Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

12425272930724

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    think about it on whatever basis you wish then, and pretend that the average that most of us keep cars is not between 3 and 4 years. Of course, if you keep your Mazda to the point that the paint is peeling off and the wheels are falling off, then you probably will save all that money that you think you did. Most of us don't do that, however, and do have to deal with those crooked used car depts. at trade-in time, and mysteriously that Accord buyer is getting at least a good portion of his $5k purchase premium back, a little kbb.com research as well as Edmunds/Intellichoice cost to own numbers all confirm this.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    We'll never agree on the 0-60 acceleration numbers. However, I can say that from personal experience actually driving the cars and from participating in a few "stoplight showdowns," that the Accord I4 5M is every bit as fast as the Fusion V6 6A and the automatic Accord isn't too far behind. Certainly, you can't state that the DT30 is "much faster" than the Accord or Altima inline 4's.

    I like the Fusion, it was on my "short list" at purchase time and I heavily evaluated it. It is a competitive car which keeps looking better as Ford adds standard features, and the reliability reports are looking good. Resale value remains to be seen.

    However, the Fusion will absolutely require very substantial powertrain updates to remain competitive, especially with the new Accord just around the corner. I really hope Ford doesn't ignore it as long as they have ignored the Focus. That is a perfect example of a car that could have been a serious contender if it had been continuously developed and refined through the years instead of remaining basically the same. I don't think the Duratec is going to cut it.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    and the Fusion added AWD sales have been up even more so far this year.

    fusion sales are still at the bottom of the barrel, and by a big margin. Its not that impressive to have a 205 sales increase when you only sold 45,000 the year before. Here's some numbers for you: rounded and year to date

    toyota camry: 144,000
    honda accord: 121,000
    chevy impala: 108,000
    nissan altima: 90,000
    ford fusion: 51,000
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Thanks for posting about comparing real dollars rather the per cent ages, which can be quite misleading.

    I just checked Edmund's True Cost to Own stats and saw that it lists the TMV price for a 2007 Sonata SE w/XM @ $20,706. We bought one on 2/24/07 at a purchase price of $16,651. (Both figures need to have dealer fees + TTL added; our dealer fees were $189.)

    Knock $4,055 off that TCO estimate and you'll see quite a difference. The financing, insurance and tax info. are also off the mark. If you finance $5,000 and I finance $10,000, my finance charges will obviously be more than double your finance charges. In CT, owners (or lesees) pay a property tax every year on their cars. The tax rate varies from town to town. My town's current tax rate is $21.65 for every $1,000 of the cars value. One town next door has a tax rate of (about) $62 for every $1,000 of value. Another bordering town has a tax rate of $17.89 for each $1,000 of value. (This also means that a car which has a lower "value" pays less property tax each year.)

    Insurance: forget what TCO says. How old are you, married or single, your driving record, what town do you live in, how do you use your car (not driven to work, driven to work how many miles?, business use), do you own or rent, do you have other insurance with the same company, have you been continuously insured for the last six months, FICO scores, etc.

    TCO and other similar estimates need to start off their comparison with real street prices, not an inflated number. But, your point about the $20K car being worth $12K in 5 yrs vs a $16K car being worth $8K in 5 yrs is valid. I don't pay my bills based upon per cent ages. The mortgage company, utilities, insurance company, etc. want REAL dollars, not per cent ages.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,695
    the fusion is somewhat limited by manufacturing capacity. i think it shares the line with milan and mkz.
    i drive by a chevy dealership every day. those impalas are starting to appeal to me. :)
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Car and Driver seems to be the kings of car abuse and will regulary report acceleration times (especially 0-60) that is substantially better than any of us would want to even try to achieve - probably because we paid good money for that car? CR, I think, does things more like what you and I might infrequently try and therefore those differences more realistic.

    That's what I said. But yet someone posted a much better 0-60 time for an Accord I4 with auto tranny. Doesn't make sense at all.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    However, I can say that from personal experience actually driving the cars and from participating in a few "stoplight showdowns," that the Accord I4 5M is every bit as fast as the Fusion V6 6A and the automatic Accord isn't too far behind. Certainly, you can't state that the DT30 is "much faster" than the Accord or Altima inline 4's.


    Your personal experience with the 5M in the Accord doesn't really matter when we're comparing auto trannies. What you posted in #791 is directly below:

    2006 Accord I4 - 2.4L (166hp) 5A
    0-60 mph 7.91
    1/4 mile 16.22 90.8 mph

    2007 Fusion V6 - 3.0L (221hp) 6A
    0-60 mph 7.47
    1/4 mile 15.78 90.9 mph

    DIFFERENCE
    0-60 mph 0.44
    1/4 mile 0.44, 00.1 mph


    That 0-60 time you posted is not right according to C&D whom we all can agree tends to really push a car to get times you and I would never dream of trying to get. Since they did publish a time, as I linked you to, of low 8s we have to assume that the Accord I4 5A is "much" slower than the V6 Fusion 6A. If you don't agree then don't ever think of saying the V6 Accord is "much" faster than the V6 Fusion because the difference in number of seconds off the pace for each comparo is negligible. ;)

    I don't think the Duratec is going to cut it.

