Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    According to Edmunds the Accord EX-L w/auto has the same published MPG of 23/34. They could be wrong though as I didn't check the Honda site.

    Any info on the gearing set up for MPG on the Regal like you mentioned would be appreciated though.
  • brainfertilizebrainfertilize Posts: 46
    edited October 2010
    That's a possibility.

    But I purchased the Mazda6 because I'm passionate about it. Not the reverse.

    I tried out other cars. I have a fairly broad-based experience of car ownership, too.

    It is more likely that the Mazda6 just matches my driving style precisely in ways that other cars don't.

    But there still seems to be a marked difference between what professional car reviewers (like C&D and R&T) give for grades, and what extremely experienced/respected amateur car reviewers (like TTAC) give for grades, and I'd like to understand why.

    The reason I care about this subject so much is that if I'd listened to the reviewers and not even bothered to try the Mazda6, I'd probably be suffering buyer's remorse for a Mazda3's small size or an Altima's rough ride and CVT strangeness, or a Civic's road noise and lack of driving fun.

    It really is difficult to test drive a dozen cars, what with all the hard sales they push on you as soon as you step on a lot. So I'd like to be able to understand how to interpret reviewers more to be able to translate/match up with my preferences more, so that I can just test drive 3 before I purchase my next vehicle. (yeah, I always plan ahead 3-5 years)
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    I think you just have to limit it by how it appeals to you(looks) and compare the hard specs carefully til you boil it down to 5-6 cars. Then test drive each one.

    I use the articles to see if several writers say something bad and then I add that to my "be sure to check during test drive" list. I never eliminate a car that fits my needs spec wise and that I like the looks of because of auto writers. Most of them just paraphrase what other writers have written to a large degree.

    Case in point. The 03-08 Mazda6 was slammed by just about every auto writer in the business for it's turning radius. Oh, it so hard to park in parking lots. Well, I don't have a problem with it. Then the new Malibu came out with a larger turn radius and do you think any auto writer even mentioned it? None that I read. Kind of curious. That kind of thing happens often.

    There are also mistakes made. For example, I'm looking at Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX. On the Edmunds "comparator" it says the Edge does not have external temperature readout. Well, I sat in one the other day and it has the digital external temperature readout in three different places. From none to overkill. But if I really wanted that external temp readout(and I do by the way) I would eliminate that vehicle from my consideration possibly. I'm not that anal but combine that with a couple other things and I just might. Anyway, mistakes like that happen all the time so you have to be careful.

    Bottom line: Take anything in print with a grain of salt.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    edited October 2010
    So this is kinda weird... the other day, I went to the EPA site to see which smaller cars are classed as "mid-sized" by the EPA--this was for another post I was researching. To my surprise, I didn't see the Forte or the Cruze on their list of "mid-sized" cars... but I did see the Elantra, Sentra, and Versa. I thought, as you do, that the Forte has mid-sized interior volume. I also thought the Cruze is mid-sized inside--at least, Chevy claims that to be true. So maybe the Forte and Cruze are just under the limit for the EPA's "mid-sized" class.
  • Case in point. The 03-08 Mazda6 was slammed by just about every auto writer in the business for it's turning radius. Oh, it so hard to park in parking lots. Well, I don't have a problem with it. Then the new Malibu came out with a larger turn radius and do you think any auto writer even mentioned it? None that I read. Kind of curious. That kind of thing happens often.

    Yeah, that is exactly what I was trying to describe. It frustrates me, because it seems like they are looking for excuses to ding certain vehicles for things they give other vehicles a pass for.

    And "turning radius" is one of those things, like "0-60 time", where the actual number matters far less than the driver's subjective opinion.

    Eh, I'd just like a little more transparency in that process.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    Well, to be fair turning radius is a hard number that is not an opinion and so is 0-60 time for the most part. Those you can pretty much compare.

    But it's the "I don't like" things that are harder to pin down. Like how hard a seat is TO THEM. Or the handling is crisp or the ride is jittery or too soft. Those kind of thems are really in the eye of the beholder to a large degree and have to be experienced for yourself.
  • True.

    I guess I tend to think of interior volume and trunk volume as even harder numbers than 0-60 time or turn radius.

    Because an object near the limit of size can or cannot fit into the trunk. There's no wriggle room.

    A person's legs can or cannot fit comfortably into 30.2 inches versus 36.3 inches. It is pretty definitive.

    But I have never once clocked my car from 0-60. I just know whether I feel like I have enough acceleration to merge successfully or not.

    I have never measured turn radius in any car I've test-driven, or owned. I just know whether it needs lots of room to turn around or not.

    And I've never measured a car's turn radius when I was test-driving to find out, Hey! That rating was wrong! or Hey, it was dead-on!

    But I can feel for myself that the Mazda6 has steering that is taut and responsive, but that the car glides over bumps better than the average car. (my wife commented on that, too, when following me home...bumps that made other cars bounce didn't joggle the 6 at all).

    I guess part of the problem is that family sedans are such a tight market, with so little variation between cars sometimes, that the writers have no choice but to use a .3 second diffference in 0-60 times to pick or pan a car.

    And part of it may be that they are using the typical human method of making up their mind of "like" or "dislike" and then finding evidence to support that judgment after the fact.

