Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

13853863883903911063

Comments

  • Oh I can afford a CTS or a BMW 335i anything in and around $40K isn't a problem. it's just that I am opposed to spending money needlessly and ugly cars don't see my wallet.

    My guess is that younger folks might not feel the same about the styling as you. I think GM is going after younger buyers and is letting the older folks die off or buy Buicks.

    Why are you giving up your Accord? The new ones look nice, the new Nav system is impressive! I know boring to drive but comfortable seats!

    Thats exactly it, its just boring to drive. I want something a little more sporty and alive. I'm not such a big fan of the seats either, they don't do anything for me one way or the other (not great, not bad). The new ones are way too big for me, if I was ready for an Avalon or Maxima, I would think about it - especially since its the only one available with a manual. Accords used to be considered in the "sport compact" category and now they are neither.

    I am thinking of either the MS6 or a Mazda6 w/Touring pkg, but they are hard to find with a manual (and as boring as the Accord is, I would rather have it with a stick than something else with an auto).
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    My guess is that younger folks might not feel the same about the styling as you. I think GM is going after younger buyers and is letting the older folks die off or buy Buicks.

    Whoa! i'm not that old! Buick owners are like my Dad who just hit 80 this year!
    Maybe I just prefer classic styling to this new weird and bizzare styling? I really like the look of the Classic cars. I won't buy one, too unreliable and expensive to maintain.
    I think most of this edgy styling is going to look like crap in 10+ years.

    Thats exactly it, its just boring to drive. I want something a little more sporty and alive. I'm not such a big fan of the seats either, they don't do anything for me one way or the other (not great, not bad). The new ones are way too big for me, if I was ready for an Avalon or Maxima, I would think about it - especially since its the only one available with a manual. Accords used to be considered in the "sport compact" category and now they are neither.

    Yeah I hear you. I haven't tried out the new EX-L Accord yet. I will just in case. But fun to drive has a real big meaning to me as well. Most of the cars I like will never make it to the US. :sick:
    Right now the Mazdaspeed3 is at the top of my list although I might reconsider if I could buy a 5spd manual Diesel Accord next month. Then I could drive for work on the cheap and buy something really fun.
    Boring and comfortable is good on my long drives because it's terminally boring no matter what you do, and an involving car would be just as boring as it's just a lot of highway and trees. But if i drove like a normal person it would be different.

    I am thinking of either the MS6 or a Mazda6 w/Touring pkg, but they are hard to find with a manual (and as boring as the Accord is, I would rather have it with a stick than something else with an auto).

    So you really need a big car then? Why not get a Speed3 wagon or sedan? too small?
    2008 is a bad year for buying cars. I might just buy a Scion xD without side airbags and bolt a Recaro seat into it. :surprise:
    Too bad I can't use a Lotus Elise for work. :shades:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    That is the first time I've "heard" anyone use the term "big car" in reference to the Mazda6. A common complaint (not from me) is that it is too small.

    The Mazda6 barely makes it into the midsize category, by EPA's definition (interior volume). It is just about 1/2 way between the Mazda3 and the Accord (2008) in length, and actually much closer to the 3 than to the Accord in wheelbase and width.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    tiff_c

    When you are quoting from another post and then answering it, it would be easier for all of us to follow if you would use "quotation marks", or boldface or italicize the quote.

    Distinguishing the quote from your own words will help get your message across.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,733
    You might consider looking at the RX8, though. It's a pretty typical 2+2 coupe/sedan(technically a sedan shaped to look like a coupe).

    Inexpensive, great handling, and not a jellybean commuter-mobile. I'd rather have one that a CTS or a 3 series, to be honest, since I'm not a fan of excess weight and bling. (The RX8 is about 3000lbs - the CTS is what, almost 4,000?)

    Go drive one - it's a real eye-opener. No, really - go drive one. You'll be impressed.
  • SporinSporin Posts: 1,066
    That was our biggest complaint about our Mazda6, just not as much people space as we wanted, barely more then the compact Protege5 we were replacing.

    Our new Accord was precisely what we were looking for in a family car. I hear a lot of complaints from past Accord fans and auto writers about the Accord growing "too big" but it's that extra space that made it a slam dunk for us.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    When you are quoting from another post and then answering it, it would be easier for all of us to follow if you would use "quotation marks", or boldface or italicize the quote.

    I had thought of that but I really don't see anyone else doing it so I didn't either. :blush:
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    You might consider looking at the RX8, though. It's a pretty typical 2+2 coupe/sedan(technically a sedan shaped to look like a coupe
    Go drive one - it's a real eye-opener. No, really - go drive one. You'll be impressed.

