Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1377378380382383727

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    correction:
    reran the numbers simply because some of them didn't seen to make sense and voila - the $44k number for the Fusion is for the AWD version, properly we should be comparing the FWD SE model - TCO for this model is $42295 which would actually place the Fusion 3rd in this comparison just ahead of the Mazda 6. :sick:
  • jipsterjipster Posts: 5,345
    These numbers are for 2008 models, and do include the expected finance savings for the less expensive cars, as well as recognition of the difference in initial purchase price.

    Then they are pretty much useless. Edmunds should run those numbers again using rebates, incentives and current financing on all of those models.You'd probably see a reversal in ranking.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,699
    That wasn't the issue.

    Your issue was that the Ford duratecs are unrefined and somehow inferior. If that's the case why didn't Autoblog mention it? You'd think something that obvious would be in every single review, yet it's not. Only in a selective few.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,727
    Yes. Especially suspect is the big difference between the Accord and Camry, which had the same sales price in the comparison. I can't see how there could be that much difference in 5-year COO between Accord and Camry that are comparably priced, with comparable equipment. We know both of those cars hold their value very well. And as you noted, current incentives/discounts need to be taken into account. Today, a Sonata SE V6 would run much less than $22k, for example.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,006
    These numbers are for 2008 models, and do include the expected finance savings for the less expensive cars, as well as recognition of the difference in initial purchase price. Actually surprises me how much the Honda runs away with this

    First you mention that Edmunds doesn't consider some criteria that are material to the analysis which IMO makes their calculations flawed and then you state in a factual manner that the Honda "runs away with this". While I find Edmunds to be a good supplier of information, my experience and common sense has found that Edmund's TCO and TMV numbers are very suspect. For my last three vehicle purchases if I would have used Edmunds TMV as my target price I would have payed at least 2-3 thousand more than I did per vehicle.

    I don't know if Edmunds uses MSRP or TMV to base their calcs for TCO on but either one is flawed IMO. When you adjust for actual market prices and less sales tax paid and the cost of money over five years...I truly believe the number you cite would be a lot different.

    But with all that said, I still would personally rather drive a the car which I thought was more dependable on a day to day basis and that I liked better even if it cost me a couple of thou over a 5 year period. What would that be....like a $1 per day to drive the car I like better. That's a no brainer.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,006
    I hate to encourage you guys but now that you are talking about midsize car engines I have a question. What exactly does "unrefined" mean. To someone that just wants decent power, mpg and dependability without being drowned by engine noise....what does this so-called refinement buy me?

    I have a 2.3L Mazda6 which I guess fits into this unrefined category and to be honest I don't see it. I must caveat my statement with the confession that I am not an Indy driver or a mechanical engineer so I may not be qualified to comment. However, I am curious.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    Baggs32,

    Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the review. The Fusion got high marks. I don't care much for the red accents, however. Tacky.

    Boz
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    No, A Rolex would be a Porsche.

    I personally wouldn't buy any of those soulless jellybeans.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    akirby - your comment when talking about the relative refinement of the DT vs the Toyota/Honda engines was that why should I need them if the Ford engine is just fine for me and further likening those 'Japanese' engines to a Rolex and the Ford engine to that Timex that keeps perfectly good time. I would contend that similar distinctions exist in the 4 bangers as well - the Honda 4 definitely the 'Rolex' of this group. A valid point you make though and I'm sure you'll tell me if I misinterpreted what you meant :confuse: .
    My question then becomes - that if you can accept Edmunds (and Intellichoice) TCO numbers and it is effectively not going to cost you anything more for the Rolex , why not wear one. I personally agree with the one poster here that made a comment along the line that these TCO numbers often do not reflect the heavier discounts and rebates that are more available on D3 (and Korean) products. But if this is the case, how much are they really off?
    If we are going to drive cars until the wheels fall off, then obviously the cheaper the better (from a TCO perspective) but what these numbers say is that the Accord which costs 3 or 4 grand more to buy (vs something like a Fusion or Sonata) is going to cost 2 or 3 grand less to operate over 5 years - a significant number IMO
    The post also had something to do with getting closer to back on topic as well ;)
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    in the auto world now is "refinement". Since quality and reliability are pretty much a moot point when comparing any car brand these days. I believe refinement is a personal choice of what one likes and may dislike. I have read the 3.0 Duratec in the Fusions/Milans can sound rough when pushed. However I have also read that some 4cyl Toyotas and Hondas can be the same way. I believe its ones choice and preference.
    I do like the analogy between the Rolex and Timex. The Timex will tell time, run for years, cost you much, much less. Rolex, will tell time, look good to those who know what a Rolex looks like, or even care.
    Prices of vehicles here at Edmunds and other car sites are always in question. I have seen EX V6 Accords advertised for as low as $23K, I have seen Sonata SE V6's for as low as $19K, Fusion SEL V6 AWD for as low as $22K. My guess is these prices here at Edmunds and other web sites are purely and average across the U.S. markets. In some markets Honda's go for cheaper. Say, Honda in California will sell for less than a Honda in Minnesota.
    But to be realistic. Anyone who follows the car industry/sales knows Honda/Toyota products will cost you about $2-$4,000 more than competing models/trim levels. Financing/Incentives must also be included in the cost of the vehicle.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    agree that reliability is becoming a moot point especially since most of us would not drive anywhere close to even 100k in those 5 years. The Edmunds TCO numbers do reflect a 'cash price' seemingly closer to their TMV - as opposed to sticker, those cash prices are shown in my 'chart'. From experience though I have found their TMVs relatively easy to beat. But the same holds true whether its a Honda I shopping or a Hyundai so therefore the impact of Edmunds using a too high (or low) purchase price in the TCO should be minimal. Right now all these numbers should be going down as we 'progress' thru our hopefully brief depression :cry:
  • berriberri Posts: 4,201
    I think that while the Ford engines are capable modern designs, Ford loyalists seem to like a throaty exhaust sound which seems to be a Ford characteristc. Meanwhile Camcord owners are used to very quiet tuned drivetrains. While Ford has put out some clunkers like the old 3.8 and 4.0L engines in Windstars and Aerostars, their current OHC engines are actually pretty good. The mpg and acceleration has lagged a bit, but I think this is more because some Ford's have been a bit porky in the weight department.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,699
    I think this is more because some Ford's have been a bit porky in the weight department.

