Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

245671026

Comments

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    I hope the next 6(26) gets the 3.5lv6, 6speed auto, and AWD across the line.

    Oh I definitely hope not. The bigger V6 is great, but its one of the few midsizers with a manual transmission (although a 6 speed manual like the MazdaSpeed6 would be fine with me) and not everyone wants or needs the weight and fuel economy penalty associated with AWD.

    If you are looking for a powerful AWD midsized sedan, I would look at a Legacy GT.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    I saw a report in my local paper yesterday that noted a Motor Trend story (not yet on their web site) about the new Mazda6. It said the styling would be daring, with the roof swept back behind the driver for a sleek look even if it takes away rear head room. Looking around the web, there is general consensus that tne new 6 will be considerably bigger (for more rear leg room) and more powerful than the current model, with the Ford 3.5L V6. I would like to see it get an economical I4 with decent power and a 6-speed stick in the low-end trim line.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    It said the styling would be daring, with the roof swept back behind the driver for a sleek look even if it takes away rear head room. Looking around the web, there is general consensus that tne new 6 will be considerably bigger (for more rear leg room)

    Maybe I am not understanding this, but it doesn't sound right. Tall people sitting in the back seat will have more leg room, and less head room. I guess they will have to slouch a lot huh? :confuse:
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    I am struggling with the trend to make everything bigger. The Civic is about the same size as my old Accord (although heavier), the Accord is bigger than the 80s Crown Vics. I don't need a mile between the front and back seat, I just need room for a carseat or 2, and that is only occasionally.
    Even BMW did it, now they are talking about a 1-series that will be about as big as an E30.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I have been driving Accords for 16 years now. 12 years with the first one, and 4 years (with many more to come) on the second. The Accord, despite being a 5 year old design, competes or beats cars that are completely new designs. Some competitors have more hp, and some even have better fuel economy, but the Accord's total package is hard to beat. The attention to detail, keeps the Accord at the top of the heap. Tight build quality, great ergonomics, smooth ride, confident handling, smooth drivetrains, and good power in I4 or V6 versions add up to a car that does everything very well. If you are looking to buy a midsize sedan, I highly recommend the Accord. I have to warn you that this car could spoil you, and you will not be able to consider another brand again. :D
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    the Accord is bigger than the 80s Crown Vics.

    Maybe inside, yeah. At 6'4", my 2006 Accord is the smallest/most efficient new car I could comfortably drive. I hope they keep the efficiency and grow the interior room, personally. The Civic does have similar room inside with my 1996 Accord. Weighs about the same too (2,800 lbs or so).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    I guess we'll have to see the new Mazda6 to see what the rear seat accomodations are like, but what I'd expect is that, if they use a swept-back roofline but a longer wheelbase, they could mount the rear seat low (ala Civic or Prius) and still have enough head room--albeit maybe not class-leading headroom.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    the Accord is bigger than the 80s Crown Vics.

    In what way?

    Not in Passenger Volume:

    2007 Accord = 103 ft3
    1985 Crown Vic = 111 ft3

    But, yes these mid size cars are big enough, already.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I am struggling with the trend to make everything bigger.

    I think this is an American thing. We seem to be living longer, and growing larger. I am a few inches taller, and a few pounds heavier than my father. Most of my friends seem to be larger than their parents too. If you are one of us, you appreciate the interior space. If you don't feel the need for more space, I still don't see the problem. If you would be content will the space of say a 96 Accord, you can get that from the current Civic. The 96 Altima is probably about the same size as the current Sentra. As we Americans get larger and larger, our cars are growing with us.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    not always. the 07 altima is a few inches smaller than the 06. But, it's just a simple matter of affluence. bigger, in some cases, is better. a larger car offers more room and hence, more comfort. especially for people with a family. As people become wealthier, the larger and more expensive cars become affordable for them. Most people tend to buy as much car as they can afford.
    It was one of the primary reasons I bought my altima. The wife and kids fit in it better than the 4 door civic she drives. I still drive my 2 door coupe to and from work because of the better MPG, but for the family car, I wanted bigger.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Nobody I know of has mentioned this, but could Nissan be trying to differentiate the Altima and Maxima a little bit better with the size difference (Altima made smaller)?
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    I doubt it. although the altima is smaller this year, It isn't by much. Just an inch or two. In contrast, it appears to me, that nissan isn't trying to differentiate the two. A fully loaded 3.5sl altima isn't that different from a max.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    Nissan is differentiating the Altima from the Maxima in several ways:

    * Price: Altima starts around $20k, several thousand less than the Maxima.
    * Powertrains: Altima has I4, V6, and hybrid powertrains available; Maxima is V6 only.
    * Content: Altima is positioned as a family sedan, although a sporty one; Maxima is positioned as a near-luxury sedan, with a more upscale interior and features like the sky roof.
    * Models: Altima is available (soon) as a sedan and a coupe; Maxima is a sedan only.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Interestingly, with the refreshed Maxima and the new Altima, i've pointed out to my friends "look, a new Altima" by looking at the fascia, only to be mistaken that it the car I was seeing was actually a revised Maxima, so you may have a point jd10013.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    not always. the 07 altima is a few inches smaller than the 06.

    The 07 Altima is shorter, but it is also wider. The few inches shorter probably didn't cause the car to loose any leg room, but the few inches wider probably helped with hip room. Without checking the figures, I bet the interior volume increased, rather than decreased, despite the body dimensions.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I just read in my Dec. 2006 issue of Motor Trend about the poor amount of headroom for anyone over 6', as well as the backseat being "skimpy for the class." The trunk is overly massive however, at 18 cu.ft.

    The previous Altima was noted for a nice large interior, IIRC.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Nah, the car has plenty of room. at least equal to others in its class. I'm not saying this as a nissan homer (which I am) but the '07 is by far the best, and most complete altima nissan has made. It's probably still a notch below the accord, but I'd also put it slight bit better than the camry, and the mazda6. The rest, IMHO, are quite a few notches below those four.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    I had the opportunity to compare the Altima and Versa side-by-side at my local auto show recently. When the driver's seat was adjusted for my 5'10" frame, the Versa had noticeably more legroom than the Altima. Part of that was because the Versa had lots of foot space under the driver's seat, moreso than the Altima.

    Every review I've read on the new Altima notes its reduced rear legroom compared to the prior generation. Not that the legroom is unacceptable for a mid-sized sedan (not nearly as crasmped as the Mazda6 or Legacy, for example), but it's no longer at or near the top of the class in that regard.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I guess we have a different concept of "cramped". My 6 foot son is able to sit behind 5'11" me in my Mazda 6, without feeling "cramped".

    This is why these cars keep getting bigger and bigger. The perfectly adequate (to me) Mazda6 is called "too small" and "cramped". I read the same complaints about the Contour, which was a little tight, but the back seat was usable and at least set at a comfotable height. Those who criticized that car's rear seat, apparently were unaware that Ford made the Taurus and Crown Vic for those wanting a more spacious back seat.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    Everyone's legs are different. :)

    I know for example that the Mazda6 has less rear leg room than my previous-gen Elantra, a compact car. I would not reject the Mazda6 only because of its rear leg space, as I think it's adequate (barely) for my needs, but my point is that most mid-sized cars have more interior volume and rear-seat space than the Mazda6. Even the current-gen compact Elantra has more of both. When I pay for a mid-sized car, I'd like mid-sized room. Otherwise I may as well buy a compact and save the extra bucks.
Sign In or Register to comment.