Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

15675685705725731065

Comments

  • 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: 4,141
    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: 7,666
    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: 9,614
    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: 7,666
    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: 18,682
    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: 18,682
    Impala, and Elantra.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,666
    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: 18,682
    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.