Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1264265267269270721

Comments

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Mazda6 is midsize per EPA, always has been AFAIK.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    So, is the Accord now a full-size car or a mid-size one, according to the EPA? Without a moon roof it is full-size and with a moon roof it is mid-size, is that how it goes? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

    I do find it interesting that the newer Civics have grown to the point where they are about the same size as what the Accords used to be. Didn't the Civics used to be a sub compact once upon a time?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Sorry, but I think it is silly to go by the EPA definition. Nobody shops for cars using their bright line definitions, even EPA recognizes that.

    Who is going to say "I'll consider the malibu because I want a midsize car, but I won't even look at the Pontiac G6 because it is a compact"? The only difference between these two, for EPA classification purposes, is the G6 has a 14 cf trunk, while the malibu has a 16 cf, both have 95 cf passenger volume.

    Let me correct something regarding the Accord/Impala comparison...the Accord has more passenge volume, the Impala has more total volume due to a much bigger trunk.

    To me the Impala is too big for this class. But the ranting about it not belonging based on some arbitrary EPA definition is ridiculous. I think it is too big mostly due to its length of over 200 inches...13.6 inches longer than my mazda6 and about the length of our minivan.

    Since the size of the 6 was just right for me, I was not about to look at anything as big as the Impala. That said, the Impala is only about 6 inches longer than Accord, so why would an Accord shopper not potentially consider the similar sized Impala? I think I considered cars that were 6 inches longer or shorter than the Mazda6.

    It'd be nice to know what Edmunds criteria is...might a case where you can not define "midsize", you just know what it is when you see it :) .
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Per EPA Accord Sedan is only in the large class.

    BTW, the Accord Coupe is a compact by EPA definition.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    EPA classifies cars based on passenger volume plus trunk volume. Accord sedan (LX/LX-P) has a 106 cu ft interior and 14 cu ft trunk. With 120 cu ft, it manages to sneak into full size category (110-119 cu ft is "midsize").

    However, EPA doesn't take features into consideration. And the feature in this case would be moonroof, which can reduce interior volume by 2-3 cu ft. In case of Accord EX/EXL/EXV6/EXLV6 sedan, moon roof is standard, and total volume is down to 117 cu ft. This will apply to any car. In case of Accord, more are sold with moonroof than without (almost 75% of total Accord sales are supposed to be for EX and above trims).

    Civic is still very much a compact. I believe (DX/LX models, which are the only ones without moonroof) have 104-105 cu ft total volume, right in the middle of the compact size by EPA definition (100-109 cu ft is considered compact). Other trims (EX, EXL, Si and Hybrid) are "barely" compact.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    The Impala, Accord, Legacy, G6, etc. all belong in this discussion. It's just nutty to exclude them because of an arbitrary EPA classification.

    As far as car sales, GM does sell a lot more mid-size cars than either Honda and Toyota. What differentiates the Accord and Camry from domestic and other Asian mid-size cars is that they're regarded as the "premium" cars of the segment. The big discussion is whether it's deserved or not.

    For the record, the Taurus has never been considered the best car in this segment. True, it was a revolutionary car for Ford and a sales champ for a number of years. Oh, a sales champ only if you include the fleet sales.

    Though the current Passat is a disappointment as an improvement or the last generation, I still think it's the best car followed by the Accord in this segment. Once all the buzz wears off on the new Malibu it's not going to be this great car some think it is.

    I can almost guarantee Motor Trend is going to say the next generation Malibu is finally the car that beats the Accord forgetting (or hoping we forget what they said before) they say that every time GM introduces a new Malibu. Don't forget the Malibu two generations ago was their MT car of the year winner.

    Of course a niche car like the Audi S5 isn't going to be a MT car of the year winner because it wouldn't get the advertising exposure MT would want.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    Someone on this topic or the Aura vs Accord topic mentioned that the Aura got a higher rating than the Accord for the consumer reviews on the left panel and used that as an argument in favor of the Aura. I now see that is not the case anymore. It looks like the Altima is now the big winner.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    It looks like the Altima is now the big winner.

    It's 9.5 rating is downright amazing considering the large number of reviews, 65. Obviously Altima owners are happy owners. My wife and I love our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion but would still not award it a 9.5 on a 10 scale.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I don't give much credence to those reviews. In fact, with a little time on hand I could write a few of those reviews without owning a car and make it look better or worse. Some of those reviews are downright questionable to me (especially if you rank them in order from lowest to highest). I can only say to them... "what were you thinking, dude? Or, would that be too much to ask?"
  • The Impala, Accord, Legacy, G6, etc. all belong in this discussion. It's just nutty to exclude them because of an arbitrary EPA classification.

    So are we just using price? Because then we should add in the Crown Vic and a few others.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    No, we're using size. If you want to get caught up in EPA classifications be my guest.
  • Potential buyers of the Toyota 3.5L V6 (found in the Sienna, Avalon and Camry) need be aware of the high repair costs that are associated with this engine.

    On page 9 of the factory service manual, it states the instructions for water pump removal.

    Replacing the water pump on the Toyota 3.5L V6 require engine and transaxle removal!

    For those of us who plan to keep this vehicle for as long as possible (200k+), it's very likely that we'll have to replace the water pump at least once. With this design, replacing the water pump is likely to be very, very expensive, possibly at least twice the amount it costs to replace the timing belt and water pump on a Honda 3.5L V6.

    This is something that potential buyers of the Toyota 3.5L V6 need to keep in mind.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    This is something that potential buyers of the Toyota 3.5L V6 need to keep in mind.