    Not necessarily. It has more to do with the fact that there was never a Corporate wide mandate for best in class fuel economy until the last 2 years. If you don't reward people for achieving high FE then they won't go out of their way to produce it. Look at what they were able to achieve in the 2.5L I4 Fusion.

    It's all about the goals you set and how you reward the workers for achieving them (or not). And you can thank Fields and Mulally for that change.
  • A spirited conversation here!

    I'll mention that my wife and I both drive about 20K+ miles per year. We have a 2000 Tundra with 160K, a 2004 RAV4 with 115K, and a 2009 Camry SEV6 (I think that the sport-y suspension does work) with 19K miles.

    All these vehicles have been very reliable (strictly adhering to PM schedules) and that is important to us.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Ford engines are capable modern designs, Ford loyalists seem to like a throaty exhaust sound which seems to be a Ford characteristc
    the DTs have for whatever effect that has on refinement a rather rudimentary valve timing system relative to some of the others, meaning a simple non continuously variable valve system on the intake only vs. CVVTi which is continuously variable on both the intake and exhaust sides that further is computer oontrolled (the 'i') so that the engine can operate at high efficiencies pretty much all the time. The fact that valve opening timing and durations can all be controlled are what I see as the reason why the 2GR for example, will happily bounce off its rev limiter all day if you are not paying attention - it is that smooth and non-obtrusive. The DTs will start to strain at about 5000 rpm, and will not pull to that 6000+ rpm without letting you know it. The pushrod engines you mention, of course, are what they are - pushrod engines - the 4.0 in the Mustang shouldn't be in any car never mind one that is such an icon, but perhaps the worst of all IMO is the 90d (wrong angle) 3.8L V6 that GM has been using since the 60s and a real meat grinder. Rumor has it that GM is finally putting it out of its misery!`
    The D3 have always been good at making big lazy V8s and not so good at 4s and V6s. With my apologies to the HF3.6 in some GM products, this hasn't really changed much.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I'll guess that you might live in a more rural area and both do some commuting? In any case, something like 15k a year is 'average' I think especially now that leases seem to limiting car use. Can also point to one Toyota, 5 Nissans and a Suburban or two thrown in there, used to do a pretty solid 40k now am down closer to 20 - but down here in Texas we measure distances in 6 packs. ;)
    Think also that any vehicle these days ought to be good for at least 150k with minimal probelms if its properly maintained, one of the reasons that I don't put too much values in these 100k warranties.

    PS - bet you love your 2GR - best engine that Toyota has ever made IMO - my current rides are a 03 Altima 3.5 and an 05 Avalon (that has the same engine ;) )
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    It has more to do with the fact that there was never a Corporate wide mandate for best in class fuel economy until the last 2 years
    Now I understand what is wrong with Detroit - they obviously can't do anything right unless they have a 'mandate'. Think about how ridiculous that sounds. How about even my 75 year old Mom and my 5 year old grandkid know that FE sells especially in a class like this. And I don't think either of them are privy to some sort of life directing mandate. But I will go home this weekend, and wait for the proper 'mandate' - before I starve to death. :D
  • I think this is more because some Ford's have been a bit porky in the weight department.

    Not necessarily. It has more to do with the fact that there was never a Corporate wide mandate for best in class fuel economy until the last 2 years. If you don't reward people for achieving high FE then they won't go out of their way to produce it. Look at what they were able to achieve in the 2.5L I4 Fusion.

    It's all about the goals you set and how you reward the workers for achieving them (or not). And you can thank Fields and Mulally for that change.


