Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • wayne21wayne21 Posts: 227
    edited May 2013
    I would rather walk than drive a Prius.....
    ME TOO. We have good friends who own a 2006 prius - 76 hp on the gas; 67 hp on the battery. THIS for a nearly 4,000 lb car. Absolutely gutless! We refuse to ride in it as we see it as an accident waiting to happen. Although there is no shortage of them on the road, I would not dare to merge onto the interstate in one of them. Aside from that, I believe it has the absolute cheapest, hardest plastic of any vehicle I've been in (except the toyota venza).
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited May 2013
    Really? The Venza has cheap plastic? With the 3.5 liter V6; (268 HP) the Venza is the only Toyota product that I think is attractive. It rides on the Camry platform, as does the Lexus ES 350 and the RX-350/400h)

    I have never bothered to look at the interior, since I don't need the space of a wagon/crossover. On the other hand, I like a lot of Lexus products. The IS 250/350 looks a lot like my car. Anyway, have a good weekend all, and please don't take it personally if I slam a car you like! I love to argue. :shades:

    PS: Don't forget the roses and chocolate for the moms on Sunday!
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    First - the Prius is nowhere near 4,000 lbs. Edmunds lists it as 2,890 for that year. With 110 hp combined it does fine. 26 lbs / hp. Certainly not a sports car, but plenty safe for being on the roads. How does it compare to some other vehicles on the road? How about a nice brawny Chevrolet Suburban from 1995 with a 5.7 liter V-8. Well it has 200 hp and weighed 5,700 lbs so it has 28.5 lbs / hp - worse than the Prius. Yet I doubt many who drove those beasts at the time thought they were too slow to be on the road.

    What about crash test results? Does the small size of the Prius hurt it? Look at the two links below and see that the Prius scores a Good while the 2003 Ford F-150 (most popular vehicle in the country) got one of the worst scores ever recorded. Look at the two vehicles and see which you would rather be in after the same crash.

    Ford Truck


    Must not have owned a car in the 70's. Full sized v-8 engines barely had over 110 hp back then. Now that was slow.

    No I don't own a Prius, but I would gladly trade some of my cars speed for some extra mpg. You can't hardly buy a midsized sedan these days that won't go 130 mph, and most will go much faster (if ungoverned).
  • wayne21wayne21 Posts: 227
    Not only is the venza full of cheap, hard shiny plastic - the fit and finish (particularly the dash) is very poor. Stop at any toyota dealership and look at a venza dash, then look at any other new car on the lot and ask yourself which has the worst fit and finish.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,683
    Comparing a specific test with a pre 04 F150 and an 04 Prius isn't exactly fair.
    Both were redesigned for '04.
    My real world experience with an '00 Expedition is that they are pretty tough, even with only 3 wheels after a collision.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,683
    I know I'm replying to myself, but I don't want to completely trash the 'V'. It's roomy and gets pretty good mileage.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited May 2013
    Well, the 1998 Suburban has 255 HP and 310 ft lbs (horsepower still sucks for a 350 ci ice) and the 2001 Suburban had a 5.3 putting out 285 and 330 lb ft

    The Prius 5, 3365 lbs was the model compared to the C-MAX (3659 lbs), and Toyota really didn't want Motortrend to do it. Also, the C-MAX is rated 47/47, and the Prius 44/40. how does either do in the real world during Motortrend's review? Prius 39.4, C-MAX, 37.3. However, in low speed, city driving the author did say that the C-MAX comes out on top with it's larger battery and motor. The C-MAX won the comparison.
    The comparison is in Motortrend April 2013 on page 68.

    In short, I like sedans!! The Prius is my polar opposite... Maybe even my car's nemesis! If I needed to get 40 mpg, I would buy a Passat TDI or wait for the Mazda 6 2.2 TD with 173 hp and 310 lb ft!!
  • mtnman1mtnman1 Westerville, OhioPosts: 383
    I would rather walk in a full body cast than drive a Prius. I want power and room. I would like to squash a Prius beneath my Highlander Limited V6 AWD.
  • tundradweller1tundradweller1 Posts: 74
    edited May 2013
    If you are going to spend 30 large on a sedan, this is a interesting consideration. Watch the video....
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    I would rather walk in a full body cast than drive a Prius. I want power and room.

    Not much room in a full body cast :confuse:

    I would like to squash a Prius beneath my Highlander Limited V6 AWD.

    Really? Wow. Aside from the obvious questionable rationale behind this proclamation, it also has quite the disconnect. It happens right here: "beneath my Highlander V6 AWD".
    Pretty sure it would leave a mark..
  • wayne21wayne21 Posts: 227
    Must not have owned a car in the 70's. Full sized v-8 engines barely had over 110 hp back then. Now that was slow.

