Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1203204206208209742

Comments

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "Anyway, thanks again for the input. We've just got some research and test driving to do. I think it will be fun."

    Do yourself and favor and drive lower end cars from Lexus (250), BMW (328), Cadillac, TL and the like. What you get is standard equipment and options that go beyond these cars. In addition, the drivetrains of the luxury cars are usually superior in one way or another. As far as crossovers drive the X3/FX35/RX350.

    Good luck buying a car is fun...until you pay for it. :suprise
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    The drivetrains of mid-sized cars like the Accord, Camry, and Altima are pretty sophisticated. What you get with the cars you listed, beyond more luxury features standard or available, is RWD or even AWD (although AWD is available in some mid-sized family cars such as the Legacy and Fulan).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I think she simply wants to have a more niche vehicle (hence opting out of mainstream names). This reminds me of a friend who almost bought a new Accord but decided to go with a used Mercedes C-class for about the same price.

    I don't know what your requirements would be, but she could wait for the new TSX (likely out in Spring 2008), look at RDX (although, I'm not a fan of crossovers/SUVs for myself), try Volvo S40/S60, or something along those lines.

    Do you folks need two largish sedans in the family? I have two sedans myself, one (1998 Accord/182K miles) because it was paid off almost eight years ago and an 06 TL. If I were to replace the Accord within next six months, I might seriously consider Fit. It would be just a better long term solution for me (I drive a lot and prefer to keep the cars for a long time). But I have a feeling, if you go for that, you might end up driving it. :P
  • Hey guys... looking into getting a leftover 07 Accord and was wondering if it would be big enough for me. Any big guys in here have one? I'm about 260 pounds, and 6'4".

    I know people will have different shapes, but a general idea would help. I've sat in a 2003 once, but can't remember really what it was like.

    Appreciate it...

    Ethan
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,918
    A reporter with a large newspaper is hoping to talk to consumers who are looking to purchase a new midsize vehicle. Please reply to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, October 18, 2007 with your daytime contact info. along with what car (or cars) you are considering purchasing.

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I forgot about the RDX/MDX. Buy an oil well along with the RDX to supply the gas.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    RDX is no better or worse than the rest of them out there though. It gets what rest of the powerful/AWD CUVs are.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Hey bud... I'm 6'4" (not your size at only 190lbs) but I have plenty of room in the Accord. I'm afraid you may find it sort of narrow though, I'm not real sure. I have a friend who is 6'3" and 250 or so who fills up the passenger side when he rides with me. You sound like an even bigger guy. I'd suggest try it and see!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "RDX is no better or worse than the rest of them out there though."

    Actually it's worse.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    How so? Observed gas mileage (in mag tests) for most of these CUVs tends to be in 15-19 mpg. For example, the new Saturn Vue got 15 mpg, Toyota RAV4/V6 got 16 mpg, RDX usually gets 16-18 mpg. I have had RDX twice as a free loaner from Acura, and both times I averaged 19-20 mpg which is lower than my experience with my sedans but that is to be expected.

    Not to hijack this thread with a crossover but this does relate to the topic in a way that midsize sedans do make more sense than CUVs when it comes to fuel economy.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    - Actually, that distinction was part of what was driving my original question--what does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car? Why buy a low-end Acura TSX when they could get a somewhat loaded Accord for the same money? I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.

    I've actually spent some serious time trying to decipher the differences between say a Honda, and an Acura TSX for example.

    Here's what you pay extra for in the Acura vs. the Accord:

    Acura has the luxury nameplate and brand image.
    Acura has the longer warranties (which are useless and never needed by Honda anyway).
    Acura has nicer interior materials and luxuriously nice interiors. Honda's are nice, Acura's are luxury.
    Honda gives you more HP and MPG per dollar than Acura; advantage V6 Accord. Honda gives you more torque in the V6 vs. the TSX 4 cylinder. Honda is slightly roomier (07 and older versions).

    As you can see, the main difference is interior quality and exterior style. The TSX was definitely a step up finish wise, and they are built and assembled in Japan (a definite plus in my mind, but not to many others).

    Also, I didn't drive the TSX, but from what I hear and read, it has a sportier ride than your typical Accord.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Real world mileage of the RDX can be the worse of the bunch in the right conditions.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "Honda gives you more HP and MPG per dollar than Acura; advantage V6 Accord. Honda gives you more torque in the V6 vs. the TSX 4 cylinder. Honda is slightly roomier (07 and older versions)."

    Okay, what about the TL-S or the RL? Whether the TL-S is worth the difference over a Honda is an individual decision. No doubt pay more, get more.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    What does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car? Why buy a low-end Acura TSX when they could get a somewhat loaded Accord for the same money? I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.

    In case of Acura versus Honda, you could get the more powerful Accord V6 for about the same as Acura TSX. However, there are a few differences. I considered the same a little over a year ago. TSX was #1 on my list, followed by TL and finally Accord. But with Accord, I would have gone EX-L. So, TL was the only car considered with V6. The combination of dealers not budging at all on TSX, and excellent deal on TL prompted me to get that car. I liked quite a few things about the TL over TSX, but TSX chassis tuning was more to my preferences.

    That said, the Honda to Acura difference can be seen in smaller details (outside of Acura TLC and additional features). There is greater attention to detail in trimmings and the material used (although, TSX wasn’t quite a runaway, compared to Accord). And many of these are hard to put against a dollar amount. If you see it, they are worth it, otherwise one would be fine with the Accord. And of course, one can also see TSX/TL as lifestyle choices, with fewer produced and seen on the road serving a niche as opposed to more sensible choices like the Accord.

