Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1224225227229230742

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You define value the way you want, but others may disagree.

    You stole my words from a previous post. :)

    I don't know why you seem to be so upset at my attempts to compare prices of like-trim Malibus and Accords, in reply to your statement, "It is priced in the same price range as the Accord."

    I don't know about you, but when someone responds to my post, as long as it doesn't include "you" in it (addressed to me), I see no reason for anything personal but a discussion around the topic on hand. A response isn't an indicator of being upset with someone.

    If you want to think of a difference of $1800-$2800 as "close to", that's fine with me.

    Ok... :confuse:

    When I got my Accord, I was able to negotiate the price to about $1800 below MSRP, basically getting a $23K Accord for a little over $21K while having a $25K budget. Would that be possible if $1800 weren't "close"? If automakers are capable of giving up to $4K-5K off MSRP, you're questioning "closeness" of about half that amount here!
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,534
    > $1800 below MSRP, basically getting a $23K Accord for a little over $21K
    $4K-5K off MSRP,

    Wow. :) We've come a long way from the 03 Accord era when some people 'informed' :sick: me that Honda never had to have discounts, incentives, rebates, etc. ;)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    I'm not sure what your experience at getting a discount off MSRP on an Accord (not a 2008, right?) has to do with what we were discussing. Do you think that Chevy doesn't discount the Malibu? IMO, I think big discounts on both the 2008 Accord and Malibu will be hard to come by for awhile. But they'll come. The market is too competitive for anyone to sell a mid-sized family sedan at MSRP in any volume, for any length of time.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The idea is to provide a perspective on how big (or small) the price difference is. Prices haven't changed much over last ten years, so the argument about old versus new is mute.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    A changing market calls for changing business practices, no?

    With Toyota flooding the market with incentive-laden Camrys (Camries?), Honda had to do something to keep its share of the market from its closest competitor, what is quickly beomcing the McDonald's of the car industry, Toyota.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Did you mean "moot"?

    Since people will be buying 2008 models as new cars now, I think it's appropriate to focus on those when comparing prices of the mid-sized sedans, not models from 10 years ago.

    I think we've established the MSRP price difference between the Accord and Malibu is roughly $2000-3000, at least for the I4 models. I haven't looked at the V6 pricing yet; I'll leave that to you or someone else to do the comparison. Personally, I think the Malibu is priced right where it needs to be--still near the lower end of the market, but more than the old Malibu--now called the "Malibu Classic". Want a burger and fries with that? ;)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,534
    I was through the local Honda dealer's lot Sunday browsing the used cars. There were hoards of Accords; very few used cars.
  • With upgraded 2.4 177hp) and 3.3 V6 cylinder(260hp) engines with enhanced fuel economy, revised suspension, standard 5 and 6 speed trannies and improved interior, Hyundai is addressing flat Sonata sales. I'm not sure the exterior is as crisp and clean. The new design, both interior and exterior has that 'Lexus knock-off' look. Interior is much improved! These figures come from infor from the Hyundai Dealer Convention.

    http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=3522630&page=2

    http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=3522630&page=1
  • New Sonata Video just released displaying enhancements to the 2009 Sonata.

    http://www.hyundai-motor.com/index.html
  • exshomanexshoman Posts: 109
    Sorry, my Korean is a bit rusty. Do you have a direct link?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Hmm. The exterior looks worse IMO. I liked the way it looked before.

    As for the interior, MUCH better IMO. But only with the nav. The non-nav interior pick has something that looks out of place under the main CP where the radio is however. Anyone know what that is and why they put it in such a place? I don't like things that look tacked on like that at all.

    That being said, the exterior alone would probably keep me from buying one now. Add the tacked on looking thing under the CP, because I wouldn't want a nav system, and Hyundai would have a hard time selling me one of these. I'll reserve final judgement until I see one though.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Story here.

    40+ mpg? Very impressive!

    Being that we're now an SUV/CUV family I'd really like to see what Honda puts in their's for 2009 as that's when we'll need a new one.
  • If that's the same photo that has been floating around the net, the DIN-sized electronics device lower in the center stack that looks out of place is a taxi meter. This is a shot of a Korean taxi version.