    Just one more reason to be happy that my wife and I bought a 2007 3.0-liter V6 Ford Fusion (although I don't honestly know what's involved to replace its water pump).
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    These water pumps are probably designed to last a very long time, and my guess is they will. These are not the same water pumps that grandpa use to change regularly on his 70's chevy V8 engine.
  • If that engine has the same setup as the one in the Mazda 6, it requires manifold removal in order to access the rear plugs. Of course, the Toyota 3.5L V6 requires manifold removal as well.
  • From my experience, most pumps last about ten years or 100-150k miles. If someone keeps their vehicle for more than 200k+ miles, there's a good chance that they'll have to replace theirs at least once.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    If that engine has the same setup as the one in the Mazda 6, it requires manifold removal in order to access the rear plugs.

    How big a deal is that? Just curious, since I have I4 in my Mazda6.

    One of my reasons for prefering the I4 is I figured with a V6 jammed in there, various things would be more expensive to repair, just due to the difficulty in getting to them. Had that with a V6 minivan, which unlike our previous I4 minivan, required engine removal to replace gaskets. I plan to stay away from transverse mounted V6 engines.
  • The upper intake manifold has to come out, so I think it's a two to three hour job depending on your skill level and your familiarity with the vehicle, especially if it's your first time. One guy describes his experience in this thread:

    Thread
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    So...I assume that means maybe $250-300 to change plugs, for those of us who pay others to do such things.
  • No, we're using size. If you want to get caught up in EPA classifications be my guest.

    So we are using size, but not EPA size...is there a measure of interior volume that it needs to have to be in this discussion? A total vehicle length? Width? Tire size? Engine size/displacement/cylinders?

    Or are we going by what feels about midsized? because that seems kind of fuzzy. If the Accord is a "full size" then the Avalon and the Taurus should probably be in too.
  • So a few hundred dollars every 105k...that sounds like its pretty much in the noise. You probably end up combining it with the timing belt service and the water-pump gets done then too.
    Its not like the olden days where you had to change or clean or regap the plugs every 6000 miles because the car was running too rich. The more modern spark plugs are actually self cleaning...they reverse fire to clean the electrode tip.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I've heard and adopted the opinion that leaving plugs in for more than 4-5 years is not a good idea...that is 40,000 to 50,000 miles for me. Also this is probably just be one of many issues that are more expensive to fix/maintain on the V6.

    Ultimately in comes down to my opinion that a V6 is these cars is overkill, so no reason for me to bother with the extra expenses of having one. Only in America do we think such large powerful engines are needed in cars like these.

    Or are we going by what feels about midsized? because that seems kind of fuzzy.

    Midsize is a fuzzy concept. Saying car A is included with volume at 119, but car B is out because it is at 120 and Car C is in with a volume of 110, but Car D is out because it is 109 makes things unfuzzy, but sensless.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    The line for mid-size, compact, etc. has to be drawn somewhere, so what not use the EPA standards? That's the only measurement that makes sense to me even though the with/without a moon roof does stretch the point just a bit.

    I'll continue to think of the Accord as a mid-size until it grows some more.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    The Avalon and Taurus are considered full size vehicles (who's saying they're not?) and the Accord is still mid-size.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    It appears we are going here by what the automakers think are their mid-sized sedan offerings more than anything else. That explains, for example, why cars that are officially mid-sized inside like the Accord and Sonata are in this group, because they are positioned as Honda's and Hyundai's mid-sized cars. It also explains why smaller cars with mid-sized room, e.g. Elantra and Sentra, aren't here because they are positioned as compacts in their makers' lineups. And it explains why cars like the Azera, Avalon, etc. aren't here because even though some of them are actually smaller outside (or even inside) than some "mid-sized" cars, they are positioned as the "large" cars in the automakers' lineups.

    Since factors like EPA interior ratings and exterior dimensions etc. often conflict, I think going by how the cars are positioned in the marketplace makes as much sense as any other method to decide what to discuss here.

    If we take that approach, though, some big omissions here are the Malibu, G6, and LaCrosse. GM is clearly positioning these cars as mid-sized offerings. But there are technical reasons why we can't show more cars on the list for this discussion, right? (So the Milan isn't here, for example.) Even so, we might want to keep them in the picture mentally.

    If we had to choose whether to inlcude cars like the Malibu and LaCrosse vs. the Legacy, Mazda6, and Optima, I'd have to vote for the Malibu and LaCrosse due to market impact. Although I can see why Edmunds would not want to omit the Legacy and Mazda6, since they seem to have a special relationship with Subaru and Mazda owners. Maybe Edmunds' Web techs could figure out a way to list more vehicles on one discussion?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Actually I'd vote for the Legacy before the Malibu. Not for anything, but why even talk about kicking out the Legacy?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    That explains, for example, why cars that are officially mid-sized inside like the Accord and Sonata are in this group, because they are positioned as Honda's and Hyundai's mid-sized cars.

    Not really. Do these companies market those cars as midsizers, or as family sedans? It is here at Edmunds that folks often pick and choose what they want to discuss. It has little to do with EPA or manufacturers more with personal whim.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    I'd rather see the discussion opened up to ALL mid-sized sedans rather than having someone arbitrarily decide which nine cars to include. But if it has to be nine, why not the biggest sellers, which includes the Malibu--and doesn't include the Legacy. Maybe the Malibu could represent GM's mid-sizers, i.e. replace the Aura, as the Fusion represents the Fusion and Milan now. Basically, then, each manufacturer would be represented by one car (except for Mitsubishi...).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,710
    Great, let's go with personal whim then. Everything goes here, folks! Versas, Accords, Impalas, Crown Vics--let's talk about all of 'em!! As long as one person thinks it belongs here, that's fine.

    Somehow, I don't think that's going to fly...
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Maybe the Malibu could represent GM's mid-sizers, i.e. replace the Aura,

    I agree. The Malibu will, no doubt, sell better than the Aura has, and will include a much larger number of midsize buyers.
Sign In or Register to comment.