Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

12252262282302311028

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Compare an Accord SE I4 auto to a Mazda6i VE auto. Retail is similar but you get the following with the Mazda:
    Shiftable tranny
    17" alloys
    8 way power seat
    Lumbar support
    Split folding rear seats
    1 touch down AND UP front windows
    Traction control

    When you consider you can get this package for about 16,500 in many areas of the country including here in Chicago/Milwaukee area, I think it is a super deal right now.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    If you re-read my original post, I was simply stating that an overlooked advantage of any car that holds its value well is the insurance pay out. As I said, its quite satisfying to know that if that car is totaled, state farm will give me nearly 10k for it. thats one area resale can really save your but.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,282
    I get the impression (at least here in Southern CA) that car/mechanic shops/oil change shops will tell you to change things that don't need any changing.

    I bet there's a 70% chance there was nothing wrong with the CV joint and they were just trying to make some money. Seems that 70% of auto mechanics are dishonest these days.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    I read in the motor trend 2008 accord/ 2007 camry SE comparo that they thought he SE had a stiffer suspension than the accord... how did it compare to the 6? Was the lean in cornering as bad I've heard or did do ok? anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions about the car.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    That's an ineresting perspective: pay more up front so you can collect more from insurance if your car is totaled. I never thought of it that way.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    I don't pay more up front for a better insurance payout. I bought the car because its what my wife wanted. the insurance payout is just a bennifit of the car holding its value. thats all.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    the shop is fine. I always deal with the same mechanics in order to avoid those kinds of problems. They always show me the damaged part before and after repairs.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    OK. I am glad you brought this up, because now I feel even better about my '04 Elantra, which according to KBB would give me an insurance payout of only $1,175 less than what I paid for it 3-1/2 years ago. :)
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    If you can get a car others are paying $19,279 for, then go for it. Otherwise it seem to be $835 difference between Mazda and the Honda, and thus costing much more in the long run.

    As for total package, I looked at the stability control and other items offered in the V6 flavor of the SE series, I decided to go for the V6. As packages go in the Honda line, this particular model, the SE V6 represents the most bang per dollar.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Guess they use to sell cars by the pound, in ascending dollar value. Today I would say it is in descending order, as the lighter the car the more it cost to build, yet the performance increase can prove to be a positive. Cars handle better with less bulk weight and get more MPG. Heavy could be more steel in areas for safety, which is not a bad thing, but usually it means less engineering done to provide a light and safe car, and less use of lighter metals. If talking interior or overall size, I am thinking a used Crown Vic should do it - plenty large and should be safe. Then there is the Impala for a few more MPG and slightly smaller size.
    L
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    As packages go in the Honda line, this particular model, the SE V6 represents the most bang per dollar

    Not only does the car pass the pipe-smoker's analysis, it's just one heck of a machine.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    Here in the Pacific NW, it's pretty common for mazda6's to be advertized for 6-7k off of msrp (including rebates), so it would seem the advantage over an Accord would be at least 3-4k from the start. The Mazda6 was reported to be one of the least expensive midsize cars to insure also. Both the Accord and the Mazda6 have scored well in crash tests where and when side airbags were used on these cars (I include European tests here since some US tests don't use the Mazda6 w/ airbags). The Mazda6 was tested to stop 10 feet shorter than an Accord in midsize comparo's by Edmunds and other car mags and the consensus of these articles have the handling of the 6 as the better of the two without giving up much in terms of comfort. Personally, I like the interior of the Accord because of styling but not because of better materials (the seat material on the 6 I think is better) or because it's bigger (most measurements of leg room and headroom are pretty much equal b/t the current Accord and Mazda6). From an external styling perspective, I much prefer the looks of the 6 and still get compliments from complete strangers pretty frequently. If a buyer of the 6 chooses a hatchback or wagon (which won't be available much longer), the Mazda6 will have the ability to haul much larger objects. Gas mileage on the Accord will likely be about 10% better, which would save the average driver about $500 a year based on 12k miles annual mileage. Jd Powers and Consumer Reports indicate that the difference in reliability is likely to equal less than one problem per car per 5 years (I think the Accord average was around 3 problems and the 6 was a fraction higher).

    Maybe I've been watching too much of the US Open lately, but it seems to me the Accord is like Sampras while the Mazda6 is like Agassi. Both are excellent, but their personalities are quiet different. I always had my favorite, but in the end it was very hard to root against any one of them. In the end, a solid case could be made for both and I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing one over the other.
  • "Jd Powers and Consumer Reports indicate that the difference in reliability is likely to equal less than one problem per car per 5 years (I think the Accord average was around 3 problems and the 6 was a fraction higher)."