    I actually did drive one and the engine is very sweet. Nice car but when i set the seat for myself to drive and sat behind in the back I was cramped and i'm only 5'7" tall :confuse:
    Now that's a bit unusual since i'm not a long legged guy. Great car except for that and the abysmal fuel economy and no spare tire although I guess one is an option.
    Great looking and handling car but the economy needs to be up a bit I drive a lot and that would kill me in fuel costs.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I had thought of that but I really don't see anyone else doing it so I didn't either.

    Typically, when other people insert snippets of posts they reply to, they will make those snippets bold. Otherwise, they don't use the emboldened statements at all. Without making them bold, it's hard to differentiate your posted comment from theirs.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,681
    Or italics (which I and some others use). Or something to differentiate between a quote and a new post. Otherwise it can get real :confuse: ing.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Differences in perception. One mans' palace is another mans' sardine can. So it goes with the RX-8, which has less room the 350 and makes a sardine can look roomy.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    Differences in perception. One mans' palace is another mans' sardine can. So it goes with the RX-8, which has less room the 350 and makes a sardine can look roomy.

    Well when a short guy with short legs like me sits in the back seat of a car he shouldn't be cramped if the car is roomy enough and I can fit comfortably in many small cars. The RX8 wasn't one of them although it is a great looking car and what a super sounding engine that loves to rev!
  • Well when a short guy with short legs like me sits in the back seat of a car he shouldn't be cramped if the car is roomy enough and I can fit comfortably in many small cars. The RX8 wasn't one of them although it is a great looking car and what a super sounding engine that loves to rev!

    Its funny I think we are about the same height. I can actually fit back there but my top half is longer than my bottom half, so leg room isn't a big issue.
  • from now on looking at your'all's posts. I usually italicize the other person's comments but the bold face texting actually looks a tad clearer to me.

    tiff c, otherwise we might think that the person's quote are your words...and, as was already mentioned by somebody else, that starts getting corn-fusing.

    Ya know what I mean, Vern?

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    Its funny I think we are about the same height. I can actually fit back there but my top half is longer than my bottom half, so leg room isn't a big issue.

    Well I have a 29" inseam so that defines me as having short legs. ;)
    I still found the RX8 to not have enough legroom for me. Why does such a great car have to have such horrible fuel economy? :sick:
  • tiff_ctiff_c Posts: 531
    tiff c, otherwise we might think that the person's quote are your words...and, as was already mentioned by somebody else, that starts getting corn-fusing.

    Ya know what I mean, Vern?


    IIRC Vern was the smart one. :P
    Jim Varney/Ernest was always the one getting in a mess, a real Drongo ! :D
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Thanks for changing your posting style...makes it much easier to read. Your personal opinions are what is important.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I hear a lot of complaints from past Accord fans and auto writers about the Accord growing "too big" but it's that extra space that made it a slam dunk for us.

    Well comparing dimensions the Accord is about 1/2 way between a Ford Taurus and a Mazda6. It's wheelbase is much closer to the Taurus than it is to the 6.

    That was our biggest complaint about our Mazda6, just not as much people space as we wanted, barely more then the compact Protege5 we were replacing.

    That is one of the things I like about it...for me, it is not too big and not to small. It is one of the few cars that are about the size of the old contour I had. When I bought the the contour it was partly because it just had a little more substantial feel to it than the smaller compacts such as Protege, Sentra, Focus, Civic.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    It's wheelbase is much closer to the Taurus than it is to the 6.

    The 2006+ Civic has almost the same wheelbase as 1998-2002 Accord. It doesn't figure into size of the car. Most FF cars have tougher time extending wheelbase since it often requires longer overall length. Longer wheelbase helps improve ride compliance/stability (reduced pitch), besides helping improve interior accomodation.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I still found the RX8 to not have enough legroom for me. Why does such a great car have to have such horrible fuel economy?

    That's because it's a rotary! For whatever reason, a rotary engine is not as economical as an Otto cycle engine ( 4 stroke). Why? It has to do with design. I can't really explain it, though . However, a Wankle Rotary can produce more HP at a lower displacement. The RX-8 has a displacement of 1.3L, and produces 232hp. Mazda is the only mfgr to mass produce the rotary today, and they only use it for their performance vehicles (RX-8 and formula). Their 3 and 4 rotor engines produce crazy power, and can be revved like a motor cycle engine. The 787B rotary that Mazda used to win LeMans produced around 950 HP at 10,500 rpm's. The rotary has proven to be reliable as well, for it has only 3 moving parts. Turbo charging them is not a great idea. The seem to eat up the apex seals that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.