    I think the Fiesta will really show the effect of weight reduction techniques, but that has to balance out the Edge, which is a chubby, chubby bunny by any account, 4100 lbs compared to the Venza's 3750 curb weight. I think the Fusion was the first push on weight reduction and mpg. I think they are just getting started. It seems odd that at the same time Ford downsized, they have more new products and more stuff in the pipeline than ever before. I think a lot of the chopping was in the middle so things move faster now.
  • And I don't think either of them are privy to some sort of life directing mandate. But I will go home this weekend, and wait for the proper 'mandate' - before I starve to death.

    So many comments, so much need for restraint :P
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,722
    prior to best in class fuel mileage being the primary goal, it was low smog emissions.
    the big spike in gas prices caught just about every vehicle manufacturer off guard.
    even toyota decided to ditch their bloated barges, like the avalon. :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    That bloated barge gets best-in-class economy, does it not?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Think also that any vehicle these days ought to be good for at least 150k with minimal probelms if its properly maintained

    Time is a factor too, for us to get 150K would mean about 20 years at our current rate. While a car may be kept going for that long, it will cost a lot more for me to get 150K on it than it would for someone doing it at a rate of 30 or 40K mi per year.

    On the cost, I think edmunds figures are a reaonalbe starting point, I've found my personally adjusted "true cost to own" to be about the same for any of these models...within the likely margin of error and/or not enough of a difference where it would be a significant factor in choosing one car over another. So I would and did simply choose the one I liked best and then worked to get a good deal on it.

    Even without adjusting, looking at the 4 cylinder versions, they are all within about 6% of each other. I think that a 6% difference is likely within the margin of error for these estimates.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,699
    In a large corporation with many disparate teams working on a vehicle, the only way to ensure achievement of certain goals, like fuel economy, is to make that everyone's goal so they work together. If you only reward the engine department on power and performance, they're going to deliver that and to heck with fuel economy.

    The imports do exactly the same thing - it's just that fuel economy has been a corporate goal for years because that's how they got their foot in the door back in the 70's and that was a decided advantage for them over the years, even more the last 2 years.

    Bill Ford's directive was low emissions - unfortunately the buying public didn't care you could get a Ford Explorer with emissions lower than most econoboxes. That is what changed with Mulally. They're just doing what the competition has always done, and it shows in the products.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    I was very happy when gas hit $4-$5 a gallon here in the U.S. This forced all automakers to re-think the markets. In the next 5-10 years we are all going to benefit from vehicles that are going to get much better MPG and lower costs to keep up. Me personally, I am no fan of large SUV's, trucks ect that are soley used for status symbols. I completly understand when these vehicles must be used for work purposes or small business purposes. I want to see gas at about $3-3.50 a gallon myself. :mad:
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    Read a blurb in the business section of the paper today. Looks like GM is going to cut Saturn and SAAB from its ranks. I think it is too bad that Saturn is going. I really like the styling of the VUE, Aura and Sky. Announcing this is a going to kill sales for Saturn and SAAB. Who is going to want to buy a vehicle from company that probably won't be around in a year?
    I feel we are going to see a whole lot of consolidation in the coming years. Not only from Ford/GM but from all automakers.
    My feelings are Ford needs to drop Mercury and send this money into Lincoln. Make Lincoln a real luxo brand to fight BMW/Caddy/Mercedes/Acura/Lexus.
    GM needs to let either Buick or Pontiac go and GMC. Lots of extra cash there to put into Chevy brands. Still too many vehicle overlaps in my opinion. Toyota right now is headed in the wrong direction. Toyota is also starting to have too many like vehicles.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,727
    That bloated barge gets best-in-class economy, does it not?

    According to the EPA numbers, there is one Large Sedan that gets slightly better fuel economy numbers than the Avalon--19/29 vs. 19/28. Without looking, you'd probably never guess what it is. :surprise:

    Also, the top non-hybrid Family Sedan (EPA's closest thing to mid-sized sedan) in EPA fuel economy for 2009 MY might be a surprise to some.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    Don't keep us in the dark. Tell us the make and models. :)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,727
    Impala, and Elantra.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,699
    My feelings are Ford needs to drop Mercury and send this money into Lincoln. Make Lincoln a real luxo brand to fight BMW/Caddy/Mercedes/Acura/Lexus.

    They have basically dropped Mercury already. No new Sable. No new Mountaineer when the Explorer gets redone. The Milan will probably be the last Mercury rebadge. There is room for Mercury as long as it gets unique vehicles and not rebadges. It doesn't have to be high volume because Lincoln is getting the investments and new vehicles right now.

    Lincoln did have a plan for a new global RWD platform but that had to be put on the back burner due to the poor economy and high fuel prices. If Ford can get back in the black and get the new small cars out the door then they'll be able to resurrect it.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,727
    Unique vehicles + low volume, with Lincoln (and Ford) getting the bulk of the investment dollars, doesn't sound like a winning proposition for Mercury.
Sign In or Register to comment.