    I agree on the exterior - not as clean as the original. Give me the current exterior, and the new interior.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    I completely agree with backy on this... the Malibu seems to be a very good buy compared to the Accord and will likely be available for several thousands less than an Accord. Personally, I'm happy midsized sedans continue to improve as if offers consumers more choices. In years past, I doubt I would have considered anything from ford, saturn, or chevy, but now I'd have to agree with others on this forum that they are making some very good cars. I've owned 2 Accords in the past and they served me well... now that most cars in this segment are very reliable, it's refreshing that I'm not married to a brand anymore and am willing to consider other options.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Keep in mind these are photos of the Korean market Sonata. The exterior, including grille and wheels, of the current home market Sonata are different than what we have here (interior is pretty much the same, except they have nav already). That is clear from the video posted above. So it's possible what we are seeing in these photos is not quite what we'll get here next spring. I hope we get the new interior but not the new grille and wheels--a little too fussy for my taste.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Nice!! 2.4L I4 177; 3.3L V6 260 and with improved fuel economy, that's getting efficient.

    The interior is fantastic; the exterior will take a bit of time to get used to but concurring with Backy, let's see if we'd get a different one for the NA spec.

    This perhaps is a better angle:

    image

    Thumbs up on the interior:

    image
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,784
    Maybe my problem with the new face is that there's nothing special about it. It looks to me like a cross between the previous-generation Passat, the Elantra, and the Sebring. At least the old face had some edginess to it, and was honest in its simplicity. And the wheels look just like the vent on my (rather cheap) Coleman outdoor grill. "Dislike" is too mild for those, IMO--"detest" is closer. :P

    BTW, got a '07 Sonata SE rental tonight--silver with those slick 5-spoke alloys. Very tasteful. And a toasty heater--needed that tonight, with flurries in the air and a 40 mph north wind. Car was very stable and quiet in those conditions though.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    this is the future (maybe the reason why Honda discontinued the Accord Hybrid) with oil approaching $100.00 but this is going to be one slow car. Maybe 10 sec. 0-60 based on the 150hp, but also something that will feel quicker than it is (because of the torque). It kinda surprises me in that Honda didn't diesel a V6 and get something like MB does with their 3.2 6 cylinder, 200+hp and 400 lb. ft., a car that really does pretty well both in the drag races and at the fuel pump. 40 mpg? It should!
  • Since the Accord hybrid would get better mileage than the regular Accord,why would they discontinue the hybrid? I dont understand your justification for that.I submit that they should make all Honda's hybrids.At perhaps $4.00 per gallon approaching,who cares about acceleration? :confuse:
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Posts: 121
    That a midlevel Hyundai has a better interior than just about any of the American nameplates. I don't know why the domestics cannot make an interior like this.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    Maybe 10 sec. 0-60 based on the 150hp, but also something that will feel quicker than it is (because of the torque).

    I don't know about that. I'd wager more like mid to high 8s for that run. That's a lot of torque for a FWD car so I hope they do something else to reduce the torque steer that is inevitable.

    It kinda surprises me in that Honda didn't diesel a V6 and get something like MB does with their 3.2 6 cylinder, 200+hp and 400 lb. ft., a car that really does pretty well both in the drag races and at the fuel pump

    They are, but it wasn't in that article. This article suggests that they will use their new diesel tech on an SUV like the Pilot. That is why I eluded to the Honda SUV/CUVs getting diesel in '09 as well. I would expect those to be V6 versions probably similar to the 200 HP and 400 ft-lbs the Benz makes. Give me 25+ mpg in the city in a Pilot, or dare I say even a Ridgeline, and I'll certainly visit the Honda dealer when shopping in '09.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,221
    If that's the same photo that has been floating around the net, the DIN-sized electronics device lower in the center stack that looks out of place is a taxi meter. This is a shot of a Korean taxi version.

    Well let's hope it is just that!

    Although, that looks like a pretty darn fancy taxi meter to me. Cabbies must have it real good over in Korea. :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,747
    Since the Accord hybrid would get better mileage than the regular Accord,why would they discontinue the hybrid?

