Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

15665675695715721028

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    What you think and what other people think are totally different things, and they're 100% subjective. What makes your and CR's opinion more valid than other owners and reviewers who don't feel that way?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    What makes your and CR's opinion more valid than other owners and reviewers who don't feel that way
    Nothing, of course, unless you want to admit that somebody like CR knows more about cars, and compares more cars than either you or I..I also seem to remember the same comments about the 3.5 in the Edge (yes it is a heavier vehicle) in an enthusiast mag. but then they would know nothing as well, I guess.
    http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_guide/ford/edge/2008_ford_edge/2008_ford_edge- _limited_awd_comparison_test+type-reviews_by_make+mode-collection+id-265.html
    Yes, I guess there are a bunch of us that have a different set of standards
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    And I can cite just as many articles where they don't complain about the Duratecs being unrefined. Why can't you accept that some people (and magazines) simply have different standards and what is unrefined to you is perfectly fine to others?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    some people (and magazines) simply have different standards and what is unrefined to you is perfectly fine to others?
    That's fine and is exactly what I said in #11654. Just don't tell me that somehow I'm the only one in the universe that still thinks that the Fusion's engines have been and apparently remain lacking - there are plenty of other idiots just like me.
    You'd have to drive the Toyota 2GR (even in the too soft Camry) and drive it hard to fully appreciate the difference. It is turbine-like sewing machine. The Nissan VQ or the Honda V6 almost as refined.
  • Confirmed.

    VERY cool! Now lets hope Mazda uses it for the 6 as well.

    And yeah, I'd much rather drive a stick and do it myself, but since both Ford and Mazda has lost the cajones to include the option of three pedals with the V6 anymore... :)
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    It's clearly an EX-L model.

    Clear as mud!
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    Haven't seen any tests of the non-Hybrid Fusion yet

    Ask and you shall receive. :shades:

    Fusion Sport Review

    I'm not a big fan of the red interior trim the Sport comes with. Fortunately it does come in blue or black too.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    I would not argue that Toyota and Honda engines are great. I've owned 2 hondas and one acura. But it's like comparing a Rolex with a Timex. To me they're the same - they both tell time accurately and I don't notice any differences that would make me spend the extra $$$ on the Rolex. To me the Timex isn't deficient or unrefined. To a watch maker it would be like night and day.

    Don't you find it interesting that the Autoblog article above takes the time to knock the switches and steering wheel but only has raves for the engine and transmission? I guess they're just blind and deaf like the rest of us.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    I agree with the reviewer that on a nearly-$30k car, it should have heaters under the leather skins. Also the red interior trim doesn't grab me, but the reviewer seemed to like it.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    it's like comparing a Rolex with a Timex
    good analogy - BUT if you can wear that Rolex for the same cost (or less) as it would to wear the Timex, why not then the Rolex:
    These numbers from Edmunds own 5 year TCO (True Cost to Own) statistics:
    1. Honda Accord EX V6, $25k cash price - $39728 TCO.
    2. Camry LE V6, $25k cash price - $42023.00 TCO
    3 Mazda6 Touring V6, cash price $24k - $42445 TCO.
    3. Sonata SE V6, $22k cash price - $42855.00 TCO
    4. Altima 3.5SE, $28k cash price $43051.00 TCO
    5. Fusion SE V6 $21k cash price $44164.00 TCO
    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 and FTM how much more expensive the Fusion is despite the lowest initial cost

    http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController

    I ask again then, why not the Rolex - the least expensive cars tend to be the most expensive over assumming a 5 year ownership period.
  • 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: 7,622
    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: 18,623
    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: 2,897
    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: 2,897
    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: 3,706
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.