Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

14384394414434441029

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Hey grad-

    The Taurus is one heck of a bargain. It's a lot of car for the money. I really do believe Ford has stepped up their game. The quality of materials and over all quality of the car is pretty good. CR also recommends it as well. I don't care much for the styling, but, that is purely subjective.

    Bottom line, the Taurus is great bang for your buck.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    The Azera would be worth a close look, as its comparable to the Taurus in size and price (big discounts available now, especially on left-over 2007s) but maybe they would like its styling better.

    The Lucerne is another big car available now for around $21k to start, may be worth a look. But the Taurus and Azera have more refined powertrains than the base engine in the Lucerne.

    But we are straying a bit outside the mid-sized class now, aren't we... so to get back to that a bit: have they looked at the Camry V6? Should be able to get one under $25k, especially the hold-over 2008s. There was that issue with the tranny, but Toyota has probably corrected that by now.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You're right about the direction I've gone (off-topic) and I apologize to other readers for that.

    As far as the Camry V6 goes, my folks don't like the look of the Camry, and have not been impressed with Toyota's quality as of late (my dad's first cousin has a new Camry LE-V6; it's very "blah" in typical Toyota fashion). At least stepping to one of the "bargain-buys" of the full-sizers you get less anonymity and lower price.

    As avi and backy said, those big bargain buys are a lot of bang for the buck. How's that for alliteration? :)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,727
    >big bargain buys are a lot of bang for the buck.

    Those Big Bargain Buys Bring a Bunch of Bang for the Buck.

    This message has been approved.

  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    I just spent 5 days in a Hertz 2008 Azera Limited with the Ultimate Package, and the Azera is one nice car. I drove from central Illinois to Charlotte, NC and back - total mileage for trip was around 1,600 miles.

    The Azera handles fine - not floaty at all - much more like a European sedan. Excellent steering, handling, and a supple and complient suspension - just the right combination of ride and handling. The 3.8L DOHC V6 has plenty of spunk, and at idle, you don't even know the engine is running. The 5-speed automatic shifts very smoothly. In the mountains (including the Great Smoky and Appalachian) on the interstates through southern KY, throughout TN, and in NC, the Azera could more than keep up with the traffic - in fact, it could easily leave it behind. I really had to watch my right foot throughout the trip. Overall gas mileage, and I must note that the typical speed on the interstates even through the mountain areas was 80MPH, was 28MPG. The speed sounds excessive throughout some of the mountain ranges - which it is - but, if you don't peddle that fast, you'll be run over by 18-wheelers running at least that speed - especially down hill!

    The amenities with this car are very impressive. And, I carefully inspected the interior and exterior build-quality - it, too, was most impressive. As good, or better, than I've seen from any manufacturer. Frankly, I came away very impressed, and wouldn't hesitate to buy this car.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,898
    I just test drove a 08 Accord LX-P auto I4 today. I was actually pretty impressed. I have never been a big fan of the Accords ride, road & tire noise and transmission behavior but thought all other areas were very good. This car is addresses most of what I didn't like. However, the interior is a bit more plastic than I remember and the outside styling is OK....not ugly, not pretty...just all right. Things that I really liked was the smooth ride, good acceleration, sliding arm rest, auto down/up front windows, radio and radio controls and general roominess. What I didn't find was that there were too many buttons or controls. There has been a lot of discussion about all the buttons(to the point of confusion) but I didn't have a problem quickly figuring things out and thought they were fine. Now maybe the cars with NAV or something have a lot more but the LX-P was OK.
    I didn't drive it for days but from what I noticed in a short test drive, I really liked the car.
  • mikecmikec Posts: 40
    I really liked the 2003-2007 Accord interior layout. Especially the Navigation system; touch screen, mini-joystick etc.

    Now in 2008, they've switch to a large, single control button/switch. The Navigation screen is more recessed (further away from the driver and not touch screen).

    This was a big disappointment, and one of the reasons I am not getting an Accord this time arround.

    The car drives fine, just like the previous version. However, gas mileage on V6 accords is always way below EPA...and what's worse, the mileage gets worse as the miles go up. Maybe 4 cyclinders are different.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    However, gas mileage on V6 accords is always way below EPA...

    Everything I've ever read about V6 Accords involves their great efficiency, and how well they do under various conditions. Some getting mid-30s regularly on the highway.

