Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1349350352354355734

Comments

  • May give Ford a run for its "Best-In-Class Fuel Economy" claim. Maybe 23/33? Toyota likes to gear tall, remember!

    EDIT: That claim Ford is making is for their upcoming Fusion refresh.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    Since when did Ford have best in class FE, on a car actually on the road anyway?
  • I was talking about their claim for the upcoming Fusion; sorry I didn't make that more clear. I edited to put that in.

    In my head I wrote it, put in reality I didn't! :blush:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,730
    It's possible, but at least the 2010 Fusion will have a 8 month head start.

    What was the mileage increase in the RAV4?
  • oldcemoldcem Posts: 309
    Not so sure that the Camry V6 is the class leader in acceleration now. The road tests I've read in a couple of the mags indicate the GM midsizers (Aura and Malibu) with the 3.6 are quicker. However, the Camry supposedly delivers better fuel economy than the GM twins. I went with the 3.5 Liter Aura 4 speed that is a good bit slower than the class leaders, but, delivers great fuel economy.

    Regards:
    OldCEM
  • According to Motor Trend, the Camry is fastest among the Altima, Accord, and Malibu V6 Sedans.

    Car and Driver ran the Camry SE-V6 with numbers below. Which mags had the GM twins being faster?

    2007 Toyota Camry V-6
    Second Place: The Quickest Cars of 2007: $20,000 to $25,000

    Base price: $24,160
    0-to-60-mph time: 5.8 sec
    Quarter-mile time: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph


    The Saturn Aura XR was ninth on this list.
  • I agree here....I'd say the 3.6 V6 found in the GM Midsize Triplets is faster than say the Accord's or Altima's 3.5L V6s, but I don't think it can match the Mazda6 V6 or Camry V6 for acceleration. I'm ready for an all out test of the midsize four cylinder models though. I'm curious as to how these cars would be ranked based on the traditional requirements for a family sedan...room, ride, handling, fuel economy and things of that nature. I wonder where the 6 would rank amongst class leaders like the Malibu and Sonata as far as fuel economy on a real-world level.
  • 4-cyl Midsize Comparison

    Check that out, it may be what you're looking for; it's a Car and Driver Comparo.

    For what it is worth, the Motor Trend comparison I referenced in my previous post had the Malibu and the Accord accelerating at the same rate to 60 MPH. Other tests I've seen put the Malibu slightly faster (by about 2 tenths of a second).

    The Camry is simply the fastest family car in the $25,000 category.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    GM has a fantastic 6 cyl. on their hand, the only improvement I can see is on fuel economy.
  • I'm sure Camry gets lower review ratings recently because they sell Camry LE with cheap and crappy Bridgestone Turanza EL400 tires while Honda sells Accords with Michelin. Few $$ that Toyota saves on tires result in bad reviews and lost sales. Otherwise 4 cyl Camry is fastest, smoothest car with shortest braking distance in it's class.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Otherwise 4 cyl Camry is fastest, smoothest car with shortest braking distance in it's class.

    Right now I think Malibu and Sonata are 1-2 in stopping distances, although the Sonata has the slimest margin over the 3rd place Camry.

    I can't give you fastest even w/ better tires. Passat and Altima stand in as much faster sprinters.

    I would argue the Sonata has the smoothest ride but certainly a better set of tires could improve the already smooth Camry.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The Mazda6 4 cyl has yet to be tested. I would assume that it would rank near the top, since all cars Mazda produces tend to hang out in the top of driving dynamic category's , like braking.
  • I'm sure Camry gets lower review ratings recently because they sell Camry LE with cheap and crappy Bridgestone Turanza EL400 tires while Honda sells Accords with Michelin. Few $$ that Toyota saves on tires result in bad reviews and lost sales

    So you're saying we should overlook it, and give Toyota a pass for cheaping out? I disagree. We don't have to make excuses for everyone else, and Toyota, typically one of the most expensive options out there, CERTAINLY shouldn't get them.

    I can't help but notice you said "4-cyl Camry is the fastest...". Um, with the lowest-in-class horsepower, it just isn't; regardless of Toyota's cost-cutting on tires or not.

    Braking/Acceleration

    170ft from 70 MPH, 8.9 sec to 60 MPH. Camry

    169ft from 70 MPH, 8.2 sec to 60 MPH. Accord

    168ft from 70 MPH, 7.8 sec to 60 MPH. Altima

    170ft from 80 MPH, 8.7 sec to 60 MPH. Malibu
  • I've got that comparison at home on my desk...I guess I should have clarified that I'd like to see how the Mazda6 ranks when tested against the four cylinder CamCordNataMaliTima's of the world.
  • I don't know where your numbers came from but I got mine from
    Edmunds Road Tests Comparison Test: 2008 Four-Cylinder Family Sedans
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124091

    "Life in Camryland isn't all bad, though. It turns a tighter circle at 36.1 feet than either the Accord at 37.7 feet or Malibu at 40.4 feet, making it less stressful to maneuver in crowded areas. The Toyota also stopped the shortest from 60 mph at 122 feet."

    "the four-cylinder Toyota Camry is quick relative to its competition. Our LE test car's 8.9-second 0-60-mph time is tops for this group, as is its 16.9-second quarter-mile at 82.3 mph (though the Accord, which has 19 more horsepower, nearly closed the gap)."

