Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1311312314316317723

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    It would be interesting to find out what the per capita amount of diesel use is in different countries. I would think that with the US trucking industry and the amount of fuel oil for heating the US does vs Europe with a lot more coal/nuclear/electric use for heating homes and a lot shorter transportation distances coupled with the train usage.

    I know that the ratio of cars using diesel in Europe is astronomical compared to the US but I just wonder if the items I cited above don't equal things out a bit.
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    I don't think it's really edmund's fault. The 2009 models are screwing up everything with comparisons right now. A lot of auto websites don't fully update until most 2009's are in. Heck, even hyundai's website cannot compare the 2009 model at all.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    Yeah, guess you're right. I just thought since the cars are out and the specs with them, why would Edmunds even include it in their data if they can't get the info right. Isn't it a matter of someone inputting the data from the manufacturer or is this data downloaded or something from the manufacturer.

    I like Edmunds but they are not a public service....they are a for profit company. If I did my job that sloppily someone would be screamin!
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I will say this (and its a shame to say it): if something happened to my 2006 Accord that caused me to have to shop for a new car, the 2008 Accord would not be on my list. The Altima 2.5 would likely be close to the top, the Nissan Versa would be there too, actually.

    Why is it a shame? The V6 08 Accord is not the car for everyone. I don't think single 20-somethings are really the target consumers for this car. The Accord is appealing to a different crowd, but it's only the wrong crowd if it doesn't sell. From what I've seen, it's doing well in sales.
    For someone looking to trade in his gas guzzling SUV for something more fuel efficient, the 08 V6 Accord could be just big and powerful enough to satisfy. Someone who has large passengers riding in the back, and wants them to be as comfortable as he is, would appreciate the 08 more than the 06.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,573
    "But I think you hit a key element to this seemingly endless HP war - size and weight"

    The last go-round of downsizing found benefits when all the systems were reduced - you'd have to think a car built to handle the power of these 3.5 l engines could have some weight reduction if designed to handle only a 3.0 l. Just reducing the engine size will only result in limited savings.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,573
    Another thing driving up diesel demand (and therefore cost) in the US is the need to truck all the ethanol around to meet the government requirements. Just another bad effect...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    It was also not a mainstream model; by the time I was old enough to know what displacement was, the Taurus SHO had a V8 engine and a 4-speed automatic only.

    In 1989, I was 2. So, to be fair, I don't exactly remember its debut. ;)
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Posts: 210
    The 1989 Taurus SHO engine was a 3.0 liter Yamaha unit with 220 advertised hp and 200 foot pounds of torque. The engine was independently tested to actually produce 225-230 hp. The engine was rev limited to 7200 rpm but had been operated at up to 9000 rpm; trouble was that above 7200 rpm the accessory belts started to come apart.
    That was a GREAT engine. I drove mine in Germany on the autobahn routinely at speeds up to 135 mph got between 22-29 mpg and kept the car for 157,000 miles.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Hope you'll help out by reporting any errors you find. There is a Contact Us link at the bottom of the page you can use for this.

    Thanks!!
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,213
    The 1989 Taurus SHO engine was a 3.0 liter Yamaha unit

    It was also a pretty cool looking unit IIRC. The intake plenum looked like a bunch of aluminum snakes wrapping around the top of the engine.
  • auld_dawgauld_dawg Posts: 40
    Speaking of the early SHO's, I still have mine, '93 instead of '89 though.......

    I think if you look, you'll find the rated torque of the 3L Yamaha was actually 190 or 195 lbs/ft. The reason given for going to 3.2L for the ATX's was more torque, as the 3.2 was rated the same horsepower, 220hp, with 210lbs of torque.

    If you look at the way the '93 ATX SHO spec'd out, it doesn't take much stretch to see it being the prototype of the modern V6 midsize sedan. A 3350lb sedan, with a 220 horsepower 24 valve engine. The main difference, in retrospect, is that the '93 was considered "high performance" back then, the V6 sedans today, mainstream.

