Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

11821831851871881030

Comments

  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    $70 to $100 seems to be the typical hourly service rate at dealerships, unless you own an exotic. My dealer charges $90 an hour - and, I'm in Illinois.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    I remember reading a few months back that the Mazda6 was one of the least costly to insure compared to other cars in this class. Part of the reason, I would think, would have to do with the a relatively low cost to repair to the bumpers and the rest of the car compared to other cars in this class according to the study done by the insurance companies. And perhaps another part may be that better handling cars will have a better chance at avoiding an accident. Of course using this logic, a sports car would have very low insurance rates, which they don't, so maybe this theory shouldn't be emphasized too much, but I'm not sure what else would explain the differences... maybe the mazda6 looks so nice, other cars don't want to hit it? :shades:
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Price ranges are the starting point for physical damage insurance; the line has to be drawn somewhere, just like a city or state boundary line, or voting district boundary lines. Live on one side of the line and you're in a different category than w neighbor who lives on the other side of the line.

    After the price range starting point other factors are considered such as frequency of claims and damagability. It's not an everyday happen stance, but it's not unusual for a more expensive car, whether a couple bucks more expensive or even a few thousand bucks more, to have a lower rating symbol than a lower prices car.

    Regarding you annual mileage concern: I'm not familiar with that as none of the companies I represent use that criterion. But, again, for those companies that do, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The system is not individualized but is based on large numbers. If it were individualized and you had a somewhat serious accident, you might never be able to afford car insurance again and without insurance you might not be able to register a car or drive.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    And perhaps another part may be that better handling cars will have a better chance at avoiding an accident.

    The handling differences are not that great. So that statement is about as likely as this one.

    maybe the mazda6 looks so nice, other cars don't want to hit it?

    It's all about the cost to repair. It costs less to buy, costs less to repair, and therefore costs less to insure. Makes sense huh?
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Elroy, you're on the right track, but the car that is less expensive to buy is not necessarily the less espensive to repair after an accident.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    On average, I'd say it's true. If you crash a Buick, and a Benz into a wall at 20mph, the Benz will likely cost more to repair, even if it has a little less damage. "Crumple zones" are meant to protect passengers, but it doesn't bode well for the crumpled car, when the repair costs are added up.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    It's all about the cost to repair. It costs less to buy, costs less to repair, and therefore costs less to insure. Makes sense huh?

    If only things were that simple as that kind of logic...actually, as bhmr59 mentioned, there is not a big correlation between the cost of a car vs the cost to repair a car. In the IIHS study that tested most of the midsize cars, the Sonata in a full frontal fender bender cost 4 times more to repair than the Mazda6! And the Altima cost nearly 3 times more in a rear fender bender in comparison to the Mazda6 (probably because the Altima has those huge faux crystals on the back that they call taillights). And the accord cost 3.5 times more to repair a front frender bender than the Mazda6.

    Of course deductables make these costs not as significant to the owner, but this would help to understand why the Mazda6 was found to be one of the least expensive to insure in the midsize class.

    The handling differences are not that great.

    Tell that to the girl in the passenger seat of a bmw that made a sudden left hand turn into my lane a couple weeks ago... going by the test results by many car mags, if I were driving an Accord or Altima, I would have not been able to stop in time and that girl would have a few reasons to be very unhappy.

    Oh, and the latest poll clearly found that when given a choice, people prefer to not hit good looking cars, especially the Mazda6 :P
  • luvmbootyluvmbooty Posts: 271
    ...with an A/T that has a above average fuel economy and has descent power.

    I understand the new Altima fits these requirements. Consumer Reports says the 2.5 S Altima goes 0-60 in 8.0 seconds and it does better at the pump than the 4 cyl Camry or Accord. So the 07 Altima 2.5 S has better fuel economy AND has more power!

    Also the Sentra SE-R has a 2.5l engine and, under the governments new ratings, does better at the pump than the Altima! Consumer Reports had nothing on 0-60 time on the SE-R. Seems the Spec V is more popular and gets more press.

