Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18278288308328331027

Comments

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,043
    My poor Kia. Always last in something. :cry:

    Hopefully they will be 115,000 GREAT cars.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,621
    It's not last at all. The Optima was ahead of the Fusion, the VW Passat, the Mazda 6, the Malibu, Chrysler 200, etc. Your baby is a big success who has entered the big leagues!!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO READ THE C/D REVIEW FOR YOURSELF.

    The November C/D has a comparo of their current mid-sized champ, the Passat, vs. 3 new mid-sizers. Here's the order of finish:

    4. Passat SE
    3. Altima 2.5 SV
    2. Fusion SE EcoBoost
    1. Accord EX

    Not a long reign on top for the Passat!

    As C/D said: "... the big H is back."

    I love the tag line for the Fusion: "Mr. Bond, your rental car is ready." :) One great thing about this new crop of mid-sizers is, whenever I can get upgraded to this class of car, it will be hard to go wrong (OK, maybe if it's a 200 or Avenger).
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    It's really interesting that C&D put the Passat 4th while MT put it in 1st place ahead of the Accord and Fusion.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    Which trims did MT review? Maybe they looked at the high-end cars where the Passat with its V6 would do better than the SE with the 2.5 I5.

    Also maybe MT put more importance on things like rear seat room--C/D ragged on the Fusion about that.

    Also one of C/D's knocks on the Passat was, "bland as dry toast". Uh... these are mid-sized family sedans, folks--not race cars. The Accord is pretty bland, too. And the Camry. But still fine cars for their intended audience.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much splitting hairs with that group of cars. I bet all of us on the forum could test the exact cars and most of us would have a different ranking.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Both tests were Passat SE 2.5L I believe. It just shows how subjective these comparison tests are.

    It does seem clear that the Malibu and Camry need improvement to stay competitive, although that doesn't seem to be hurting Camry sales. Yet.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    The Camry was just redesigned for 2012 and the Malibu for 2013! If they are in need of improvement to stay competitive... wow.

    As you noted, Toyota doesn't have any problem selling Camrys. And Hertz et. al. need lots of mid-sized cars, so Chevy can sell a ton of Malibus there if needed for volume.

    Hard to imagine that one of the oldest mid-sized family cars, once the new Mazda6 hits the streets, is the Sonata... a couple of years ago it was the latest and greatest. Fast times at Mid-Sized High.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    Toyota seems intent with putting minimal investment into the Camry and since they seem to be selling so well as is it's hard to argue too much with that approach.

    Of course they run the risk of losing sales down the road if they get too far behind but Camry buyers do seem to be loyal.
  • occupant1occupant1 Posts: 408
    TORQUE.

    All these cars have somewhere from 170 to 190lb-ft at varying rpms. The Fusion 1.6L EcoBoost has it WAY DOWN at 2500rpm and all the others need 3900rpm or more to hit peak. Case closed. I don't care if the interior was straight from a 1987 Tempo. I don't care if it gets good mileage or not. It has TORQUE. Being able to select the 6-speed manual is another plus but for my wife she will stick to the automatic. Another bonus, longest wheelbase, which is key to a good smooth ride. There's a reason I drive a Suburban and not a Tahoe, and it's wheelbase. There's a reason I cherish my Gran Torino over say, a Granada, and it's wheelbase.

    I am really really glad we didn't order a new 2012 a year ago. The 2013 model is twice the car the 2010-2012 Fusion was and in my opinion surpasses any Camry/Accord/Altima. Stepdaughter has a 2010 Malibu and she loves it but my wife wasn't impressed and the 2013 seems to be smaller and less efficient so we'll pass. I'm not even discussing the 200/Avenger. The Passat would be my pick but only as a TDI and honestly I can get a Fusion Hybrid that can do better for the same money. Sonata/Optima are styled too wild. That leaves the Mazda and while I haven't driven one, I can't say anything about it excites me or shows me something all the others haven't been doing for years.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    If it's low-end torque you want, the obvious choice is the Passat SE TDI... 236 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm. And you can get it with a stick. And for $1000 less list than the lowest priced Fusion Hybrid... which of course doesn't have a stick.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,043
    Congrats to the new Accord. :)

    That's funny... speaking of Bond, I am watching 'From Russia With Love" right now.

    Also, when I saw "spoiler alert" I thought there was a recall on spoilers....like the aftermarket unit on my Optima. Duhhh. (It is a copy of the stock spoiler). See, it takes a hard-core car guy to think of that first!