    Because nobody bought them. Remember the Accord was a V6 hybrid - it wasn't a fuel miser.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The interior obviously created picking the mind belonging to Lexus' RX330. The center of the dash is almost a carbon copy, add to that the half wooded steering wheel, and wood trim.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It started with Veracruz, while looking at Lexus RX.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Accord will get 155 HP/260 lb-ft version of 2.2-liter i-DTEC engine. That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow. There will be another higher output version of the engine, with 180 HP/320 lb-ft, but likely reserved for higher performance trim in Europe.

    V6 diesel is also supposed to happen, but will likely be limited to light trucks (Odyssey, Pilot and Ridgeline).
  • mz3smz3s Posts: 17
    That front clip looks like a 90s Toyota Crown. I was never a fan of this car, but... yeah, I'm still not a fan of this car.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The Accord hybrid was (as Hondas aren't) not a true hybrid - in the Accord's case a V6 with cylinder deactivation (a system now used in all the V6s) and a supplementary electric motor that really served only to make the car even quicker that the regular V6. FE was not significantly better, in that the car was not a true hybrid in the same way as the Camry/Altima hybrids. And sure, at 4 or $5/gallon acceleration may become a secondary consideration, although I would suggest to you that gas prices in Europe exceed even $5 and there is still a market for something other than 'appliances'. Diesel technology is such that a diesel Accord wouldn't necessarily have to be dull. My comment was only some disppointment that Honda chose the 'appliance' path with a 150hp 4 banger, the FE better be good to put up it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    That should enable it to run 0-60 in 8s, far from being slow
    at the risk of starting an interminable debate about hp and torque - I would suggest to you that this car will only 'feel' like its running in the 8s, and actually be slower than its 2.4 liter gas engined cousins pulling a car that should be heavier than the already bloated Accord- much like the E320CDI is slower (and heavier) than the E350 although it feels 'peppier' and delivers much better FE of course. I guess we'll have to wait to see how the car tests but it is HP (torque applied over time) that is still the primary influence on any car's ability to accelerate. The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive. I believe that Honda with a 150hp Accord diesel will have the same sort of acceptance issues that the VW Rabbit/Golf/Passat have had for years.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You are focusing on peak numbers. Performance is determined by average power that is delivered to the wheels during any run. Torque curve from a diesel engine tends to be much higher than comparable gasoline engine, but it is also narrower. The upside to this downside is that the peak power is very close to average power during any run (a fact).

    In case of Accord’s 2.2-liter i-DTEC, 100 HP would be available at just 2000 rpm, which climbs to 155 HP over a span of next 2000 rpm (from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm). This indicates a relatively flat power curve. With a few assumptions that the diesel will use V6-like gearing, you’re looking at 100 HP at just 13 mph in first gear. OTOH, 100 HP in gasoline powered Accord corresponds to about 23 mph in first gear. Interestingly enough, 13 mph in gasoline powered Accord would also correspond to 2000 rpm, but it would have only 55-60 HP at its disposal. You could work the math upwards for other speeds, like I have, to understand it better.

    Now, I do expect diesel to weigh (realistically) 125-150 lb more than comparable gasoline powered version. And I had that covered in my estimate for 0-60. BTW, you can expect to see it do 0-60 in about 8s with MT. Add almost a second for AT. That would still make it quicker than most four cylinder family sedans and on par with 190 HP Accord. Its got the potential to generate almost 1.7 times as much thrust (100 HP at 13 mph in diesel/~58 HP at 13 mph in gasoline) without weighing 1.7 times.

    Besides, it is not just the feel of being peppier, it would be a fact. Most magazines bog themselves down with measuring 0-60 runs, which I think is one of the most useless measures around. Rolling acceleration matters more but few seem to care about it. Given that diesel might cruise at 2000 rpm at 60 mph in top gear, minor hills that may require a downshift in gasoline version, would be unnecessary in this one, since all it would take is opening the throttle as up to 100 HP would be on tap. With gasoline, the engine will need to be revved up to about 3500 rpm to get 100 HP.

    See... it didn’t need to be about power and torque, just power. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.