Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1584585587589590712

Comments

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    edited April 2013
    I think the Regal Turbo is a nice looking ride. I found a couple pics that represent how a local owner's car looks. His is this color and also has tinted windows. Sweet, except for the fake wood trim inside. Come on GM, you should have gone with dark Zebrano!!!

    http://www.cstatic-images.com/supersized/DMI/2447/R131513/02.jpg

    I know Buick's are seen as for old people here, but in China they sell like hotcakes to a much more diverse clientele.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    "...Volkswagen announced Friday that it would eliminate 500 contract jobs and reducing work shifts at its new assembly plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., to ease an oversupply of the Passat sedan, which has not sold up to expectations...."
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,665
    Touch competition...especially as an entry level vehicle with the I5.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,681
    nothing. I would buy a 2012 Mitsubishi Galant way before I would even start ta consider wasting money on a Passat.

    Now, a 1964 VW Bug with a 4-speed standard tranny and a loud, rockin' stereo is totally another story. I also would buy a 1966 VW Fastback in baby blue, 4-speed standard tranny and non-torn black vinyl seats. Humm...iluvmysephia1, you're living in southern New Mexico, about 90 miles north of the US-Mexico border man, I would get your vintage VW in cloth interior or even...wait for it...leather interior. But a new VW Passat? Naahhhhhhhhhhh. ;)

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    I would buy a 2012 Mitsubishi Galant way before I would even start ta consider wasting money on a Passat.

    iluv, you are too funny! :D Have you even driven the new Passat? Even with the I5, it's quite a nice ride, and tons of room (unlike the Galant). I think the big mistake VW made with the Passat, aside from not putting a better base engine into it e.g. the 200 hp 2.0L turbo, is the ho-hum styling. Way too much like an old Impala. Was OK when it debuted, but with lookers like the Fusion, Mazda6, Optima, Sonata, and even the Altima and Malibu, out there, it looks extremely old/dated in comparison. If someone is going to buy a boring mid-sized appliance, they'll look first at the Camry, not the Passat.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I would buy a 2012 Mitsubishi Galant way before I would even start ta consider wasting money on a Passat.

    iluv, you are too funny! Have you even driven the new Passat?


    *Insert grain of salt here*

    iluv is a Mitsubishi owner and likes his vehicle.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,616
    Filled up the Fusion for the 3rd time. Mpg has been 25, 26, 27.
    Taking a long trip next weekend, about 800 miles.
    Could take the Fusion or my Mom's Fiesta.
    The Fiesta is almost 2 years old and doesn't have 7k miles on it yet.
    I'll be driving to my sisters to pick up my Mom and bring her back from a visit.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    The Passat is a good car. VW stuck with a design that has always worked for them, maximum space, quality assembly, and quiet operation. They won several comparo's in several different magazines, and it's driving dynamics surpass my Optima easily.

    I just think they got out gunned style and value wise, and the competition also is offering longer warranties. It is well known that long term upkeep on VW/AG cars is expensive. $500 for a power window regulator is one example. A coolant system wiring harness on my TDI was $1200.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    edited April 2013
    Here's what C & D said:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-6-i-sport-test-review-the-gearbox- - -of-an-rx-8-page-2

    "Hitched up to the six-speed manual, the 2.5 drives the 6 to 60 mph in 7.9 seconds. A four-cylinder Accord manual does it in 6.6 seconds in second gear, whereas the Mazda requires two upshifts. By the quarter-mile, the 6 is a second behind the Accord. In short, the Skyactiv isn’t very active, and it won’t win you many drag races, even against other family sedans."

    So they drove the Accord to 60 mph in 2nd gear??!? Guess it gets the job done, but that sounds pretty unpleasant for the people and the engine. Still, I guess if you want fastest to 60 the Accord is the one.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    Yeah, there are a lot of people (me included) who have nightmare repairmemories about VWs of the last 30 years. The recent few years seem to be significantly better, but there's a lot past history to overcome.

    Plus, with the old tech 5 cylinder base engine on the Passat it has, I think, the slowest acceleration and lowest mpg in the class. I assume they are going to fix that asap, or else their factory in TN is never going to get to full capacity.

    The Optima and Accord, in contrast, both offer quite advanced DI engines that have more power and better economy. And you get those advanced engines even on the base car.

    The idea of a "bad base engine" seems to be a poor idea that's not selling very well anymore. Somehow Ford gets away with it on the Fusion, but for just a little more you can get the 1.6 Ecoboost. With the Passat you can pay a lot to get a diesel or a huge V-6, but most people don't want that. They want a powerful and economical 4.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    edited April 2013
    from C & D:
    Mazda6 Sport manual
    C/D TEST RESULTS:
    Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 20.0 sec
    Zero to 110 mph: 24.8 sec
    Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.2 sec
    Top gear, 30–50 mph: 10.8 sec
    Top gear, 50–70 mph: 9.9 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 16.1 sec @ 90 mph
    Top speed (drag limited, manufacturer claim): 143 mph

    for comparison, 2013 Honda Accord Sport manual:
    PERFORMANCE: NEW
    Zero to 60 mph: 6.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 17.7 sec
    Zero to 120 mph: 28.6 sec
    Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 sec
    Top gear, 30–50 mph: 11.1 sec
    Top gear, 50–70 mph: 11.2 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 15.2 sec @ 93 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph

    What's weird is that the Mazda has a slightly larger engine, weighs about 150 pounds less, and yet takes 2 more seconds to make it to 100.