    Comments or advice appreciated.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, as an Accord owner that hasn't driven the 2007 Altima (so keep that in mind and take what I say with a grain of salt) let me say that I am more than happy with the economy my Accord gives me. I've gotten above 35 MPG on every single highway-only trip I've taken (and I drive between 70-80 MPH typically). In mixed suburban driving, 28-30 MPG is typical for me.

    It is also plenty quick, although I believe testing shows the Altima to be faster.

    Go drive them and form your own opinions. Accords can be had well below invoice at this point, and in-turn, may give you more bang for your buck.

    The best advice I can give is to drive as many vehicles as you can before making a decision.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    Based on the things you've said so far, you want something both fun and frugal with an automatic. It also sounds like you don't mind a slightly smaller car so long as it has 4 doors (which is why you'd consider the sentra).

    Some questions I would ask before making a recommendation would include...

    1 - would you like to be able to haul somewhat larger items without having to borrow a pickup or SUV? in other words, would a hatchback or wagon be desireable as long as it looked ok?
    2 - how much do you like to drive? do you like twisty roads or do you just want enough power to get past the slowpokes? or is a car just a way to get from a to b?
    3 - how long do you think you'll keep the car? will the length of standard warranty be a factor for you?
    4 - if you could save money on the car purchase, would gas mileage be as important (think of the savings on buying the car as a gas allowance...)?

    or if you don't want to think that much, the Altima would be a good choice as long as you can get used to the funky transmission. the Accord is always a good, although a bit too common, choice. and of course the Mazda6 (yes I'm biased...that's what I have) will be fun to drive in the twisties and will have the option of the hatchback which looks like a sedan but can store/ haul big things. The 4 banger automatic is a bit slow though...but you can get it in some markets for 6k+ off of msrp. The Sonata would be another choice that could be described as "practical" and "value oriented."

    In the end though, grad is right...drive many of the cars, and don't make a decision too quickly. and never let a saleperson know that you really really like their car!!! always say it's nice, but so was the other car (insert name here). and don't drive a car that you can't afford or don't really want (like a 2 door coupe)... you may make a decision you would regret later.

    You'll find many opinions here, so if that's what you want, you've come to the right place!
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Elroy, you're on the right track, but the car that is less expensive to buy is not necessarily the less espensive to repair after an accident.

    My Mazda6 S was roughly $20 less to insure per year than our '96 Civic was. Go figure! The 6 did cost about $4000 more to buy too. That was with Allstate. We've since switched to State Farm and they are only charging me $40 more per year to insure a 2006 Mustang GT over the Mazda6 it replaced. The Mustang cost $9000 more than the 6 to buy(after rebates and all on the 6 which I factored into the difference from the Civic above too).

    The 6 was leased though so I'm not sure that that had anything to do with it. I do know that we didn't change any coverage levels when we replaced it with the Mustang though.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    None of these cars have "above average" fuel economy, and I wouldn't make the final decision over 1 mpg anyway. Have you considered the Camry hybrid? There are people who rave about it, but I'll take performance over gas mileage.

    The Accord is as good as it gets. The 2008 is around the corner, but don't expect any deals. You could probably make out like a bandit with a 2007 though. The Sentra is not as roomy as the Accord. How long do you want to keep the car? A car that may seem fine for a year, you may come to hate over the long haul.

    Need to decide how much room you will need and what you in general want to use the car for.

    Good luck.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Insurance is funny. I replaced a Jeep with a BMW and my insurance went down significantly. I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask.


    That's kind of what I was getting at. I thought I was going to get nailed on the insurance when I bought the Mustang but was pleasantly surprised and did not question that one either.
  • Also the Sentra SE-R has a 2.5l engine and, under the governments new ratings, does better at the pump than the Altima! Consumer Reports had nothing on 0-60 time on the SE-R. Seems the Spec V is more popular and gets more press.