    Most likely your numbers are for old generation Accord that was quicker then this year model. Altima wasn't part of edmunds review.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Why are 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times considered so important? Who does this, and why? IMO, full throttle from a dry stop, puts unnecessary strain on engine mounts, and other drive line components. I am more interested in 40-70mph or 50-80mph times. Where are they?
  • Since no sources use the same passing times (some cite 45-65, some do 30-50 and 50-70) so 1/4 mile and 0-60 times is all we have to compare. Also, starting from zero shows low-end power as well as top-end passing power.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Altima wasn't part of edmunds review.

    Then you can't claim the Camry being the fastest in this class. Clearly the Passat is the fastest; followed in a distant second by the Altima.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I don't think 1/4 mile times are a good indication of passing power. A car could have a lower 1/4 mile time, than another car, and actually be slower from 50-80mph. In my world 50-80mph is more important than 0-60mph. Unless you drag race your family car, this is probably true for most drivers.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    So these stats are probably more relevant, especially w/ the current state:

    F/E 4 cyclinder (top three)

    Nissan Altima 2.5L 6-spd manual - 23/32
    Chevy Malibu 2.4L 6-spd auto 22/33
    Hyundai Sonata 2.4L 5-spd auto 22/32

    F/E 6 cyclinder (top three)

    Hyundai Sonata 3.3L 5-spd auto 19/29
    Honda Accord 3.5L 5-spd auto 19/29
    Toyota Camry 3.5L 6-spd auto 19/28
  • I do a lot of suburban interstate driving. Short on-ramps, multiple lanes. Passing power isn't too important since there are 3 or 4 lanes from which to choose. Merging in can be tough though, so 0-60 actually matters more to me than 50-80.

    Different strokes, different folks. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The Malibu 2.4L Ecotec is rated at 22city-30hwy, not 33hwy.

    The Malibu Hybrid is rated at 24city-32hwy.
  • With the 6-speed automatic, EPA numbers for the Malibu are now 22/33 for 2009.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    26/34 for the hybrid model.

    Here is the current model year (09) Malibu breakdown:

    V6 (3.6L 6-speed auto): 18/29
    I4 (2.4L 4-speed auto): 22/30
    I4 (2.4L 6-speed auto): 22/33
    hybrid (2.4L 4-speed auto): 26/34

    The V6 is strong, placing not far from the top of the class, the Sonata and the Accord. The 4 speed should be phased out and the hybrid is certainly just in its mild form.

    With the exception of the 4 speed, the Malibu is very strong; and along with the Hyundai Sonata, both are at the top of their game and the leaderboard. I hear the next-gen Sonata is coming soon, despite its recent major interior facelift, it should be arriving ahead of its normal product cycle. Relevant to current discussions, Hyundai should be showcasing further improvements in the F/E area, along with the introduction of a waong and a hybrid variant. The hybrid would be using lithium ion batteries, and I believe it would be the first of its kind, at least in this class.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,758
    It may be a mild hybrid, but it allows the Malibu to get EPA numbers as good or better than most compacts, without the big price premium of a full hybrid.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Merging in can be tough though, so 0-60 actually matters...

    I think it matters, in that I want it to be adequate and all these midsize cars have adequate acceleration (for me) in their 4 cylindeer models. I personally don't really need, or want to pay for, the excesses of today's 250ish HP V6s.

    To me it does not really matter much if 0-60 is 9.5 sec or 8 sec, other differences are likely to be more important. It also does not matter much to me if 45 to 65 (or whatever) is a bit slower or faster.
  • The V6 (from the Malibu) is strong, placing not far from the top of the class, the Sonata and the Accord.

    Uhhhhh... where did you pull this from? The strongest V6's in the segment belong to the Altima's 3.5L (270hp/258 lb/ft), Mazda6's 3.7L (272hp/268 lb/ft), and the Passat's 3.6L (280hp/ 265 lb/ft).

    Honda's 3.5L is a close 4th, but it still doesn't have what it takes to play ball with the top 3. And yes, the Camry has the quickest 0-60 time, big whoop. Too bad it rolls around like a dog in a flower bed when you take a corner. :P
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I've been on a lot of Interstate highways, and I can't remember ever merging from 0 mph. 45 to 65mph acceleration is important to me, because often time to pass is limited. How responsive the engine and transmission are, can also make a big difference whether it be a 4cylinder or V6. Reviewers have noted that even with paddle shifters, some transmissions are slow to downshift. At least when I move the shift lever in my Accord to the 3rd gear, I know it's going to be in 3rd gear as soon as I put it there. When there is on-coming traffic, and time is of the essence, I want to be confident that I will get the power I'm asking for. No ifs or maybes.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The Accord is 271hp/254tq for 2009.

    Has anyone noticed that the non-VCM Accord 3.5L V6 found in the Accord Coupe is rated at 17city-25hwy with a combined 20mpg overall with a 6-speed manual? That's right there with Mazda's 3.7L and has less power. I know it's not a sedan, but, I just thought I would mention it.
  • Has anyone noticed that the non-VCM Accord 3.5L V6 found in the Accord Coupe is rated at 17city-25hwy with a combined 20mpg overall with a 6-speed manual? That's right there with Mazda's 3.7L and has less power. I know it's not a sedan, but, I just thought I would mention it.

    Funny you mentioned that, I just noticed that last evening.

    With the amount of complaints I've seen about the VCM-equipped cars not getting the advertised mileage, it seems that Mazda is VERY comparable to the Accord (and others) in terms of FE. Since I've consistently met or exceeded the FE numbers for the '04 V6-equipped Mazda6 (the OLD numbers, not the new ratings), I don't see any problem with FE on the '09 6, despite what the EPA rates are.
Sign In or Register to comment.