    Not sure where you hear that Accord V6 mileage is "always way below EPA." Can you share with us please? :blush:
  • mikecmikec Posts: 40
    Absolutely.

    I am a bit anal on mileage tracking with my Accord V6. This is in reference to the V6 in the 2003-2007 model Accords.

    Real world city is about 19-21, Highway, 22-25. Highway was a bit higher when the car was new, but now at 80K miles, it's fallen off quite a bit.

    I am not a lead foot; once in a while I will got 80mph on the freeway, but most is 55-65.

    I methodically measures the mpg (not using on board computer, which is close), but by gallons put in and odometer readings.

    Now, let me be clear - for price/performance, the engine is nice. For efficency relative to power, it's good.

    However, I feel like "for a few less mpg", I could have gotten a even better performer.

    I really like the car, but the mileage has always been much less than expected. Maybe the new VCM will make it better, but I have my doubts.

    I guess the answer is if I want 30+mpg, get a hybrid.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    You mileage is clearly on the low side. Of course it depends a lot on how you drive. One mans' driving like a bat out of you know where, is another mans' driving like a granny.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    mikec,
    I have an 03 V6 automatic, and I get 23mpg consistantly around town (5 miles or less drives with stop signs and red lights). I also easily get over 30mpg on the interstates. I would really have to drive like the proverbial Bat out of know where, to get 22mpg on the highway. I don't think your mileage is typical of the 7th gen V6 Accords. My 03 V6 gets better mileage than my 92 4cylinder Accord did.
  • mikecmikec Posts: 40
    Well, to each thier own.

    My friend has an 04 Accord V6, and sees the same numbers as me.

    I've never seen 30+ on freeways...unless it's flat for 100 miles and I'm driving 45mph.

    I drive "normal"; I know what agressive driving is, and in my younger days, I had to speeds - Fast and stopped. In my old age, I drive average (maybe even a bit slower than average.)

