Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

11781791811831841065

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: 7,666
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.