    While I am talking about spoiler's, you can get aftermarket clones from "The Wing King", outside Detroit. I paid $109 for mine, already painted to match.
  • I just read this article and read the Motor Trend comparison where they picked the Passat. Although I am interested in the new Fusion, having to use premiun fuel is a non-seller. From want I've read, I'm looking forward to the new Mazda 6 and it's Skyactiv system. I hope it is at the Detroit show in January.
    :shades:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    You don't have to use premium in the Fusion - 87 works just fine.

    If you want torque and don't care about fuel economy or a stick then the 2.0LEB has 270 lb/ft of torque - same or more than most 3.5L V6s.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,043
    edited October 2012
    Well, Mazda continues to use Zoom-Zoom as their identity, and some of their cars do just that.

    Mazda has been advertising the CX-5 like crazy, so being a car guy, (and the son-in-law of a Mazda employee), I checked it out.

    155 HP? 9.5 seconds to 60??? 150 lb-ft? 3600 lb's? Another 45 Hp and 45 lb-ft please.

    That just doesn't cut it. How is that Zoom-Zoom? It's a shame to have such a great handling, quality vehicle and then handicap it with a power deficit. Kind of like forcing a marathon runner breath through his nose. :confuse:
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    edited October 2012
    "All these cars have somewhere from 170 to 190lb-ft at varying rpms. The Fusion 1.6L EcoBoost has it WAY DOWN at 2500rpm and all the others need 3900rpm or more to hit peak. Case closed."

    Actually, without being able to see the actual dyno graph showing torque and at what rpms, it is a bit premature to declare case closed. The reason I say this is how the specs are advertised. The opportune (but potentially allusive) word used is 'peak' torque. What these advertised specs don't tell you is that, while a 190 lb-ft peak may reveal itself at..say..3900 rpm, there may a relatively flat and very useable scale of 185lb-ft through the rev range of 2000 rpm and up to 3850 rpm. I am using these figures to make an example. It is a bit exaggerated to make my point. But with todays such advanced electronics/mechanical electronics in engine/tran management, very real world numbers and the scale of flat available torque still is not that far off the example above.

    Long, flat and high torque curves in a lower than average rev range are most easily acquired by either using a turbo or blower (supercharger). Of course the (finally...it's about time) recognition that turboing is not only the most economical and clean way to extract the most HP, torque, urge and fuel economy out of an engine, being finally upon us in day-to-day-use cars (and trucks soon too I suspect), is a welcome advancement in modern vehicles hitting the market in greater numbers.

    "I don't care if the interior was straight from a 1987 Tempo. "
    Seriously? Now that is a bit too forgiving, IMO. :shades:

    "That leaves the Mazda and while I haven't driven one, I can't say anything about it excites me or shows me something all the others haven't been doing for years."

    I have never understood how someone can make such a statement without an actual test drive. If you don't like the styling, then say so, as that is valid without a drive.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,896
    Just read a drive test of the new Mazda6 and they said it goes on sale in Europe later this year and will be selling in U.S. in January. Don't know if that is the official word from Mazda or just the reviewer's estimate. Pictures look great and the article went gaga over the handling. Link below.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/05/2014-mazda6-first-drive-review/
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,043
    edited October 2012
    I agree. The drivetrain of any vehicle needs to keep the power flowing at usable speeds and RPM, depending on the car's mission. (coupe, truck, sedan, yada yada).

    Also, I think the 1.6 Eco-Boost should be in the Mazda 3. That would be awesome.

    There is actually a red Ford Tempo parked out on the main road where I go jogging.

    Do you guys remember the ad's for "High Swirl Combustion Chamber" on the Tempo/Topaz? They were decent cars back then.

    I chose the 1987 Chevy Z24, red with the 5 speed. (just kept a 100 Amp alternator in the trunk) Loved the Digi-dash.

    Still my favorite car ever. My first automotive love, and the first car I ever got financing on my own. Oh to be 19 again. :blush:

    Oops.....rambling there a bit.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    My dad bought an '85 tempo new. It wasn't a bad car for the times I guess. It made it to about 90k miles then it started to fall apart. It was basically dead by '92 and 110k.

    Yeah, I remember the ads for the HSC 2.3. Nothing like a buzy push rod 4 banger.
Sign In or Register to comment.