    I agree. Not for the long term it won't anyway. I think I did point out that the next gen Fusion will get the Duratec35 somewhere near 2010 for 2011 IIRC. Updating the Fusion, whether it be content or powertrain, each year is a good thing that I hope we can all agree on. That seems to be the trend so far.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    mysteriously that Accord buyer is getting at least a good portion of his $5k purchase premium back says captain

    funny you admit that you won't get all of that $5k back. And it stands to reason that you won't; a used car is still a used car and when it a buyer is comparing to new car prices used cars will always depreciate a lot. So if you want to pretend you're getting a car that's worth 5k more because you don't like the engine note of a car when I bet 99% of the time you're listening to the stereo and not the sound of the engine, more power to you.

    In the end, I think in the Mazda 6, the duratec sounds great. It has a nice growl to it that confirms that your intentions are being matched by the car. As automotive.com wrote about the Mazda 6 v6, "The 3.0-liter V6 in the 6s greatly increases the fun. Like the four-cylinder, it has continuously variable valve timing (VVT) for its intake camshaft; but on the V6, this feature seems to be used more effectively, providing better low-down torque along with a willingness to rev, with good gas mileage and a nice set of sounds from the air intake and the dual exhausts. The Mazda V6 doesn't feel like it has as much low-rpm torque as the Toyota and Honda V6 engines, but it loves to rev and it's a lot of fun to drive."

    Of course I would have been willing to pay extra for a car that braked 15 feet shorter in 60-0, or a car that had less body lean when cornering, or even for a car that was less generically styled. Thing is, though, I didn't have to pay more and in fact spent thousands less. And during the time I have this car, I will enjoy every curve, make thanks for great brakes everytime someone pulls out of a driveway in my path, and I will walk up to my car with pride instead of wondering which of 10 other simialar cars in the parking lot is mine as I load a big screen into my car while the other sedan owners make a second trip or pay for delivery.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    fusion sales are still at the bottom of the barrel, and by a big margin. Its not that impressive to have a 205 sales increase when you only sold 45,000 the year before. Here's some numbers for you: rounded and year to date

    I don't recall ever saying Fusion sales were at or near the top. Did I?

    I know the sales numbers and already told you that the Fusion and it's sisters only sell about 220k units per year which is about half of the number of CamCords (each) sold each year.

    My point was that Fusion sales keep climbing and that is true. Fusion sales are actually at 52,000 units this YTD as of 4/30/2007. That's a 22.4% increase over the previous year.

    Why didn't you include the Sonata? It's sales are down 31% from last year at this time. See a trend? Also, Fusion sales to fleets are pretty low according to Ford and Hyundai just made some news about selling in high volumes to fleets IIRC.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Of course I would have been willing to pay extra for a car that braked 15 feet shorter in 60-0

    That was one thing I really loved about that car when I had it. The brakes were nothing short of phenomenal.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    The Hermi plant is running at capacity. Don't forget they also make the Milan/MKZ there too. And yes, Ford is selling Fusions/Milans/MKZ's at a nice pace. I would much rather have Ford not try to make 500,000 Fusions and keep the quality up on these vehicles. So far the Fusion/Milan/MKZ are proving to be very reliabile and well built vehicles.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Of course you take the numbers that best suit your needs. I too have done "real world" testing with my Fusion V6 and your dreaming my friend. I easily outran both a auto 4cyl Accord and a Manual Accord on I-205. This guy had a brand new Accord and he was ticked when I started to actually play with him. I would let him catch up to me, get about even with me then WAMMO.. I was gone! There are reviews showing the Fusion does 0-60 in 7.1 seconds by the way out on the internet.. take a look around... :shades:
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I'm right with you man. I did price an Accord with the Same options as my Fusion and it was easily $3,000+ more. Not to include the 4.9% interest I would be paying over the lifetime of the loan! I pay 0% on the Fusion. I came out way, way ahead with my Fusion. Trying to convince people Accords are either cheaper or within $1,000 of either a Fusion or Sonata is not going to work. Anyone who shops knows the Accord/Camry are pricey vehicles. This is what the Fusion/Milan offer, value at the right price. Remember when Honda/Toyota did that? :surprise:
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    "The FE that is possible out of the Toyota 2GR a good example of that."

