Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

17597607627647651028

Comments

  • I apologize for the wide pictures. I didn't realize it until it was much too late.

    Thank you for the compliments! I'm loving the car so far; so much-so that I've put 280 miles on it since Thursday night! I've not been a stranger to the middle (3-4k RPM) part of the tach since I'm so new to all the power, but it is still returning 25.6 MPG according to the computer. Loving it, and the USB audio. I simply used a thumb-drive so I don't have to fish my iPod out of the console everytime I get out.

    I'll keep the experiences coming. A couple of things I miss about the Accord:

    1.) Delay-Off headlamps; they were nice when trying to get to the front door in the dark

    2.) Remote roll-down windows; it's still hot in Alabama, and this was one of the best "detail features" the Accord had.
  • ushy66ushy66 Posts: 125
    edited September 2010
    Any word/info on if Honda will be bringing back the wagon Stateside or sportswagon to Honda in the near future like they are with the 2011 Acura TSX Sportswagon, ala Crosstour/ZDX? Thanks
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    ushy66-

    Most likely not. The TSX wagon is the real Accord wagon. For us here State side, we get the wonderfully awkward Crosstour.

    My father had a 1991 Accord wagon, which has more cargo room then the Crosstour, got better fuel economy and was actually fun to drive. What ever happened to Honda??
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    They are just building what Americans want, which means wagons must be put on stilts and be called crossovers or they have to be on even bigger stilts and be called SUVs.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Wagons and minivans suck from a styling perspective. CUVs and SUVs provide cargo and people capacity with a higher seating position and better styling than wagons (to most people). I don't understand why that's so hard for some people to understand or accept.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    Definitely what I prefer =) I dont get the wagon thing at all.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    If you lived in Europe, you would be the minority. Wagons are very prevelant over there. Subaru seems to do ok with wagons. Except the new Outback is more of an SUV then it has ever been.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    edited September 2010
    Because in a wagon, you get the excellent cargo space that SUVs/Crossovers offer, with better styling (IMO), better fuel economy than most SUVs/CUVs, and the feeling that you won't drag your door handles when cornering, or tip over when in an emergency lane change.

    For cargo needs, I'd get a 6 wagon (or 5-door) over the CX-7/CX-9 anytime, anywhere.

    That is, if Mazda still offered them...
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Should have bought some and maybe they still would.

    CUVs really aren't that bad as they are built on car frames. People like the higher seating and the load floor is at a lot nicer height for loading and unloading. My dad has a big Mercury in TX and while the trunk is huge, it is very hard for him to bend down into to get his groceries out. While I was down there with my SUV recently and we went to the store he commented on how nice it was and would be perfect for him as it was very easy to put stuff in the rear and retrieve. Not that they can only be appreciated by older people with groceries but I find it nice when going to the big box hardware stores and gettting large bags of fertilizer etc. They are also high enough to haul furniture without wedging it in.

    All in all, CUVs and SUVs have a purpose but don't get quite the mpg or handle as well as a midsize car(topic) but for many people that can't afford a car and truck, they are nice compromise.

    You make them sound like death traps and gas hogs which is a huge exaggeration.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    My wife has driven 2 Explorers, an Expedition, and Aviator and an Edge over the last 16 years. Not once have we even come close to "dragging the door handles". They corner just fine if you're driving responsibly.

    If you prefer wagons then good for you. Styling and seat height is a personal preference. Just don't exaggerate trying to rationalize your choice. Do wagons handle better? Of course - they have a lower center of gravity. Does that make SUVs/CUVs inherently dangerous? Of course not.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    I used to have a 1979 LTD Wagon. Now that is a car I wish they still made. Seated 9, handled well, plenty of power, lots of cargo space, can tow a trailer, and got 20 MPG.

    Enter the dreaded minivan, gone are the days of large station wagons. :(

    So now our choices are, ick, dreaded minivan, SUV, or a CUV. I have 3 kids, and hate minivans and SUV's, but found that the Flex is a good alternative to those, its not quite a car, and NOT a minivan or SUV. Its just a few inches taller than the old station wagon I had, just not as long, but handles quite well, and has lots of power to do whatever I need it to do. This is the one vehicle I don't see as a Crossover either, it just looks like a larger Scion XB, and that is a car. To me its a station wagon. :shades:

    I saw the Honda wagon at the Chicago auto show, and thought it looked bloated, and couldn't imagine people wanting one. To me it was just a sedan with an easy to get to trunk. Subaru always had a wagon of some sort, practical if you have 2 or fewer kids, styling, not too bad, and dependable. Aside from that I haven't seen any other car company make a wagon that is useful.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Boy, will I be glad when we get to the next page and can read entire posts again.

    The Honda wagaon at the Chicago auto show? Do you mean the Crosstour? That's hardly a proper wagon, it's basically a hatchback. The new TSX sportwagon is an actual wagon which is based on the Euro Accord.

