Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

16266276296316321065

Comments

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Also EPA measures of "interior volume*" don't necessarily tell you how it feels to sit in and drive the car. Several years ago when shopping for my wife's new car two of the finalists were the Jetta and the Volvo S40. Both have about the same EPA "passenger volume", 91 cf for the Jetta and 92 for the S40. However the S40 felt much smaller to us when actually getting in the two vehicles for test drives on the same day. The S40 was too cramped for us, while the Jetta was not, despite the slightly larger "volume". (these are compacts, but illustrate the point)

    *EPA "interior volume" is calculated by multiplying three interior dimensions together: hip or shoulder room multiplied by leg room multiplied by head room.

    I think looking at the individual measurements is more useful:
    If you have long legs, then front leg room is important.
    If you have a long torso and/or like to sit very upright, then head room is important.
    If you want three in the back seat, then rear hip/shoulder room is important.
    Etc.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    If you want three in the back seat, then rear hip/shoulder room is important.

    Finding one that has enough rear hip room for two car seats and a third person is extremely difficult. The only two left are the Grand Marquis, and Town Car. You need at least 60" of room to fit two car seats and still have room for a third person to fit comfortably. In our Camry, with 55" the room between the two seats is very cramped, non existent in a Prius at 52", so how they can put the two in the same class is beyond me. GM is the only one that has a few cars that come close to the 60" mark, and one BMW. If you want something with this kind of back seat room, you are stuck having to get a SUV.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    I am with you there. To me, the usable interior volume, fuel economy, overall ride/handling, safety, comfort etc. are more important than the external size of the car. In fact, the smaller the car, the better I like it (easier parking).

    I am sorry to see the size of "mid-sized" cars ever increasing. As that continues, I will be more likely to focus on the so-called "compact" class, which more and more is like the mid-sized cars of a just a few years ago. Plenty of room for me, with the tidier outside dimensions I prefer (and probably higher FE also).
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    I agree. You can put a cube(not talking about the Nissan product) on four wheels and get great epa interior volume but how usable or comfortable would it be. I am not tall and don't have long legs or long torso. I'm lucky in that headroom and legroom have never been much of a consideration. I focus on a lot things when buying a car but shoulder and hip room are very important especially in the winter when wearing heavy coats, etc. If I lived in Florida I could probably be comfortable in smaller dimensions.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Assuming the third would-be 3rd back seat passenger is a kid, the old front bench seats might've worked too. Does anyone still offer that in a midsize?

    Also, I'd assume a minivan would work as well as an SUV.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    I believe I read a review recently that mentioned that a bench front seat could be ordered. I think it may have been a '10 LaCrosse but I'm not sure. My daughter has a Camry for a company car and fit two infant seats and the 10 year old in the back. The 10 year old is thin and is still kind of cramped so I agree that it really wouldn't work at all for a teen or adult. Maybe the new Accord or Mazda6 as they both have huge back seats.
  • Since most manufacturers have stopped making manuals (I don't think you can get a Mazda6 with a stick and a sunroof in 2010), my money is on the ones that are left.

    Yeah, I have to agree with you. I have always (and only) owned standard transmissions. I was recently reading an article in Newsweek that stated that only about 5% of Americans own a manual transmission vehicle, and fewer than 8% know how to drive one.

    I think that's sad. Anyone can learn how to drive a manual in about a day!!!

    I'm SO glad that my '09 Sonata GLS came with standard transmission. I was also looking at the Honda Accord, and Mazda 6, but none of my local dealers (Richmond, VA) had manuals!!! I was shocked.

    Standard transmissions are fun, less expensive, easier on gas, and need less transmission maintenance work. I'll admit: a steep mountain road might be difficult for a beginner, but practice makes perfect!
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    A couple of days ago the radio station I listen to had a contest and the answer was the % of Americans who can drive a stick. The answer was about 35%. I don't know where they got the info but I think it sounds closer to reality than 8%.

    Many modern transmissions actually are rated higher mpg by the EPA than manuals. The computers are getting so good at shifting at the best possible moments that they can beat the sticks even accounting for a small weight difference and power usage. They are less expensive and usually require a little more maint and fun to drive if you do not have to drive in stop and go traffic a lot. If so, they can be a royal pain in the left leg.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,232
    I can drive a stick. I do not, though. For one, my wife can't and we won't buy a car that only one of use can drive. Another reason is for those occasions I get stuck in traffic. A stick is a lot more fatiguing in those circumstances.

    Do modern driving schools teach how to drive a manual?

    Anyway, I can believe 35% can but only 8% buy them.

    The last stick I drive, BTW, was a 24' U-Haul truck.
  • Many modern transmissions actually are rated higher mpg by the EPA than manuals. The computers are getting so good at shifting at the best possible moments that they can beat the sticks even accounting for a small weight difference and power usage.*

    * On the EPA fuel economy certification drive
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    I especially like the side view, incredibly swoopy for a "family sedan". The rear is OK too, but the taillamps look a little large-ish for my taste. The front is... interesting. The grille looks overwrought, IMO. I am hoping it's just the camera angle or that they'll tone it down a bit for the US market. The interior shot isn't very good here but in other photos it looked very well done, especially for a car that is designed to sell starting at under $20k MSRP (which it will unless 2011 prices shoot up).

    I am wondering if the note about the "6 speed" transmissions refers to both automatic and manual??
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    It's definitely an aggressive look. My thinking is the front view is an exaggerated "fisheye" picture, but time will tell. Hyundai is definitely not playing it safe with this Sonata!
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    The rear looks a lot like the VW CC and a little like it from the side too. Not a bad form to emulate! The front looks horrendous but I think it is the camera lens or angle. It couldn't possibly look that freakish. Paddle shifters on a Sonata??? Maybe the SE will really be sporty....who knows.
  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    Don't trust it. I own a 2006 Ford Fusion SEL V6 and have had no repair costs, my maintenance costs have not come close to what Edmunds says, I also paid no interest on my loans for this automobile. My insurance is not even close to what Edmunds says also. I know it is supposed to be some kind of "average" Beings I belong to 3 Fusion boards across the internet. I posted these numbers and noone has come even close to what Edmunds says for "costs". TCO means nothing.
  • I think the 2011 pix of the sonata show a great improvement over previous sonatas. However, I think it now looks like an ugly version of the camry.
  • Ugly is a "great improvement"?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,614
    i have an 07 fusion with about 17.5k. i get free oil changes from the dealer. other than that i have paid for 2 tire rotations, an air filter, and new wipers.
    how many miles do you have on yours and what have you had done?
    i am mostly wondering about tires and brakes.
  • I think hyundai and kia have used the Bulgarian women's olympic weightlifting team for designing their cars in the past. Or perhaps I could say Hyundai/Kia have done for auto design what Abdul the tentmaker has done for women's lingerie. Yes, I think this is a great improvement over the previous sonata, but to me it looks like an ugly camry. I hope they've worked out the suspension issues on this one - seems to be a perennial problem for them.
  • I am 73 years old, so I have owned many cars of different brands.My current car is a 2006.5 KIA Optima EX and I have had complete strangers stop me and compliment the styling of my KIA.Hardly ugly, so you have to remember that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I actually can't think of a single brand that I think as ugly.The hyundai Sonata of the 2006 time frame were even better looking than the Optima,but the Optima has a better looking dash and center stack.
Sign In or Register to comment.