the people I know.....maybe 3-4 years max and then they get new cars.

    The warranty doesn't help subsequent owners and its pretty likely the 3 year/36,000 mile warranty already expired. Also, I don't think the warranty will greatly persuade people to go out and buy a chrysler.
  • mf15mf15 Posts: 158
    i agree, it is great for the buyer who intends to keep the car for 10 years. But since I lease Jeeps I could care less, I want to see lower payments than their current lease offers which are not as good as on my 04 Jeep. This is using all rebates, lease loyalty and affiliate discounts. Old Mike
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    you make a number of good points - the way these 'extended warranties are structured can make them almost worthless to the average car buyer. Don't believe the GM/Hyundai warranties are transferrable and you better believe that those mfgrs. know how fast mileage is accumulated and how long the average buyer keeps a car. It is, by any definition, a marketing 'gimmick', IMO. Chrysler can 'warranty' its cars forever but it doesn't change their products, and Chrysler's long term (Cerebus) future - which is shaky. Our compadre, akirby, can rage on all he wants about Ford's first 'profitable' quarter in a long long time, but it is really insignificant to the billions and billions they have lost recently - and the billions and billions more they had to borrow just so they could close some more plants and put even more Americans out of work. GM, OTH, while they have shown the same sort of ability to lose as much money as possible, seems content to simply become the world's first Chinese 'American' manufacturer.

    Given 'Detroit's' generally dire financial straits, I think buyers of those particular brands are really more likely to chance a worthless warranty because the company no longer exists, then they are to actually need to use that warranty in the first place.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    There are very few models not covered--high performance cars, the big Mercedes-sourced van, and (interestingly) diesels, plus some fleet vehicles. But almost every vehicle is covered. Also, most long powertrain warranties don't go past the original owner. It's an inducement for someone to buy a Chrysler, much like the Hyundai/Kia/Mitsubishi warranty (which also doesn't transfer to other owners).
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    There are very few models not covered--high performance cars, the big Mercedes-sourced van, and (interestingly) diesels, plus some fleet vehicles.

    I think the diesel drivetrains already come with some type of extended warranty, and since they are used for some very high mile applications (2-300k/yr) that might be too much to ask.
    I think its cool that they would be willing to support a single owner for a 150-200k lifetime. If the warranty covers the transmission and basic engine mechanicals (like the oil pump, head gasket, etc, but not the water pump), I think that would make me feel more comfortable with a vehicle.
    I also think since most people lease the car anyway, the exposure for Chrysler is minimal, and they might actually be making a reliable product :P
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,668
    If you'd pay attention you'd see that Ford isn't just cost cutting their way to profit, they're making fundamental changes to how they do business including better products but it won't happen overnight. One profitable quarter is simply a good sign that they're on the right path. We'll know in 4 years when the clean sheet new products arrive.

    I bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality. Neither position is accurate as warranty length has nothing to do with quality - it's just an insurance policy with a defined cost that has to be built into the product. Higher quality means less warranty cost but you can put a 10 yr warranty on anything if you have enough profit to pay for the repairs.
Sign In or Register to comment.