    Are you so sure about that? Get out on the net people are complaining about the MPG of the V6 Camry. I also posted a link to a site that did independant studies of MPG on the Camry back in this forum. And the actual mileage they were getting was about 4MPG LESS for the Camry.. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I guess since McDonalds sells more hamburgers than Wendys that they must be the best too.. ;)
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Ford is going in the right direction. They are building a solid, quality car for less than their competitors. It will take time and miles and word of mouth before the general public figure this one out. I like the Duratec 3.0 with VVT. Mine revs freely and I like the growling sound myself. At idle I can't even tell its running. And in everyday driving its just as quiet as the Accord/Camry. Someone posted actual DB ratings way back in this forum. Granted when you put the pedal down, the Fusion is a bit louder than the Camry/Accord. But in everyday driving it is just as quiet.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,720
    It's actually the other way around on the Sonata... HMA is selling fewer of them to fleets than last year, which accounts for at least some of the downturn in sales.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Also, Fusion sales to fleets are pretty low according to Ford and Hyundai just made some news about selling in high volumes to fleets IIRC.

    Wrong on both counts. Fusion fleets are actually going up as we speak, while Hyundai's Sonata fleet initiative ended Q4 last year (a program lasted almost a year from early 06). Sonata sales will be down for the rest of this year because the majority of 06 included additional fleet units, which otherwise would not have skewed the YOY comparison.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Whhaaaaaaaaaaat? The Hyundai motor dates back to Mitsubishi designs from the 80s. They added variable valve timing, just like Ford did in the Jag with the DT (although why they didn't do it in the Fusion/Mazda6 I don't know)

    The 4 cylinder is all new, but its a GEMA motor, so its in Hyyndai, Mitsubishi, DCX, and others.


    Time to get better informed here. :)

    Just to summarize from other posts and add some add'l info:

    Hyundai's new Lambda V6s (3.3L & 3.8L) currently can be found in various Hyundai and Kia applications, including the Sonata. Competent engines and flexible, as the Lambdas can be tuned to as high as 300hp (which is a likely candidate on the base engine of the upcoming luxury RWD sedan next year).

    The Theta I4s also can be found in many Hyundai and Kia applications, including the Sonata. Don't be confused, these are not the same as the GEMA engines. Hyundai is, however, receiving royalties for these I4s.

    Bottom line, both the I4s and the V6s are designed in-house by Hyundai.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    I think it was Nov.,'06 that Hyundai drastically cut its fleet sales. That probably accounted for most of the Sonata sales reduction, if not 100% of it, during a time of declining auto sales for the industry.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    Whhaaaaaaaaaaat? The Hyundai motor dates back to Mitsubishi designs from the 80s. They added variable valve timing, just like Ford did in the Jag with the DT (although why they didn't do it in the Fusion/Mazda6 I don't know)

    It should also be known that the Mazda 6 has VVT.

    From automobile.com, "Like the four-cylinder, it has continuously variable valve timing (VVT) for its intake camshaft; but on the V6, this feature seems to be used more effectively, providing better low-down torque along with a willingness to rev, with good gas mileage and a nice set of sounds from the air intake and the dual exhausts..."

    "Zoom-zoom is in plentiful supply regardless of which model you choose. Even the four-cylinder 6i is a hoot to drive. Order it with the five-speed manual and the fun zone starts at about 4000 rpm, where the engine is very responsive. The 2.3-liter, double-overhead-cam engine loves to rev and acceleration is on par with that of other four-cylinder mid-size sedans...."
  • ykangykang Posts: 88
    Next generation RWD Tiburon (known as BK) will be getting turbocharged Theta I4 220-250 HP and 3.8 Lamda 300+ HP.

    http://www.bobaedream.co.kr/board/bbs/news_view.php?code=nnews&No=22492 ;)
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Hmm...totally forgot about the 3.2L I6 in the M3. Thanks for reminding me that, guys.

    Isn't that right the 3.2L I6 was so expensive to make and its compression ratio was so high that it is just not feasible for mess-manufactured cars? Great for a halo car like M3, however.

    BTW, what's the torque of that 3.2L I6?

    I'll take the 3.0L I6 (naturally aspirated version) on a 2800 lbs sedan any given day... :blush:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Isn't that right the 3.2L I6 was so expensive to make and its compression ratio was so high that it is just not feasible for mess-manufactured cars? Great for a halo car like M3, however.

    No.

    It was a halo engine manufactured for just one application however.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I investigated the claim that cars with higher initial prices, such as Accord, cost less than lower priced alternative mid-size cars, when trade-in value is considered.

    Since my recent purchase was a Mazda6i, I compared this to Honda Accord. I bought my SVE for $16,100 and at the time I estimated, based on invoice less a $750 incentive that an Accord would have cost me $3300 more. I think that I got a better than average price, if so, perhaps a more typical price difference may have been about $2500.

    Then I looked at the price of a comparably equipped 2003 used Mazda6i vs. 2003 Honda Accord LX. The price difference with 60,000 miles ranged from $1400 to $1900, depending on condition and whether looking at private party sale or trade in.

