Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Exactly. I have never warmed up to crossover SUVs. I know lots of people like them, but if I'm going to buy a big, boxy, lower-fuel-economy, based-on-a-car-chassis vehicle, I figure I may as well get maximum cargo space and passenger comfort and go with a minivan. I don't have a problem being seen in a minivan, although I know some folks won't be caught dead in one. My MPV has the underpinnings of the 626, so it handles great (for a minivan anyway), but is no longer than a mid-sized sedan yet seats up to seven in reasonable comfort, with tons of cargo space available even with four adults inside.

    I think a 5-door hatch is a great compromise: the styling, handling, fuel economy, and price of a sedan, with almost as much versatility as the small-to-medium crossover SUVs. And if you really need AWD, there's the Outback.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    May I ask you to show me a 2WD crossover with mileage as good as a sedan counterpart (with the sedan's best engine)?

    My thinking is that if you don't care about performance, why would you go with the most powerful engine? And some of the crossovers on your list seat 7, so I think those are the wrong crossovers to be comparing. Here's a quick list of crossovers I would compare (all are i4's except the hyundai where the sante fe only has a v-6 - perhaps I should've compared their smaller suv...).

    accord 21-31 vs crv 20-27
    mazda6 21-28 vs mazda5 21-26
    camry 21-31 vs rav4 21-27
    fusion 20-29 vs escape 22-28
    sonata v6 19-28 vs sante fe v6 19-24

    At the most, it seems the sedans have maybe a 10% fuel mileage advantage. For some, this 10% may be important, but the extra $150 a year in gas for some crossovers (based on 24mpg avg and $3 gallon gas on 12k miles annually), the extra utility may be worth it. Some have said, just get a wagon... for 08 in this segment, there will be the legacy and vw which isn't a whole lot of choice.

    All I'm saying is IF a buyer doesn't care about performance, I would think the extra utility of a crossover would make sense. But for me (and other buyers of cars like the Mazda6), I DO care about performance and this sedan would torch most crossovers on the fun roads. Of course I have the hatchback, so I have many advantages of a crossover with the handling of a sedan... I don't think I could ask for more than what the Mazda6 offers.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You misspelled. Its not about sensitivity, it is about sensibility. :)

    Cross overs may have fairly close EPA ratings, and besides the fact that I'm a down to earth guy and prefer to stay farther from the heavens (which does translate to better dynamics of the vehicle), I don't have giants for friends or family. A sedan works just fine. So, I see no reason to compromise dynamics and fuel economy adding to extra ownership costs. And I don't rely on EPA ratings.

    You quoted 20/27 mpg for CRV and 21/31 mpg for Accord. Doesn't sound like much difference, right? (unless you look at highway mileage) The CR-V's rating is identical to re-rated fuel economy for my 1998 Accord (which was 23/30 under old standard). But, here is the reality. I average 26 mpg in mixed driving in the Accord. It also gets me 32 mpg with average speed around 75 mph. If CRV could do that, I will be VERY pleasantly surprised, much less be close to the new Accord.

    Even 10% can be a big number for some like me. I drive about 2000 miles/month. So, while $30/month may not sound like much, over five years it may add up to an additional $2K. But, comparison to CRV is fictitious since I haven't spent enough time to really know what it delivers. A recent road trip on a rental RAV4 just confirmed why they don't make much sense to me. I averaged 23.8 mpg with 90-95% freeway driving, at about 70 mph. It was AWD/I-4, but it is over 8 mpg worse than my observed mileage in my TL and Accord on the same road trip (but going faster).

    Fuel economy is important to me. A reason, I'm seriously contemplating next Fit, even over the Accord. It offers the utility of those cross overs, with an anticipated 40-50% improvement in real world fuel economy as that can be big in the future.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The thing is all your comparisons are off by one size class. For example the CRV is a compact not midsize, it is sized about like a Civic (wagon). It is not Accord size, it is 13 inches shorter and wheelbase is 5 inches less (and I am comparing the 2007 Accord, not the new larger one).