    I was a bit surprised in the fall of '05 reading a Motor Trend article on four midsize sedans, and realizing that three of the four had motors with higher horsepower ratings {Sonata 233hp, Accord 244hp, Fusion 221hp}.

    The SHO is a bit dated compared to the current generation, but in good shape, still "competive" in many ways. Because of the way the transmission is programmed, in the winter it gets rated mpg, ie, 16/ 26. But in the summer, when the torque converter locks up earlier, it gets 19.5mpg city, and 32 on freeway trips between here and Portland Ore {here being Kent, WA}.

    The SHO split daily driving chores for me with a '93 Sable. The Sable finally decided to massively give up the ghost, which put me in the position of either relying solely on the SHO, or replacing the Sable. Since parts availability is real difficult on the Yamaha engine, it was a no brainer to start looking for a replacement for the Sable.....

    I wound up with an '08 Sonata GLS V6. In many ways it specs out similar to the Merc it replaced, but even though still breaking in, it is better on the mpg front. 20.3 city vs 17.5. 30+ on the freeway vs 29..........However, accelerating onto the freeway definitely favors the Sonata.........

    The biggest differences between the Sonata and the SHO is the fun factor. The SHO is tremendously more "responsive", it feels like it wants to run. The engine rumbles authoritively, while the engine of the Sonata is refined in the Asian V6 way {sounds very similar to the V6 I had in a '92 Pathfinder}.

    One interesting side note though is that "off the line", the Sonata accelerates so hard that the SHO would have to reel it in from behind should the two meet at SIR {or whatever its called today}. The SHO burns rubber at full throttle off the line, such that the only way to effectively get off the line is at part throttle for a good 20 feet or more......

    Today, I kind of intend to keep both. The Sonata, daily driver, the SHO part time driver and restoration project.

    Which modern midsize sedan is the best? My answer is I don't really care, for me, its what my frame of reference is about. The Sonata is a definite upgrade from the Sable, and is an interesting contrast to the SHO.........

    Another side note........ the cost to insure the Sonata was a shock in a good way..... more savings because of all of the "safety" things built in, like all of the airbags......
  • 2002slt2002slt Posts: 228
    Another side note........ the cost to insure the Sonata was a shock in a good way..... more savings because of all of the "safety" things built in, like all of the airbags......

    Off Topic:

    I wish that was true for the 2009 Sonata. There is no safety data yet, so it costs me more than my old Trailblazer SS ($19/yr more). The SS had 400hp and cost almost twice as much. :confuse:
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    It is probably the physical damage coverage (comprehensive & collision) that is more expensive on a new car than the Trailblazer. What model year Trailblazer is/was it?
  • 2002slt2002slt Posts: 228
    It was a 2006. The premium was basically unchanged since I bought it new. The agent told me it had a 30% safety discount. She said the Sonata didn't have any data.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,573
    Why no safety data on the Sonata? The 2009 is just a minor refresh, right?
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    I'm an insurance agent also.

    Take a look at your policy and compare the cost of various coverages comparing both vehicles. I'd make a friendly bet that the physical damage on an '09 Sonata is more than on an '06 Trailblazer.

    Normally safety ratings are carried over from one model year to the next unless 1) there is a re-do of the car (like the '06 and newer Sonatas compared to the '05s and prior) or 2) experience shows a change is necessary.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I went to "build my own" Sonata GLS 4-cyl AT. In the first portion of the build-your-own section, the transmission indicated is a 5-speed Automatic. Later, in the options section, the transmission is listed as a 4-speed Automatic.