    For average condition, trade-in difference was about $1500. With the assumption that a buyer would on average pay about $2500 less for the Mazda, this still leaves an average net advantage of $1000 for the Mazda6.

    Now, in any financial analysis, the time value of money should not be neglected. Today I can earn about 3.8% in a tax exempt money market account. $2500 invested at that rate, for 4 years will be worth $2800, so this increases the advatage of the cheaper car to $1300. The advantage would increase to more like $1800 for one who must finance the purchase at 7% interest.

    Of course, there is a lot of estimating and gueswork involved in this, but I certainly see no evidence that an Accord costs less when trade-in is considered. The Accord might cost about the same, at best, for some buyers...but this is certainly no reason to fear cars like the Mazda6, Fusion, Sonata, etc.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Wrong on both counts. Fusion fleets are actually going up as we speak, while Hyundai's Sonata fleet initiative ended Q4 last year (a program lasted almost a year from early 06). Sonata sales will be down for the rest of this year because the majority of 06 included additional fleet units, which otherwise would not have skewed the YOY comparison

    So do you have some links for all of us to see then? Instead of just telling people they are wrong and being done with it, how about you pass on some of your infinite wisdom? :shades:

    I've read the opposite, albeit some time ago, and want to see the latest figures too.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    Here's an excerpt from a Hyundai press release that mentions the reduction in fleet sales:


    HYUNDAI REPORTS NOVEMBER SALES

    FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif., 12/01/2006 Hyundai Motor America sold 28,417 units during the month of November, down 14.9 percent compared with November 2005.

    “Sales declined in November due to our strategy to reduce fleet sales in 2006 as well as the reduced availability of our new Elantra due to continued effects of the strike earlier this year. Improving availability of new models such as the Elantra and Santa Fe will help our year-end close on a very strong note. We are very encouraged by the sales of our new Santa Fe, which experienced a 52 percent increase in sales over last year,” said Mark Barnes, vice president, National Sales, Hyundai Motor America said.


    Good enough for you? ;)
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    Good enough for you?

    Not really. It's from 5 months ago.

    If you read the latest sales news from Ford, a quick search will take you to several of them, they are reporting that fleet sales are down 5% for either the year or the month of April, I can't remember which it is. How then can one state that Fusion fleet sales are climbing when the supposed Sonata fleet reductios are being based on a 5 month old statement that groups the manufacturers total fleet sales together?

    Based on news that's only days old we can say that Fusion fleet sales are falling I guess? See where I'm going?

    I know the Sonata is a great car, don't get me wrong. But if the American manufacturers start producing great cars, such as the Fusion, someone else is going to lose some sales. Looks like Hyundai might be the first victim IMO.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    never said that the Accord costs less - only that at least a good portion of the initial price difference is recovered at trade in time, that 'false savings' I mentioned. Intellichoice 5 year cost of ownership is $2000 LESS for a 07 Accord LX vs. the 6s, but I rather suspect they are assumming a higher initial purchase price (for the 6) than what your actual experience was. From Intellichoice's perspective, they would have no way to forecast how much money Ford needs to discount to sell the 6 (or the Fusion). In any case, total cost of ownership which obviously plays on resale values very heavily is every bit as important in evaluating a purchase as initial purchase price which may turn out to mean very little. Cheap now will almost always equal cheap later, and the reverse is also true. Lease rates tend to be indicative of what a car actually costs to own simply because new and residual values are both considered and assumes cars are both returned in excellent and low mileage conditions. Don't have any numbers in front of me, but I might be willing to bet you lunch that the Accord (or Camry) would have about the same lease payment on let's say a 3 year deal as would the 6, the Fusion or the Sonata.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I am very very sure of that - I own one in the slightly larger and heavier Avalon now 50k miles old . And you can cruise any forum you would like and find folks that can't match EPA numbers, especially on the City side, on any car. In my case my 22/31 EPA turns into an honest 27 mpg overall. My wifes Altima 3.5 I think was rated at 18/27 and she ends up right at 25-26 overall although her hwy percentage is high, she is a little gentler than I on the accelerator, and the land down here in Texas is about as flat as those EPA laboratory floors. Which is the bottom line, if you really do spend much time in City gridlock and also enjoy mashing the accelerator on these wonderful new V6s, you will pay a price - this applies even to the 4 bangers. I would estimate that for the average driver in normal conditions the net cost between the 4 banger and V6 is likely going to be in the 3-4 mpg range overall and roughly correspondent to the EPA rating differences - meaning that those driver that can't get close to EPA numbers on the V6 won't on the 4 banger either! On the Camry specifically this translates into less than $20 a month assuming 1000 miles at $3 a gallon. Well worth it, IMO, if for no other reason than a 'grins' factor ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.