    Mechanically, the car checks out fine; dealer says it's a-ok. Use decent gas. Who knows. Anyway, it won't be an issue much longer.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    So what car are you looking at? V6 or I4 in it?
  • mikecmikec Posts: 40
    I'm looking at a Hybrid 4 cylinder. (Camry)
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    Frankly I believe this range of mileage numbers depending on your terrain etc etc. Having rented a 2007 Sonata V-6 recently I achieved between the upper 26's (26.8) to touching 27 mpg at times driving the Pa Turnpike at slightly over the 65 MPH speed limit (about 70 or so). I do not have in town numbers for this car but I can believe the upper teens to low 20's would be normal. I won't sugar coat this number just because I happen to like Hyundai products more than Honda. That is what I got and I think it is representative for the style and model vehicle. I personally believe this to be great for as large and powerful as this car is. Why does everyone inflate their fuel economy number here, well not everyone because you didn't. Then if someone reports true numbers that don't meet some imagined fantasy number there must be something wrong with the car or they blame an aggressive driving style. Folks, the lower to middle 30's is Civic territory and in no way will a twice as powerful, much heavier car approach that unless one chooses to put their life at risk by driving 50 mph on an interstate. I am NOT an idiot, I can both compute fuel economy by utilizing "the numbers" and I can even find and read the built in fuel economy computer read out numbers. I also happen to believe these fuel economy computers to be quite accurate. I have driven (rented) various V-6 and I-4 cylinder Sonata's recenty which delivered about 26.5 mpg average for the V-6 and 31 mpg for the 4 on about the same turnpike drive. In no case do I cruise at over 75 mph and 70-72 mph is more like it. I have also driven my 2.5 liter V-6 Stratus extensively on this same trip and I can absolutely say it will return around 27-28 mpg on the turnpike and I routinely get 21-22 mpg on my 12 mile commute involving rural roads at speeds from 35-55 mph. We get 23-24 mpg with our 2006 Civic EX sedan automatic (tank after tank) in our small town use and about 34-35 mpg on the turnpike. While I have not driven a V-6 Accord on anything other than a dealer test drive I simply cannot believe ( do not believe is more like it) they are likely to deliver significantly more mileage than their competitors e.g. Sonata...Camry...etc. Time to get real here with gas approaching $3.50/gal why mislead potential buyers???? I'll say it..if you buy a V-6 anything in the mid-size range expect between 25 to 28 mpg if you are a "normal" driver on the road, less if you speed. Expect the very low 20's (or less) in city driving and sometimes down to the middle teens. If you want mileage around 30mpg (or a little more) a 4 cylinder mid size will do it on the road and get the low 20's more routinely than a V-6 in the "city". If you want the middle 30's or more on the road nothing except a Camry Hybrid will do it in a mid size car (the Prius is also classified as mid sized and it too will deliver) otherwise you must choose a smaller class car or a diesel "something" if and when they become available. The end.
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    Since I am on a fuel economy kick I would make a comment about the current style EPA window stickers. In the recent past (up to 2007 I believe) the EPA fuel economy stickers were, in my opinion and that of many, many others, an inflated joke. One only needs to search to find the terriffic numbers of people complaining about not reaching the "advertised" fuel economy. However, since then the EPA has revised their test and I now believe the posted numbers are pretty representative of what the average person can expect. In my experience they now track pretty closely to "real world". I now actually read the numbers and feel comfortable that they reflect what the car would achieve.....hype notwithstanding.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    My 330i delivered 22-24 in city driving and the rare times I got on an interstate was able to get 32+ going at 65. All of these cars should be capable of this type of mileage as well even the six cylinders.
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    Certainly all the above observations are my own using the vehicles under the specific conditions I used them which will obviously differ from the type of use others may apply. However, that said, my use was moderate with regard to speed, weather, vehicle load (two adults and no luggage as it was a day trip), traffic, and road conditions. Unless someone drove alone at a mind numbing 55 mph across the central plains I don't know that conditions could be better for optimal fuel economy. I certainly know they could be worse and many brag about driving considerably faster with larger loads across less inviting terrain and still getting stellar fuel economy. Lets put it this way, if you and I bought a 2008 Camry V-6 automatic (or any other vehicle) would you agree that somewhere in the range of fuel economy possibilities there is a maximum? That maximum is dictated by many design specifications...gearing...thermal efficiency...wind resistance..rolling resistance of the tires...transmission and engine programming..etc and etc. Say that the vehicle delivers 25 mpg at 70 mph ( these are fictious numbers) with 4 passengers and their luggage on relatively flat terrain with no wind and this is just "what it gets". By that I mean the engineering dictates that specific engine/transmission combination is running at a given RPM and the wind resistance is "just so" at that speed. I believe that no matter who drives a like vehicle under SIMILAR circumstances should get 25 mpg +/- a fairly small deviation. Drive faster and it will go down, drive in the mountains and it will go down, lighten the load and it may go up slightly, drive slower than 70 and it will go up.. Fuel economy isn't a random number that can be increased by bad habits. It is however something that has been engineered in. Every vehicle has had projected optimal fuel economy engineered in. Every vehicle has a maximum efficiency threshold which it cannot exceed and just as you cannot get 30 mpg from a "Hummer" one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear..what the hell does THAT mean??? It means someone here cannot report getting 36 mpg from that Camry at 85 mph when I experienced 27 mpg driving the same exact car at a much more moderate 65 mph. Wow what a mystical post huh!! I guess all I wanted to say before getting carried away is that cars are machines and machines are engineered to be predictable and produce predictable and repeatable results therefore your fuel economy can be lower than mine by using bad driving habits but cannot be significantly higher than mine (all other things being equal) if we both are using similar good driving habits.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I guess all I wanted to say before getting carried away is that cars are machines and machines are engineered to be predictable and produce predictable and repeatable results therefore your fuel economy can be lower than mine by using bad driving habits but cannot be significantly higher than mine (all other things being equal) if we both are using similar good driving habits.

    Part of my point was it's the machine, part operator. I know people who start the car and simultaneously floor it while they are putting it in drive. Yet these people think they have a soft touch and they wonder why they get lousy gas mileage driving like a "granny".
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    This is amusing. I used to have the exact same attitude you do about mileage. I used to argue with anyone who said they could get over the EPA estimated mileage. "There is no way you will ever achieve over the EPA estimates" was my common remark. All that changed, when I checked the mileage on my own V6 Accord. Found it hard to argue with my own numbers. Until you see it for yourself, you will probably not believe either. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.