    ?

    Maybe it's the redline on the Mazda forcing them to shift sooner.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    Odd. C/D drove the Mazda6 with the AT to 0-60 in only 7.4 secs, while the Accord Sport CVT took 7.6 secs. Very strange how the same mag could only get from 0-60 in 7.9 secs with the manual on the Mazda6. :confuse: Maybe they need to find some test drivers who know how to shift a stick. ;)

    So if you want the quickest car 0-60 the way most people buy a mid-sized sedan, looks like the Mazda6 is the one. :)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    You've got a point!

    95+% of people buying Mazdas and Hondas will get the auto, and it looks like the 6 might be a shade faster than the Honda there.

    And for top speed the new Mazda6 cannot be beat. 140.

    Backy: we won't tell anyone, but how fast have you gone?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    Not close to 140. ;) I did do ~100 once, due to a medical emergency, driving a Mazda... an MPV! It actually acquitted itself quite well on that high-speed run to the hospital.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    You had a good excuse to go fast!

    The Mazda 6 engine is another example of a very advanced engine on even the entry level car.

    At the end of the article, C & D had some very nice things to say about the new Mazda6:

    "Throughout the 6 are the fingerprints of people who don’t think of cars in the same way they think of other machines. While it’s not quick or even club-you-over-the-head sporty, the new 6 shares a lot of fundamental traits with sports cars. And these traits aren’t just there for the benefit of car lovers. They’re also useful to the typical family-sedan driver. A relatively low cowl and the repositioned A-pillars result in a vast view out front. The structure is both light and stiff to boost handling and fuel economy. The driver’s relationship to the steering wheel, pedals, radio, and HVAC are all spot on. Better yet, the steering, brakes, and floor-mounted accelerator have responses that wouldn’t feel out of place on Turn Three at Road America. If you think that’s overkill in a mainstream sedan, consider that the Mazda 6’s alert controls will be at your command when a truck tire bounds into your lane."
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    edited April 2013
    Well, I have an obvious question for VW:

    Why didn't they offer the 2.0T in the Passat? It seems like the best solution to eliminate the 5 cyl and the 3.6, leaving the diesel as the only other choice. I bet they could sell them for $26,990 all day long, and the TDI for $1000 more. I would have considered one myself.
    Lastly, the 5 speed manual offered in the Passat leaves me dumbfounded as well, since EVERYONE else (that offers manuals) has a 6 speed. So, Ben is right. Who wants an outdated 5 cyl engine hooked to an outdated 5 speed manual???
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    edited April 2013
    The fastest I have ever driven is 125, in a Caddy STS w/ the Northstar 300 hp engine.

    Next fastest was in my red, '87 Chevy Z24. 115 mph with the 5 speed. It was goverened due to tire rating. It had 225/60/R-14 BFG's. Can you believe it had 14's as the "performance"tires? Lol.
  • (Quote) "Filled up the Fusion for the 3rd time. Mpg has been 25, 26, 27"

    That's a shame, what motor do you have in your Fusion? What is the EPA rating? My Mazda 6 has been getting 32-34 with mixed driving and has only 800 miles on it.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,681
    edited April 2013
    image

    This is where my mind heads to. Gotta have the 4-speed standard transmission with one of these, mind you. Funny, when VW electrical gremlins are mentioned, most of the time the beloved Bug is left out of that conversation.

    How about you guys? Do you hear the Bug being pummeled into the mud that much? I'm startin' ta want ta take one of these off of some poor bloke's hands and perhaps do a few loving touches to spruce up the interior. Then the '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS would have a dinky little stablemate. This one's a '67.

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    I have seen reports that VW will offer a 1.8T in the Passat as the base engine soon.

    The TDI comes with a 6-speed manual. By all accounts that is the preferred powertrain for the Passat right now. Until Mazda delivers a diesel with the Mazda6 (planned for the near future), the Passat is the only game in town in the USA for a mid-sized family sedan with a turbodiesel.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    LOL. My parents had one with an automatic and dealer installed A/C.

    They also said that going uphill was, umm, stressful. I am curious about what year it was, but I want to say mid to late 60's.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    Oh cool. Do you know the specs on the new 1.8T yet? Curious. The diesel Mazda6 is highly anticipated. There is also a diesel Optima too, dressed in SX trim. Unfortunately its not available in the US. It has 134 hp and 244 lb ft.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    It's actually a TSI... here's some specs, which are unofficial of course until the 1.8 TSI goes on sale in the USA...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Passat_NMS#Engines
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,954
    Here's an excerpt from a recent post on Autoblog.com.