    My first new car was a 1974 Plymouth Duster - 225 slant 6. Nowhere near the power of today's cars, but cars at that time were similar. Driving that duster - or the gutless prius - in TODAY's world would not be enjoyable. As a rule of thumb, today's cars just run so much better. And yes, the 110 hp is the combined "potential", but it usually runs on battery. And I meant to type 3,000 lbs - was a typo for the 4,000 lbs. Sorry about that. But I can tell you that when I took my toyota in for a warranty repair and was offered a prius (having already been in our friend's prius) I refused it. They gave me a corolla for the day, but if they didn't I'd have called my wife to come pick me up instead of driving the prius.

    I would rather walk in a full body cast than drive a Prius. I want power and room. I would like to squash a Prius beneath my Highlander Limited V6 AWD.

    Very well stated! I will stick with my belief that it is gutless and has an incredibly cheap interior (a toyota hallmark). I truly felt it was nothing more than a glorified golf cart.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    Well, it's a compact, and with a couple of options in the same price range as several other high-end compacts... also in the same price range as loaded-to-the-gills mid-sized sedans like those being discussed here. :)
  • Nope not a compact car. Maybe actually do a little research?

    CLA :
    Exterior Measurements

    WIDTH5 ft. 10 in. (70 in.) HEIGHT4 ft. 8.6 in. (56.6 in.)
    LENGTH15 ft. 2.3 in. (182.3 in.) GROUND CLEARANCE0 ft. 3.9 in. (3.9 in.)
    FRONT TRACK5 ft. 0.9 in. (60.9 in.) REAR TRACK5 ft. 0.8 in. (60.8 in.)
    WHEEL BASE8 ft. 10.3 in. (106.3 in.)

    Interior Measurements


    Mazda 6:

    Exterior Measurements

    WIDTH6 ft. 0.4 in. (72.4 in.) HEIGHT4 ft. 9.1 in. (57.1 in.)
    LENGTH15 ft. 11.5 in. (191.5 in.) GROUND CLEARANCE0 ft. 6.4 in. (6.4 in.)
    FRONT TRACK5 ft. 2.4 in. (62.4 in.) REAR TRACK5 ft. 2 in. (62 in.)
    WHEEL BASE9 ft. 3.4 in. (111.4 in.)

    Interior Measurements

    FRONT HEAD ROOM38.4 in. FRONT HIP ROOM56.1 in.
    REAR HIP ROOM56.1 in. REAR HEAD ROOM37.1 in.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    I did do research.

    CLA length: 182.3 inches long


    Sentra: 182.1 inches long
    Dart: 183.9
    Mazda3: 180.9
    Cruze: 181.0

    Mid-sized cars:

    Accord: 191.4 inches long
    Camry: 189.0
    Sonata: 189.8
    Optima: 190.7
    Mazda6: 191.5
    Passat: 191.6
    Altima: 191.5
    Fusion: 191.7
    Malibu: 191.5

    Clearly the CLA is in the compact size class, not the mid-sized class. See for example (emphasis mine):

    Mercedes just announced official pricing for its new CLA compact car, which will start at $29,900. rts-at-29900.html
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    EPA cubic ft determines compact or midsize. The cla is compact.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    Not for this discussion, it doesn't. Otherwise we'd be discussing small cars that have mid-sized (by EPA regs) interiors here. There's quite a few of those. And there's mid-sized cars that have large-car interiors, by EPA numbers. But they are generally considered mid-sized cars, not large cars.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    Look at overall length, wheelbase, etc. The CLA is marketed by the manufacurer as a compact and is almost carbon copy of other compact car dimensions. Wishful thinking that it's a midsize auto. Besides, this discussion has always been about non-luxury midsize cars like those listed above and on the right of this page.

    But, just for grins, the CLA is an interesting car.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited May 2013
    First, thanks tundradweller for the video. It's a nice looking car, and the engine power is adequate for the car's weight. I noticed that the base turbo 2.0 liter is aimed right at VW/AG and it's GTI and A4 2.0T variants. To be honest though I would expect more power for a 2.0 turbo, and Mercedes knows it too as they are going to offer a 250 HP version and a 320 HP version, all using the same engine. There is talk of a 358 HP AMG model. Here is a link to the Motortrend review. (It is the exact same car as in the video) drive/photo_06.html

    The car is too small for me. I noticed the 5' 11' reviewers head was almost touching the headliner. What I really think is it would be perfect for the ladies. I can almost guarantee it will be a hit with them. The interior is VERY nice, although it has one too many vents, and the yellow/green stitching is only available on a special edition car.
  • That's odd, when I first read about the CLA it was touted as the new mid-size from Benz. Oh well, my bad. More like a Elantra size than Sonata.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited May 2013
    My first car was the 1978 Plymouth Trail Duster. My dad bought it new and gave it to me in 1987. It was white with red and orange stripes, with matching white/red/orange motif wheels and off road tires. It competed with the Chevy Blazer, Ford Bronco, and Jeep Wagoneer. One of the first SUV's. It was brutal and unstoppable in the mud. My father was a broker and land developer so it saw lots of off road duty, including being stuck up to its windows in a mudslide.