    The importance of that one extra problem (which may occur during the time you own the car over 4-7 years) depends, of course, on what that one extra problem ends up being, exactly. If the trademark power swinging vents stop swinging, well, no big deal (for me at least). However, if it ends up being much more serious (and thus expensive and/or unsafe), that is something to consider.

    Don't get me wrong, I think that JDP and CR data is good for comparison purposes. However, I wish somebody would take it further, maybe weight the results for the severity of typical problems and not just number of occurances. Plus, as I said before, I'd like to see breakdowns by model (e.g. not just overall Mazda6 reliability... but Mazda6 I4, V6, and turbo reliability).

    This would add real value to the results as we would have more accurate data. For instance, if examples of car A have a common failure in the radio, and some examples of car B occasionally have one vital component suddenly fail... even though they have the same number of problems per vehicle, the two cars will no longer be ranked as equal in terms of reliability.

    This brings up some interesting questions if you really think about it. Example, how much of BMW's reported reliability decline, shown as higher numbers of reported problems per car, might be related to owner complaints about iDrive "not working" (when they can't figure out how to operate it) or just simple gadget failures as opposed to real engine or transmission problems?
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    "Has anyone seen the Accord for 2008? From the photos, it looks pretty good to me."

    No surprise there. The car isnt ugly but its far from the best looking in class. When there are so many cars of nearly equal size and performance I see no reason to get a boxy Accord. Plus the 2009 6 is coming out next year and based on the pic released it seems to be quite a looker.

    "New Malibu should be on par with the rest overall for looks."

    not in my opinion and not in the opinion of many who have seen it in the flesh.

    "Isn't a base SAAB 9-3 something like that with a stick?"

    The base 9-3 has far less power and less room than a Malibu LTZ. At $27k the Chevy is the better car.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    this month's CR - a lengthy report about keeping a car going for 200k+ - how much money that would save (and
    certainly a point at which the suspect resale values of some of these cars would mean much less) - the 10 recommended models for those few that do keep a car this long consists of 3 Hondas and 7 Toyota products. HMMM - and then folks wonder why cars of those particular brands costs more to buy(new or used) but LESS to own over more usual time frames.
  • The base 9-3 has far less power and less room than a Malibu LTZ.

    164/262 for the Ecotec and the 3.6, respectively for the Malibu. 210/250 for the Saab, but both Saab engines are available with manual transmissions.

    Its just different strokes...one is for people who pick cars based on how much space it takes in their garage and one is for people who like something sporty and fun while dragging their children to-and-fro.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    If you consider "more money for less car" then you really should say, more money, for higher quality, nicer smaller car."

    The Optima doesn't get anywhere near the fuel economy of the Civic. I say you get more BANG for your buck with the Civic by saving on gas.


    Of course the Civic gets better fuel economy than the Optima, but that's not really the point here (not to say the Optima has bad F/E, pretty good, actually). There probably were a lot of other factors accounted for the purchase of the Optima instead of the Civic. FWIW, both cars have advantages and drawbacks.
  • In the end, a solid case could be made for both and I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing one over the other.

    Good post.
    This whole Mazda6 vs Accord seems a little uneccessary. It's like comparing BMW and Mercedes: yes they are both in the same cost class, but they are intended for different customers.
    The Mazda6 probably tends to be bought by younger buyers (lower initial cost, sporty design and handling reputation) or buyers who are looking for something that, at least by reputation, is more sporty.
    The Accord tends to be bought by folks who want something that has an strong reputation for reliability and great resale.

    Before I get jumped on, that is not to suggest that either vehicle cannot score points in the other vehicle's strong suit (I have a 6-speed V6 Accord EX-L and would certainly describe it as sporting- just a little undercover...).
    But I will say I went for the Accord for reliability and resale, performance was a bonus.

    Again- different customers for each car.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    It wasn't bad. I'm not a Indy driver but it wasn't as tight and hdid have quite a bit more lean in the corners than the 6. The SE felt a lot bigger and one reason was because of the sight lines from the drivers seat. I like the Mazda because you can almost see the end of the hood and you can see the trunk lid. Turning radius was a little better with the SE but no great shakes. I would put the new SE between older accords which I think were a little tighter than more current ones and the 6.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I did and it took 5 minutes to get the price approved after I presented it to the salesman. I said thanks, said I would be back in three hours to pay and sign papers. Told the salesman I didn't want any add ons, insurance, warranty, other crap. Came back, they had the car prepped and detailed, signed the papers (they even had already checked off all the things I didn't want) and wrote them a check. I would say I spent no more than 30 minutes total buy the car. Fastest in my life but I credit these forums with providing very good information going in.

    Anyway, if I can do it, anybody can. In fact I don't know anyone that would pay 19,279 for a car that stickers at 21,125 and has a 1,750 rebate. That is already down to 19,375. That't like saying I got WOW, I got $96 off the MSRP. Not much to brag about.
Sign In or Register to comment.