    I have 3 kids, and hate minivans and SUV's, but found that the Flex is a good alternative to those, its not quite a car, and NOT a minivan or SUV. Its just a few inches taller than the old station wagon I had,

    The Flex is nothing more than a squared off minivan with regular doors instead of sliders. At best most people would think it's a CUV(SUV shaped body on a car frame, at least that my definition). You can continue to believe it is somehow different because it has a little different style and decent power but it's basically the same thing.

    Now that the new Explorer has went to unibody and seats 7, I don't think Flex is long for this world. The Flex and Explorer are just to close in size and function to justify both. The Explorer can go offroad still if need be but looks to be a good road car as well.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    edited September 2010
    Boy, will I be glad when we get to the next page and can read entire posts again.

    I've already apologized, and am sorry my pictures are still causing a problem for you; I couldn't edit once I realized it was posing a problem for some. For what its worth, you can go to an individual post by using the search tools towards the bottom of the page.

    Back on topic, I'm quite pleased with my Sonata V6 thus-far. In a 50/50 mix of city and highway driving, my MPG has settled right in at 25.5, +/- .2 on my first tank. I'll not be able to tell what the true reading is until my next tank when I fill up and reset the trip meter myself, so for now I'm reliant on the computer.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    You can continue to believe it is somehow different because it has a little different style and decent power but it's basically the same thing.

    He didn't say it was different - just that he disliked the styling of minivans and SUVs but liked the styling of the Flex. And that's all it comes down to - personal preferences.

    Now that the new Explorer has went to unibody and seats 7, I don't think Flex is long for this world.

    A significantly refreshed Flex is already in the works. Explorer is high volume, lower priced, off-road capable, etc. Flex is lower volume, higher price, more exclusive features and highly stylized with NO off road aspirations. Other than the fact that they're based on the same platform and share ONE engine - they're totally different.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I know you apologized(I obviously am reading the posts) and I wasn't trying to lambast you in any way. I guess it was just my subtle way of asking others to check before posting pictures. I don't know how fast it would work but maybe emailing a host and asking them to eliminate my post so it didn't affect subsequent posts for days would have been an idea. Maybe you thought of that and figured we'd be on another page before a host could get to it. Anyway, no big deal.

    I am glad you finally found the car you were looking for as I know you have been looking for quite some time and your new car does look quite nice in that color. Curious that you got a V6 though as I thought you were a confirmed 4 cyl person.
  • Thing is, once I've read through a post, it doesn't cause that issue for me again because I only click to see the new ones through my "watched" items. I didn't think to ask a host, as frankly, when it does pose problems, they tend to jump on it without being asked. Either way, I posted quickly, and didn't have the issue myself, and missed it. I normally post on Carspace so as not to have that problem. :blush: Oops.

    I've been very happy with my fours, but after spending a decent amount of time in a V6 lately, and finding that the MPGs were just 1-2 mpg off from what I was getting in a substantially less-powerful engine, I figured I'd take the plunge into a V6, especially one with a timing chain. I'm getting the same mileage in my Sonata as my '96 Accord with 130 tired but faithful horses. Hard to complain about that.

    If I had a complaint with the Sonata powertrain it'd be that the transmission is rather sluggish, but accelerating uphill in 4th is a breeze at 40 MPH, so a need to downshift really isn't even there.

    To be fair, I drove a 4-cyl Sonata Limited ('09 or '10, can't remember), and it felt much... MUCH slower than my '06 Accord. I ended the test drive after 4 miles. The test of my Sonata lasted nearly an hour and 35 miles.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    edited September 2010
    Wideness is long gone for me too.

    Another way to lose it is to click on post #15563 (the one after the picture), then that'll be at the top of the page and no wide picture.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Thanks. That a good tip cause it also happens sometimes when people put in some links that are extremely long.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    I have 3 kids, and hate minivans and SUV's, but found that the Flex is a good alternative to those, its not quite a car, and NOT a minivan or SUV.

    He didn't say it was different - just that he disliked the styling of minivans and SUVs but liked the styling of the Flex.

    Excuse me but I think if you read his statement again he quite clearly said it was different by saying it is "NOT a minivan or SUV". What would you classify it as? It's certainly not a midsized sedan or a station wagon. If you go to Ford's official site the Flex is pictured with the Edge under the tab "Crossovers". Another quote from acdii is below.

    So now our choices are, ick, dreaded minivan, SUV, or a CUV.

    So what is it cause I guess Ford doesn't have a clue?
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    he quite clearly said it was different by saying it is "NOT a minivan or SUV".

    He was referring to styling. It's certainly not a minivan without sliding doors or the short hood. It's not a SUV because it's not built for towing or going offroad. It's an urban crossover - as close to a wagon as you can get without being a wagon.

    And that's the whole point of the Flex - it gives people who just want a comfortable urban cruiser that can seat 7 an alternative to minivans and SUVs. Who cares if it's just a tall purpose built station wagon?
Sign In or Register to comment.