    "Mazda has a long motorsports history, and one that is peppered with fascinating cars. The latest chapter in Mazda's racing story has just been written, as Joel Miller and Andrew Carbonell have driven the Visit Florida Racing Mazda6 Skyactiv-D to the car's first ever victory at the Rolex Grand-Am GX race at Road Atlanta. The win marks the first ever for Mazda's diesel-burning, production-car based Skyactiv-D racer, and the first win for a diesel-powered car in a Grand-Am event.

    In fact, it was a particularly good day for the Mazda Motorsports team, as a Mazda6 also picked up the third finishing spot at Road Atlanta. Director of Mazda Motorsports, John M. Doonan, said of the racecar, "We've always said that the best street cars make the best racecars, and, with more than half of the components in the race engine being shared with the street engine, this program is a solid proof-point."
  • suydamsuydam Posts: 930
    Long as you don't mind no safety features whatsoever, and are driving on completely flat roads. :)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    edited April 2013
    (Quote) "Filled up the Fusion for the 3rd time. Mpg has been 25, 26, 27"

    That's a shame, what motor do you have in your Fusion? What is the EPA rating? My Mazda 6 has been getting 32-34 with mixed driving and has only 800 miles on it.

    My 2013 Accord CVT has been going up in mpg, perhaps as the engine and transmission are broken in. We drive about 60% city and c. 40% short hwy.

    1st tank 27 mpg
    2nd tank 29 mpg
    3rd tank (so far) 30 mpg

    The Mazda SkyActiv is outstanding for mpg, and may perhaps be tops right now. Hard to say.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    edited April 2013
    Many of you know that Hyundai/Kia fudged their MPG figures on a LOT of models.

    I went to lunch today with a friend that has a 2011 Hyundai Elantra Limited, and he received a check for $150 from Hyundai/Kia yesterday. He seemed to think he was going to keep getting one every year. His friend has a Sonata GLS (2.4) and complained about sub 24 mpg results.

    My Optima rarely (pretty much never) gets over 25. Even when I reset the MPG computer, just as I am entering the highway, it barely tops 26. This is on a car that is rated 24/35 by the EPA, with an average rating of 28? Most of the time my actual MPG is more like 21.6

    Here is an official guide: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2012_Kia_Optima.shtml

    The only model of Optima/Sonata that were "overstated" were the Hybrid models.

    I don't understand how they are getting away the 2.4 model's, as I have not been able to get anywhere near the stated MPG on the label, and neither have a lot of members on http://www.optimaforums.com/forum/ . You guys know I love my car, but the stated MPG figures that are on the EPA sticker are overstated. I cannot replicate them even when I coast down hills and drive 5 mph below limits with all electronics off on the highway. Where is MY check KIA?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    The fastest I have ever driven is 125, in a Caddy STS w/ the Northstar 300 hp engine.

    Next fastest was in my red, '87 Chevy Z24. 115 mph with the 5 speed. It was goverened due to tire rating. It had 225/60/R-14 BFG's. Can you believe it had 14's as the "performance"tires? Lol.


    Maybe try slowing down? ;)

    Just took my wife's 2013 Sonata on its first long trip, i.e. over ~10 miles. 180 miles, mostly highway, a little in-town. Got 36.5 mpg overall, and 38.5 mpg on the trip to my destination (that was under near-ideal weather conditions, albeit a little cool, mid-30s). Driving all short trips around town for the last five months, I've had no trouble getting mid-20s even in winter in MN. My wife doesn't do quite as well, but she never has on any car--she has a Lead Foot.

    I have no doubt the Sonata (and Optima, same powertrain) 2.4L can meet or exceed its EPA ratings when driven moderately. The problem is, a lot of folks don't drive that way (e.g. all the people who passed me as I was on my trip this weekend, driving at or a bit above the 65 mph speed limit), or don't have driving patterns that are anywhere close to how the EPA tests cars.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,189
    edited April 2013
    I will concede that this area is very congested, but I did say that I was not able to get close to EPA numbers while purposely driving 5 mph below the limit, with all electronics and HVAC off, and reset the MPG computer on the ramp to the highway. I personally know people with the SAME car, in the same area, who drive "moderately" who also cannot replicate the EPA figures.

    Perhaps it is due to the area being hilly? I don't know, but the last thing you said was "or don't have driving patterns that are anywhere close to how the EPA test cars".

    There is truth in that statement. Perhaps the EPA needs to adjust their testing procedures to more accurately represent...wait for it.....reality!!! :shades:
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,686
    My trip this weekend had a lot of hills. MPG suffered as I went up the hills, but the downgrades made up for it.

    My wife drives like a granny... but a granny with a lead foot. She doesn't do the little but important things to maximize fuel economy.

    It's possible to meet or exceed EPA ratings... I didn't say it was EASY. :)

    Edmunds.com (I think, could have been another automotive publication) published a story recently on how EPA testing doesn't mirror reality for most people. Of course, it's easier to blame the auto manufacturer when a car doesn't achieve its EPA ratings. Harder to sue the Federal government! ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.