    But it is frustrating to run up against that limitation.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,168
    good example for you. Just got the latest issue of car and Driver in the mail. They have a quick test of the Sonota turbo. Like it a lot overall (but no manual!). One of their "cons"? it is a "tad" slow 0-60. It does the job in 6.2 seconds. I have no idea what they expect out of a mid-20sK family sedan, but it is amazing that they list it as a negative!

    I also disagree about published volumes (interior and trunk) as being true hard numbers you can compare (even legroom). It really depends on how the space is configured.

    A car with very high, upright seats and well designed front seats needs less legroom to be comfy than one that is low slung and has no toe room. And a square trunk with a big opening is more usable than a shallow, deep, irregular shaped one with a small opening, even if it is technically bigger.

    and a lot of interior volume is from headroom. And to me, once you have enough, more does not really add any true room or comfort (unlike more shoulder room say). Lots of cars lose a couple of cubes adding a moonroof, but if your head has pelnty of clearance still, it isn't (to me" any smaller of a car.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • colloquorcolloquor Posts: 482
    0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds is slow? I think Car and Driver has been spending too much time driving exotics. Not too many years ago, 6 seconds was consider very fast, even for so-called performance cars. I think the auto journalists lose all concept of reality sometimes.
  • These are very good points.

    That explains, I guess, why my 626 seemed so much larger in the back seat than the numbers would indicate, I guess.

    I should have been reading here before I purchased a car, rather than after, I guess.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    I agree 100%. My old 2004 Infiniti G35 coupe had about that time 0-60 and while not a supercar by any means, it was certainly considered sporty and performance oriented. The Sonata/Optima have the same HP and torque as that car, weigh a bit less and have much better fuel economy.
  • As a guy that has been researching which midsize to get for a very long time now I can say that "enthusiast" car magazine reviews are so wildly inconsistent that they are pretty much only good for entertainment value. Not to mention some of them smell a little bit tainted by $$$ (just my opinion). They sure do love to compare 0-60 times as if it is a critical issue, yet it is something that varies significantly by driver, environmental conditions, etc. Annoying.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,737
    I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.

    Have you ever noticed that, almost without fail, in car magazine reviews the new model of a car is always "30% stiffer chassis than the previous model"? I've not found flexing a big problem in my cars. :surprise:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Flexing, no. Squeaks and rattles are big tellers of weak chassis/platforms, though.
  • Great post! Who cares how fast off the line a car is,unless you plan to take it to the drag strip.My Optima with it's 4 cylinder engine was something like 8 or nine seconds to 60,yet I have no problem passing.(on the rare occasion I need to)My Optima,it's 4 years old,has around 50 more HP than my first car,a 50 Ford V8.How much power does one need?I'll take the slower 0-60 times and 30-35 MPG thank you very much. :)
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    It depends on where you live. In the city, 0-60 doesn't mean squat, if you need to do 60 MPH on a 30MPH road, move! If you live in the country though, 0-60 times can be important. A few years back I owned a Prius, 0-60 13 seconds sometimes more if a tire slipped. I live out in the country and daily had to take a road that intersected a highway, with traffic moving at 60MPH. I need to make a left to get into traffic, and this is where 0-60 times can be important, either find an opening you can zip into , or wait 10 minutes for a big enough opening, and hope your tires don't slip in the gravel from other drivers cutting the turn short and driving across the shoulder. I went from the Prius to a Camry, and while a little better getting into traffic, it still left a lot to be desired. I finally got a car that gets me into the traffic stream quickly, the Ford Fusion Sport. It gets good MPG, comfortable, fun to drive, and handles great. It has the 0-60 times I need, without being obnoxious, for that I have my Flex Ecoboost, obnoxiously quick.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    These days you can pull 250hp AND 30-35 MPG. :)
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,952
    Exactly. Why not have both? I use the 0-60 times as a relative measurement. Like acdii was explaining, there are plenty of situations where some oomph off the line or from 30-60 is very much appreciated. I live in the Chicago area and they are always working on the expressways. Some of the entrance ramps during construction have virtually no merge lane and having some power is not just a convenience but can be a safety factor. I'm not saying you can't drive at all without a decent 0-60 time but it gives me a sense of security knowing that I can pull out and get out of someone's way if need be.

    0-60 times are just another measurement among the many that can be considered. Personally, I look at stopping distances with a more critical eye. As long as 0-60 times are generally in line with other cars I'm considering, it matters little if one car is a few tenths of a second faster or slower to 60. However, if there is a 2 second spread +/- that wold be something that I would want to look at strongly either from having enough power or how it might affect MPG.
  • Yeah I didn't mean to sound like I don't think acceleration is an important issue. It is. I have a Fusion SPORT on order. Many people don't drive for "fun" but those rare occasions where you need that power make the sacrifice of a few MPG's totally worth it. You can consider it a safety issue. My peeve regarding car reviews would be more like... "Car A went 0-60 in 6.2 seconds when we tested it 2 years ago and Car B went 0-60 in 6.4 when we tested it just now, therefore Car A is more sporty so we like it better". So many things wrong with that kind of logic.
Sign In or Register to comment.