Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1267268270272273727

Comments

  • mrsyjmrsyj Posts: 77
    exactly. when you arent paying for gas you are going to want more power so why not get the V6 version. Its funny that 70%-80% of import midsizers are sold with 4 cylinders but you rarely see an I-4 model tested. edmunds got a long term Accord EX-L V6 with nav even though that car is likely less than 10% of Accord sales. Most people shopping for an Accord are not trying to spend $31k. You can get a TL for a few grand more.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the fact is, however, that the FE premium for some of these better V6s (the Toyota 2GR, for example) is somewhat minimal espeically when you balance that against the fun (and safety) quotients that come with 250hp+. If the average driver is putting 1500 miles/mo. on a Camry 4 banger vs. the same car with that V6 - his additional cost per month is going to end up about $20/month based on a 3mpg overall FE difference and $3 gas. A small price to pay IMO and while there is certainly a premium to buy the bigger engine in the first place, a good portion of that is recovered at trade-in time. I think there is a common misperception that some of these 'overpowered' cars are going to kill you at the gas pumps - which is not necessarily the case.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    Did you notice though that we are seeing more I4 mid-sized sedan comparos? The last big one C/D did was I4 models (except for the Aura, which was available only as a V6 then). A couple of years ago, Edmunds did one comparing an Accord, Camry, and Sonata at the same price point, and so it was I4 Accord and Camry vs. V6 Sonata. Then in the recent comparo Edmunds did in which the testers were drawn from the public, they compared I4 versions of the Accord, Camry, and Malibu. Maybe the press is realizing most people buy mid-sizers with I4s, so they should test them that way.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    In many cases, they like to test the V6 manual, while most people buy the I4 automatic.

    And then also we have the manufacturers, who like to advetise the features and performance of the top of the line V6, but quote the price of the base I4.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    Maybe the press is realizing most people buy mid-sizers with I4s, so they should test them that way.

    I believe the statistics indicate you are accurate, but how many mid-size owners on this forum have I4s? We have a V6 2007 Fusion, for example.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    And then also we have the manufacturers, who like to advetise the features and performance of the top of the line V6, but quote the price of the base I4.

    The manufacturers are also fond of quoting the highway mileage figures for the base I4s in their advertising. Not all that surprising. Just another example of "putting the best foot forward."
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I believe the statistics indicate you are accurate, but how many mid-size owners on this forum have I4s? We have a V6 2007 Fusion, for example.

    elroy has a 2003 Accord V6. urnews has a Fusion V6 AWD. dudleyr has a 4-cyl Accord, as does tankbeans I believe. There are a couple of Mazda 6 V6 owners around too, I just can't remember who owns them.

    At my house, there are three 4-cyl automatic Accords ('96, '02, '06).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I4 Mazda6, here.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    For some reason I was thinking you were one of the V6 owners.

    Welcome to the economy club then. ;)
  • mrsyjmrsyj Posts: 77
    Honda and Toyota charge high premiums for their V6 engines which I think is ridiculous. On the accord I believe the V6 costs about $2700 extra which is way too much. Toyota has a similar premium. I am all for a V6 but I dont think a V6 is worth over $2500 more than an I-4. Then again, the more I-4s Toyota and Honda sell the higher their CAFE numbers so it makes sense for them to try and scare people out of buying V6 engines.
  • mrsyjmrsyj Posts: 77
    "In many cases, they like to test the V6 manual, while most people buy the I4 automatic. "

    magazines are obsessed with manuals in midsize cars even though they are not popular amongst buyers. The Accord sedan dropped the manual with the V6 due to lack of demand. Now the 6 and Altima are the only midsizers with V6/manual combos. I rarely see that combination in real life though.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You're leaving out the extra equipment that comes with some V6 models.