    I just had a Mazda 5 as a loaner it is like a Mazda 3 minivan...or more of a microvan.

    I did not look up the Rav4, but I am guessing it is Corolla sized. I also am not sure on the Santa Fe.

    The Edge is the fusion sized vehicle, not the escape.

    Try comparing price and mileage of midsize crossover to midsize sedans.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I have wondered if there were drawbacks to keyless entry. From reading this article, there are times when it can be a real problem.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    That is actually about keyless ignition, not keyless entry. "Keyless entry" means you press button on remote to enter the car, but still stick key in to start it.

    Valet Parking :confuse: what's that? At most, I think I've turned my car over to someone to park once in my 30 years of driving.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Keyless ignition for a number of makes is a problem in that it can be hacked in 30 seconds with a laptop and your car gone in 60.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    you know if you take lets say 4 cars, a Mazda6 DT V6, a Camry SE V6, an Accord SE V6, and lastly an Altima SE 3.5 and put all three on a road course (Lime Rock comes to mind) you will have a very hard time finding a course confining enough that the Mazda would'nt lose easily to the other three. Why - simply because it can not pick up enough in the corners to make up for what it loses coming out of them. I guess this is what 'zoom-zoom' is all about, or should I be allowing the Mazda extra points because it 'feels' the best being the slowest (in terms of lap times). Of course, 'any zoom-zoom' quotient is going to have a lot to do with what is under the hood, the reason to lament the loss of the Speed6. Mazda may indeed have some vehicles that they 'zoom-zoom' about - just not the 6, anymore.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842

    2007 Edmunds Editors Most Wanted Sedan under $25000
    The 2007 Mazda 6 and Mazdaspeed 6 stand as symbols of what a midrange sedan should be, compromising nothing and surpassing expectations on almost every level.

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Still wouldn't buy it.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Edmunds may want it, nobody else seems to care.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't care. I see many Mazda6's driving around my area. I guess those people cared enough to buy one. If I were going to buy a car right now, the Mazda6i Value Edition would be on my short list. For around $16k, it's a fine car and a great value, IMO. Oh, I forgot... I'm "nobody." :P
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Forget ME, if others cared, wouldn't a "most wanted" mainstream car actually sell better than Mazda6 does? Thru September 2006, Mazda had sold 52.5K units, and this year, the number is at 44K. What makes for a "most wanted" car? Is its "want" being limited by production? Or is it limited by demand? I would love for you to explain that, instead of trying to jump on my throat. Unless, most wanted is from fleet sales perspective (with 42.7% fleet sales based in 2007 mid-year registrations, Mazda6 happens to be one of the leaders).

    It doesn't speak for the car itself but that is the reality, not an opinion (for that, see Edmunds, and a bunch of posts here, including yours). So, there is no need to be overly defensive.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    yup, you're sensitive (and no, I didn't mis-spell thankyouverymuch). I don't think backy was being defensive... he was just saying that since you can buy a Mazda6 in some markets for 6k off msrp, it is a really good value especially if the buyer likes a good handling midsize car. And because it is a very good value right now because of soft demand, more people than nobody, as you put it, would be willing to consider the car. It's not his fault you exaggerated a bit in your first post and he called you on it; that's not being defensive. Getting upset because you had to retract your statement is...