    The transmissions on all Sonata I4 Automatics are 5-speed, right guys?
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    Right thegraduate. It's a 5spd automatic.
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    Hey same thing happened to me! It wasn't a huge increase, but my premium shot up about $80 due to picking up the 2009 Sonata. Sad because it certainly has way better safety features than my old car.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    How much was your old car worth? How many airbags did it have? Airbags are great for safety, but expensive to replace.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The insurance on a car with a lot of airbags will probably not be cheaper. Unless the airbags prevent serious injuries to the occupants (serious accident) the airbags will cost the insurance company, instead of saving them money. A neighbor down the block's daughter had a Pontiac Sunfire. The car was in a front end collision, and the damage looked pretty minor to me. But the cost of fixing the car's body, added to the cost of replacing the airbags, put the cost of repair over the top, and the car was totalled by the insurance company. Airbags may save your life, but they will probably not save you money.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Airbags may save your life, but they will probably not save you money.

    A compromise most people are willing to take. :)
  • moocow1moocow1 Posts: 230
    Here Here! And don't forget having ABS/Brake Assist/Traction control too. ^^ I definitely think the safety of a car is damn high priority. Money isn't worth life.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Many consumers buy a new car with 8 or more airbags, and think hey this car is so safe, it should cost less to insure. Quite the opposite is true.

    In my opinion, the money spent on airbags, and their technology, would be better spent making stronger cars. The problem is stronger cars will only prevent injuries, if the passengers are wearing adequate restraints. Since restraints are not what they should be, and some people don't even wear them, we get balloons to bounce off of. Do race cars have airbags? No, because if you stay in your seat (in a crash), airbags are useless.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    In my opinion, the money spent on airbags, and their technology, would be better spent making stronger cars. The problem is stronger cars will only prevent injuries, if the passengers are wearing adequate restraints. Since restraints are not what they should be, and some people don't even wear them, we get balloons to bounce off of. Do race cars have airbags? No, because if you stay in your seat (in a crash), airbags are useless.

    I agree. I would also say having a decent suspension and tires would help a great deal. You can have DSC/RSC/ABS/ASD/BFD and it all comes down to 4 little patches and how well they hold on to terra firma. People whine about having to pay for a performance tire replacement, but don't seem to mind when they have a successful panic stop or swerve from a near collision. The price difference from zippy the pin head retreads to state of the art performance tires is less than your insurance deductible.
  • karsickkarsick Posts: 312
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    I'm happy to settle for good visibility, low CG, nimble suspension and good-quality all-season tires (at least in my Seattle-area neck of the woods, where we deal with a wide variety of weather conditions).
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    I agree. It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement. When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem. I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    Since restraints are not what they should be,..

    In order for restraints to "be what they should be" and not require a supplemental restraint system i.e. airbags, to protect against injury, every passenger would need to be in a harness like NASCAR drivers wear (and don't forget the helmets), not a simple lap/shoulder belt. I don't think many drivers and passengers would sit still for that... literally.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,573
    Yes, side airbags seem to make a big improvement in crash survivability. Seatbelts just won't handle those side loads, regardless of the body's strength.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    Actually, that is only partially true. Summer tires are better performing in dry and wet. It is when you introduce colder temps like snow and ice that it becomes an issue.

    It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement.

    I understand. That is merely and education issue though to understand the differences in tread compounds and frictional characteristics of different tires when optimized for a given purpose.

    . When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem.

    It depends why the road is slippery. A wet road offers almost as much traction as a dry road. A wet road with standing water increases the likelihood of hydroplaning, which is why a tire (like just about any "summer" tire that isn't an R-compound) is great for that, the tread is designed to pump water out from under the tire, letting the rubber do its job.

    If the road is slick because of snow or ice, then if one truely cared about a tire "performing at their best, when conditions are at their worst," it would be better to switch to a dedicated snow tire. At that point, you can go for a more traditional Q-rated tire for heavy snow, or one of the more modern H+ rated tire, which is designed for comfortable and quiet highway travel.

    The right tool for the right job is remarkably helpful.

    I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.

    And you wound up with a compromise that excels in no area relative to having condition appropriate tires.
Sign In or Register to comment.