    And, the difference is $2200 between an EX-L Automatic and an EXL-V6 Automatic Accord. Check out Automobiles.Honda.com for the actual information.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    high premiums for their V6 engines which I think is ridiculous
    perhaps so, BUT a 3 year old Accord EX, 4 banger is worth about $1600.00 less than that same car V6 TODAY. Don't know what the premium for the V6 was in 2005, but even if we assume that it was the same as it is today and further that there are no additional options included for that $2700, doesn't that really make the actual cost of the V6 $1100.00? If you are truly appreciative of what a good V6 can do for these cars, consider those costs for what they really are, which using your numbers amounts to right at $50/month (for the first 3 years) and about $20/month thereafter depending, of course, on how much you drive and what happens to gas prices. The Toyotas and Hondas of the world are in no danger of any CAFE violations, and, in fact, lead the industry from a FE perspective. The 4 bangers sell because they are good engines for what they are and the fact that many buyers are like you and have difficulty getting over sticker shock. The other mfgrs. OTH, HAVE to offer their V6s relatively inexpensively because, for example, there is no comparison between the GM Ecotec 4 banger and the Honda 4 banger.
  • " but how many mid-size owners on this forum have I4s? We have a V6 2007 Fusion, for example." I have a top of the line KIA Optima with an I4.Incidently Hyundai now offers their best Sonanta with leather etc. for the first time with an I4.
    BTW, I get all the power I will ever need with my I4 Auto.This alleged need of more power for safety IMO is bogus. :shades:
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    The other mfgrs. OTH, HAVE to offer their V6s relatively inexpensively because, for example, there is no comparison between the GM Ecotec 4 banger and the Honda 4 banger.

    What do you mean by "no comparison?" Is one clearly superior to the other? Which one? (I would guess the Honda.)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Honda and Toyota charge high premiums for their V6 engines which I think is ridiculous.

    If you think that's ridiculous, you should see the price difference between the Malibu I4 and V6 (over $3000). :surprise:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ford charges $2,750 on the Fusion to get the V6, although this includes getting an automatic. Nissan charges $3,850 to go from the 2.5 SL to the 3.5 SL.

    Of course, extra features are typically included with the V6 models.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Ford charges $2,750 on the Fusion to get the V6, although this includes getting an automatic. Nissan charges $3,850 to go from the 2.5 SL to the 3.5 SL.

    Of course, extra features are typically included with the V6 models.


    Exactly, I got quite a few extras with the V6 Accord in 03, that were not available on the EX I4.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    Incidently Hyundai now offers their best Sonanta with leather etc. for the first time with an I4.

    The Ford Fusion S only comes with an I4 but the SE and SEL models are also available with the 160-horsepower, 2.3-liter four. One year after purchasing an SEL with the V6, I wish that we had ordered an I4 SEL. 20-20 hindsight.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    clearly superior to the other? Which one? (I would guess the Honda.)
    well you said it, but I'll certtainly agree, I would further contend that the Honda 4 banger is smoother and quieter than many of the 'American' V6s (esp. the pushrod varieties) never mind something much more mundane like those Ecotec 4s. Honda has led the 4 cylinder pack ever since those CVCC engines back in the 70s, and in the process left the US mfgrs. behind. I would be willing to bet you that the portion of V6 sales for the new Malibu will be substantially higher than what it is for something like the Accord and it won't have a whole lot to do with dollars - more a function of how 'good' the Honda 4 banger is relative to how ' bad' the GM 4 banger is.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I understand what you mean. I don't feel like I "settled" for a 4-cylinder in my Accord, instead chose the economical choice over the more powerful choice.