    The SE-R is a regular Sentra with a body kit and the engine from the Altima. The SpecV is a sport sedan with a 6 speed manual that competes with the Civic SI.
    It does better at the pump because it is smaller and marginally lighter.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    going by the test results by many car mags, if I were driving an Accord or Altima, I would have not been able to stop in time
    probably a very difficult thing to know for sure simply because I doubt very seriously that you know how much distance exactly it took you to stop or even whether that distance was the best your particular car could do. Maybe I need some references here, but 60-0 tests I've read show the Mazda6/Fusion at a smidge over 130 feet (the longest stopping distances in this group), where the other cars you mention test at several feet LESS. In any case, I would suggest that any difference, better or worse, within let's say 10 feet or so is insignificant given the influences of driver reaction time, road and tire type and conditions etc.
    Kinda like a high speed accelerating swerve I pulled off awhile back - that has me sold on the benefits of the 'excessive' power I have and has further convinced me that I may not be here today if my car had happened to be ESC equipped - I have no way to KNOW that I couldn't have done the same thing sans the extra HP and with the stability control interference.
  • "I know the insurance knows why, but I sure don't, nor did I ask."

    When I got the 1991 Mazda 626, the insurance company ran the VIN number and it came back as a two-door... and they wanted to charge a considerably higher rate just because it was showing up in their system as a coupe.

    There were very minor differences between the 4-door and the 2-door... same engine choices, transmissions, etc. They even used the same frame. One was not considerably larger, costlier, faster, or safer than the other. The single biggest difference between the two was the body style. Mazda just decided to call the 4-door the 626 and the 2-door the MX-6.

    We had to actually drive the car to the local insurance office so that they could see it in person to verify that it was, in fact, a sedan and not a coupe.
  • "...would you like to be able to haul somewhat larger items without having to borrow a pickup or SUV? in other words, would a hatchback or wagon be desireable as long as it looked ok?"

    So far in the 6 months I've owned my Accord, I've had it filled to capacity several times, with anything from luggage and passengers, to bicycles and gear, to 10-foot peices of moulding (inside the car!), to old rotting lumber. I've never missed my previous SUV.

    However, I think you are onto something about the larger (midsize) hatchbacks like the Mazda6. Well, there aren't many others are there? I don't know why this isn't a more popular choice today.

    Standing and looking at my sedan, there is a lot of wasted space in the design of the cargo area, specifically the differences between a sedan and a hatchback. What is the value of having a fixed rear "parcel shelf" which basically just holds the rear speakers? All I can think of is traditional sedan styling, and perhaps the security of being able to lock items into a closed trunk.

    While I've been happy so far with the volume and variety of my cargo capacity, incorporating the back glass into a larger, roof-hinged trunk door and eliminating that "parcel shelf" would allow more room and much easier access. I'm sold on the hatchback idea if it is executed well like the Mazda6.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Your point is valid. When the mags proclaim x car stops in 115 feet and y car stops in 130 feet, this is a sample size of 1. Actual stopping distances may vary due to terrain, car load, condition of brakes, road conditions, tire conditions, etc. I wouldn't bet my life on that 15 feet.

    It is useful to know in general the mags think x car stops shorter than y car, but that's where it ends. I wouldn't make a purchase decision on 15 feet.
  • Simply upgrading the brake pads can make a huge difference.

    My last ride was a 4,400-lb SUV with an appetite for pads and especially rotors. For the third replacement, out of warranty this time, I upgraded to a set of ceramic pads. After breaking them in a bit, I pointed the truck down a hill and stood suddenly on the brake pedal.

    The difference in braking power over the previous sets of stock pads was astounding to me. I don't have numbers, just seat-of-the-pants feel. When I showed my wife, she was amazed as well. My heavy truck had become one of the best-braking vehicles I've owned. When it's time for pads on my car, I'm going to look into an upgrade this time as well.

    Sure, they cost a bit more and probably won't last quite as long, but if you are concerned about stopping power, this is the way to go. Those ceramic pads also didn't produce nearly as much brake dust, and my mechanic said they are actually better on the rotors.
Sign In or Register to comment.