    1978 Trailduster

    It had a 360 with a 4 barrel carb, dual exhaust, full time 4x4 with (manual), roll cage, removable roof, brush guard,skid plates, locking hubs. Had dealer installed A/C too, but when it was given to me it hadn't worked for years, so I jettisoned the compressor. It ran for 15 year's with no mechanical problems. Unfortunately, the body rusted like crazy (due to aforementioned mudslide and the resulting damp sand in all the trucks crevices) and it became unsafe as there were holes all over the floor, including a 8x12 "flintstone-Esq" hole here the drivers feet are supposed to go. I had a metal real estate sign under the floor mat, but at the end it fell off on I-95. Lovely.

    Cars have come a long way.
  • wayne21wayne21 Posts: 227
    Awesome vehicle! I don't think you could kill it mechanically. My blue/blue duster (with a black vinyl roof to cover the holes in the sheetmetal from the factory) also had significant rust issues - rear quarter panels, front fenders, inner fenders, etc, etc and just wasn't worth fixing. I got rid of it in 1979 and bought a new RX-7.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 394
    Did you read it in a non north American article? It is probably considered mid sized in other parts of the world.
  • Honestly I don't recall exactly where I got the info. I have researched an incredible amount of data on cars in this segment since I was purchasing new.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    We have good friends who own a 2006 prius - 76 hp on the gas; 67 hp on the battery. THIS for a nearly 4,000 lb car. Absolutely gutless! We refuse to ride in it as we see it as an accident waiting to happen. Although there is no shortage of them on the road, I would not dare to merge onto the interstate in one of them.

    Full disclosure: I don't like the Prius, don't own or work for (nor have I ever owned or worked for) Toyota/Scion/Lexus. That said, 110hp combined in a 2900lb car (not "nearly 4,000") isn't dangerous.

    I've put four grown men (combined weight about 800 lbs) in my 1996 Accord many times on a 150 mile interstate trip. That car had a curb weight within 40 lbs on the Prius, a 4-speed auto instead of a quicker-accelerating CVT, and 130hp when new; it wasn't unsafe. I drove it 240k miles, mostly urban interstate commuting at 70-80mph daily.

    The Prius ran 0-60 (highway speeds) in 10.5 seconds according to, quicker than other family vehicles like the Chevrolet Venture minivan of the same year, which ran it in approximately 11 seconds.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    edited May 2013
    Yeah I don't understand all the hate for the Prius. It makes a lot of sense for a lot of people - and would for many more if they didn't feel they "need" more of whatever the car they bought has.

    I don't own a Prius, but my father has the newest generation. We drove it to pick up one of his other cars (a 1939 Cadillac Limo). The stupid thing ( Cadillac) broke down just before an intersection at the Fairfax County Parkway (in N. VA). and was blocking traffic. I tied the floormats around his bumper with my kids shoelaces and pushed that 5,000 lb vehicle across all 8 lanes with absolutely no problem. Electric motors get all their torque at 0 rpm so it did not break a sweat. That is why trains have diesel - electric motors. I was absolutely sure his transmission would be ruined, but the Prius did not even hesitate or struggle in the least.

    Why don't I own a Prius? I am a huge fan in many ways, plenty of room for 4 adults, nice ride, excellent fuel economy and bulletproof reliability. But, I "need" a manual transmission and I prefer a car that handles better.

    And I also had a 225 slant 6 - in a 76 Volare wagon. Mine had a stick and manual steering - so it was way faster than the automatics, but still slow.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,683
    I think I bought your old Duster as my first car out of school! :) Mine had a black vinyl roof on the front half.
  • gmanusmcgmanusmc SoCalPosts: 436
    Yeah - my son's had a Prius for a few years commuting 120 miles round trip to work and back - costs him about half for what he was paying for gas in the civic he replaced with the Prius. His other car? A C6 Corvette.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    That is the way to do it. A commuter car for a commuting and a fun car for fun. Way too many people want one car for everything - when often the gas saved will pay for the second vehicle.

    Lots of people commuting in giant SUV's or 300+ hp "sports" cars. Huge waste of gas and the expensive vehicle will lose a lot in depreciation.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,263
    edited May 2013
    I am trying to think about where the Fairfax County Parkway (7100) has eight lanes. What intersection were you blocking? Are you in the Springfield area Dudley? (w/o giving up exact info)

    What mid size sedan do you have again?

    These and other questions burn deep inside me..... :surprise:

    PS: On the commuter car for commuting....I have a lot of respect for the guy driving a Prius to work, when he could be showing off in his 'vette. Very responsible, and practical. I was hoping my Optima would deliver a little of both, since I don't even have a garage....not to mention a Corvette. BTW, the new C7 Stingray is killer!!! Can't wait for the Z06 and ZR1 models.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    8 lanes including the turn lanes.
    Near Herndon/Reston.
    Not sure the intersection exactly maybe near west ox - it has changed much since I lived there. I am in South Dakota now (No traffic, I live .5 miles from work)

    I have an Accord (actually 2 an '07 and a '13)

    Try some pepto for the burning. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.