    It is plenty torquey and smooth (the i-Vtec makes it a very flexible engine) - at least as smooth as the 3500/3900 in the GM cars; I'd probably disagree about the 3.6 "High Feature" in the Aura/Malibu, and don't have enough experience with the new-ish 3.5L Duratec to honestly say.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    no, actually I would consider the 3.6HF GM engine at least in the same league as correspondent offerings from T,H, and N. In the XR and the CTS, it does a good job. The only experience I have with the Ford DT3.5 was in an Edge and I didn't find it a whole lot less irritating than its predecessor - except, of course, for the HP infusion. But we were talking about 4 cylinder engines here, and the real point I was making is that the Honda 4 is about the only one I would consider in lieu of what I regard as a selection of really good V6s - including Honda's own.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It may lower the bottom line, but I'm sure they're plenty of car buyers that would rather have one or two options, instead of having to buy a model with options he/she doesn't want or need just to get what they want. Why should I be forced with a leather interior if I want a moonroof? Or be stuck with an overpriced Nav system just to get HIDs?

    HID and NAV are two luxury items. Which means they are not necessities. Why would you create more combinations simply to offer them exclusive of each other? To keep it simple, think about just one engine, two transmission, five exterior colors and five interior colors. How many combinations can you imagine from just this? Now, consider features, and how many do you end up with?

    This is why automakers prefer to bundle options. Some do it in simple packages (Honda's DX, LX, EX, EX-L trim levels) and some "allow" a build your own option. However, the latter rarely allows customization. You're still led to a package. Try building an Altima 3.5SE/CVT. It starts at $25,205 (MSRP+Destination).

    Next, you're offered stability control as a $900 option. Add it... what happens? You're forced to buying Tech Package which takes the price tag to $32,305. This happens because even with build you own, you are basically getting a package.

    "Fewer parts, reduced complexity"? Not if someone has to deal with a integrated Nav system just to play a CD. "Increased reliability"? I doubt that too, especially when said Nav system breaks down, and takes out the radio with it.

    Not quite. In case of Honda/Acura NAV systems, you get voice (and touchscreen in some cases) to control audio/AC etc. But these functions are available separately as well. You are not forced into using NAV for it.

    Besides, if one is wary of NAV system breaking down, no luxury item is worth considering. Including HID. If I have to replace halogen bulbs in my Accord, it costs $12 or so. If I had to replace HID out of warranty, I wouldn't bet on it costing that little. But thats part of opting for "luxury" features.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    My guess is Honda knows the Accord seems more average without nav and thus they make sure only cars with nav are provided for test drives.

    There isn't a whole lot of difference between NAV and non-NAV models, especially since the screen has been moved out from the main cluster. In fact, you couldn't tell the difference if the NAV wasn't lit.
  • karsickkarsick Posts: 312
    ....4-cylinder devotee chiming in here with a vote.

    Just picked up a 4cyl, 6speed manual Altima today to replace our 250,000 mile, 4cyl, manual tranny G20.

    If a carmaker refused to offer simple, roomy, well-made sedans like this with simple engines & three pedals (GM...are you paying attention??), we won't give them the time of day.

    175hp routed through a clutch & 6 gears is plenty for me (but then I grew up driving VW vans, diesel Rabbits & 36hp Honda 600 hatches :P ).

    I'm enjoying the discussions here.

    Who else here is a gearbox retro-grouch that refuses to cave to the slushbox onslaught :confuse: ?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If I wasn't such a noob at driving a stick, I'd have chosen one. I can drive from town to town without stalling, but I'm not practiced enough to want to risk messing up a clutch on a brand new car. I find driving a stick LOADS of fun when I'm in my granddad's '99 Frontier 4-cyl.
  • HID and NAV are two luxury items. Which means they are not necessities. Why would you create more combinations simply to offer them exclusive of each other?

    What's "luxury" to you is a "necessity" to somebody else. What if someone wants HIDs (a "necessity") WITHOUT the Nav (a "luxury")?
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    HIDs are not a necessity, no matter how much you want it. Studies have shown (CR) that HID does not necessarily mean better.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    There is definitely a comparison between the Accord 4 and the ecotec. Once coupled witTh the 6 speed auto the ecotec will really be able to perform and exceed the mileage of the Accord I4.
    Well, let's see - they both have the same number of cylinders, spark plugs, camshafts, valves etc. - there is more that goes into good engines then what the specsheets tell you.
Sign In or Register to comment.