    Personally, I think the problem of low sales #'s of the mazda6 has to do with bad marketing and not because the car is bad. The average buyer of a midsize sedan is probably older than where mazda's marketing is directed. I understand that mazda wants to target a young demographic (it currently has the second youngest buyer of it's cars compared to other brands - scion is the youngest) but I think a midsize sedan needs to be marketed as much more than zoom-zoom or a company with a successful racing heritage since I think most middle-aged buyers could care less about these things. Yes it's true many car enthusiasts would consider the mazda6 the zoomiest in this segment, but it's also very comfortable, very safe, and extremely practical which is rarely mentioned in mazda6 commercials. I think if Mazda wants it's sales of the 6 to reach it's potential, they really need to reconsider it's emphasis on zoom-zoom at the expense of the Mazda6's other desireable traits.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    you know if you take lets say 4 cars, a Mazda6 DT V6, a Camry SE V6, an Accord SE V6, and lastly an Altima SE 3.5 and put all three on a road course (Lime Rock comes to mind) you will have a very hard time finding a course confining enough that the Mazda would'nt lose easily to the other three. Why - simply because it can not pick up enough in the corners to make up for what it loses coming out of them. I guess this is what 'zoom-zoom' is all about, or should I be allowing the Mazda extra points because it 'feels' the best being the slowest (in terms of lap times).

    That may be true, I don't know really since I don't race cars for a living. But I do know that when I test drove these cars on streets, the Mazda6 surpassed the Accord and Altima in cornering grip, stopping power, and steering feel which are all important for maintaining control of your car. It's not the fastest in a straight line (the mazda6 v6 will do mid 6 second 0-60 where the cars you mention will do this in the low 6's) but it feels more connected when driving on the street. I'll leave race car driving to the pro's and when you find out who wins, let me know. You may also want to tell the SCCA Touring Car points leaders (both individual points leaders and manufacturer's points leaders) about your opinions too so that they quit refuting your "racing theories" by winning in their Mazda6's over cars that have more power than them :surprise:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    How much power do your really need to drive on the streets (which is where these cars will actually be driven), anyway?

    In other markets the mazda6 does not even offer the V6. I just read a review that said of the european base 120bhp, 1.8 L I4... "it's fine for what it has to do". The full quote being:

    The petrol engines are revvy and eager, and if the 1.8 feels as if it's been ballasted with concrete after the other two, which feel closer for performance, it's fine for what it has to do.

    The "revy and eager" engines referred to are a 147bhp 2.0 and the new four-cylinder 2.5 with 170bhp, replacing the 164bhp 2.3. It's funny that these same engines would be called underpowered, slow, etc. here in the US.

    BTW, anyone know what specific elements make the new styling Japanese rather than European?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    understand that in Europe the car buyers expectations and values are different - by necessity. Displacement taxes and petrol prices make the 250hp+ V6 cars we enjoy here in this country impractical (and expensive) to drive. So therefore Mazda not offering a V6 overseas or the predominance of little more fuel efficient 4 bangers in not strange at all, as neither are those standards in relation to Hp which certainly means less and handling/braking which tends to mean more.
    The Toyota Avalon is a US market car only made in the US, and is reasonably economical and would handle 130-140 mph autobahns just fine. It is also too large for the roads over there, definitely emphasizes ride over handling (not the European preference) and has a V6 engine that by European definitions is simply too large.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    This is not about sensitivity and defensiveness...very good questions are being asked.

    If mazda(and Nissan) wants to reach a broader buying community, the advertising compaign should be rethought. They are targeting 18 year olds.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    they really need to reconsider it's emphasis on zoom-zoom at the expense of the Mazda6's other desireable traits.
    see we now agree - for those younger demographic folk (the average age of an Accord buyer is supposedly now 50!) that 'zoom-zoom' might appeal to, should be turned off a bit by the 6s lack of straight line capabilities when considering them in relation to all the other cars in this group. Sell price if they must, or sell safety (braking-handling) if true, but not something (zoom) that would have many expecting a car with competitive power to go along with that better handling.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Posts: 936
    When I was a kid,every car I owned had to be tested in a street drag race.It was a part of being a guy growing up in the '50s.Now that I'm all growed(sic) up,I care about comfort,dependability,economy and efficiency.Frankly,I dont even worry about handling as I dont do any racing of any kind.I feel perfectly safe even driving my lumbering 97 Chrysler mini-van.My new KIA Optima seems nimble,but I dont notice that it "handles" any better than any other car of any size or type.
Sign In or Register to comment.