    At this point, and since both TSX and TL are due for redesign (I’m expecting both to be out in about six months), you might be able to find fantastic deals on them, if your wife is fine with older designs.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    That can be said of any vehicle. Which CUV comparable to RDX do you think is more fuel efficient? In real world, expect 19-20 mpg out of RDX in mixed driving. Based on trip computers off loaner RDXs, I see other people get just that, as do I. You're going to be hard pressed to find one that does better, unless it happens to be 2WD, or something like a CR-V. One of your recommendations was FX35. It actually does worse.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Which CUV comparable to RDX do you think is more fuel efficient? In real world, expect 19-20 mpg out of RDX in mixed driving

    The CX-7 compares, and for 2008, will run on regular. While it may not save you on MPG's, it saves in overall dollars in you pocket.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    If RDX gets 18 mpg, and CX-7 gets 17 mpg (potentially worse with regular, along with degraded performance), you aren't really saving bucks. I can't recall a single comparison test where CX-7 has even matched RDX in observed fuel economy much less beat it.

    Besides, the point of RDX here is a look into entry level luxury brands. CX-7 is a Mazda. If that weren't the case, CR-V would make a lot more sense, as it seems to be as economical as mainstream midsize sedans.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    than Honda's EX-L leather..... noticeably richer.

    Sort of like the way the Mazda leather seems like vinyl compared to the robustness of Audi's leather to me.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    You mentioned the Toyota RAV and Saturn VUE in your previous post, and comparing their respective fuel economy to the RDX. So, I suggested the CX-7. Surely, you cannot think the RAV or VUE are luxury vehicles. Observed fuel economy in the RDX has consistently been around 16mpg's right there with the CX-7, in numerous tests.

    After the ECU reflash in the CX-7's, fuel economy improved, and the 2008's have a new map, and adjusted the timing to achieve the same fuel economy using regular. Plus, the added savings over the purchase price make the CX-7 more economical. Now if you are looking for the "A" on your grill, then I guess it's the wrong choice for you. So I would look toward a 3-Series BMW w/ X-Drive before I looked at an RDX. Better fuel economy, more luxurious, better driving dynamics.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Sort of like the way the Mazda leather seems like vinyl compared to the robustness of Audi's leather to me.

    See, to me Audi looks like pleather, especialy in black. Actually, doesn't Audi use fake leather?? It also does not wear well. VW has the same problem. Take a look at the new Mazda6 leather, it's much nicer, they changed it in 2006.
  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    Although obviously not a midsize, when the discussion turns to quality of leather, attention to detail and build-quality, and the new price of an 2008 Accord EX-L V6, or another new car such as a Camry XLE V6, I would rather have a two to three year old Lexus LS430. A certified LS430 with low mileage can be had for about the same price, perhaps a few thousand more.

    One of my business colleagues just purchased a 2005 LS430 with 36,000 miles, and it's feels and looks new - price paid: $32,700. As Accords, and others, march up the price ladder, an excellent or certified vehicle like the Lexus LS becomes an affordable alternative without much compromise on anything - other than corresponding fuel economy of course.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I can see why you suggested CX-7, but my point was to bring home a point on poor press coverage with fuel economy on RDX, while the same aspect is getting overlooked in mainstreamers (where it actually should matter more).

    And some people do care for badges, hence the recommendation. One reason the poster's wife didn't want another Accord was not because she was unhappy with the car, but because she seems to want something "un-mainstream".
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Accords and Camrys have held their price (proportionately) over used Acuras and Lexuses for a long time. So, they aren't the only ones marching up the price ladder. They are also doing so due to added features, refinements and added features. And then there is the point of ownership costs, especially if you hold on to the car for a long time.

    That is why there is a market for new cars, and certified old (if certified old were fine, why not get loaded Accord/Camry for $15-16K?).
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    I don't know of Audi ever using any kind of fake leather. You either get leather or cloth as far as I know. Now they have started only using the nice leather on the "seating surfaces" whereas they use a high quality "pleather" on the high-wear areas, like the sides of the seats and the bolsters I believe.

    I believe almost all Audi's use some kind of Nappa genuine leather though. Not sure about the black, but if you touch it, it does feel a bit softer and has more traction and grip than the vinyl sections.

    If Mazda has improved their leather quality in 2006, that is indeed a good thing. Did that carry over to the Mazda3 as well?
  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    "That is why there is a market for new cars, and certified old (if certified old were fine, why not get loaded Accord/Camry for $15-16K?)."

    Perhaps, but the LS430 is substantially more car, both literally as well as figuratively, than either the Accord or Camry. Whether a certified version is worth twice that cost is certainly arguable however.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Oh my gosh... CR not recommending a Camry based on reliability, or lack thereof. Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? :sick:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Wow!

    And to relate that article to this topic, it says:

    Consumer Reports said it no longer recommends V6 versions of Toyota's Camry...

    and

    Of the 39 cars rated "Most Reliable" in Consumer Reports new list, four are by domestic manufacturers. They are the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan,...
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I was surprised with Lexus GS making that list, not so much with Tundra. With Camry V6, I'm left wondering if the trouble spot happens to be the engine (since they specifically mention V6 models) as this could tie back to Toyota suspending sales of Aurion (Camry based "sport sedan") in Australia due to engine failure issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.