Howdy, Stranger!

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





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18818828848868871028

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,446
    edited April 2013
    Since it was the first long trip (390 miles) and I had a couple of passengers, I decided not to push the distance, so I filled up at 386 miles. Took 13.2 gallons for an average of 29.2. Didn't start trip with a full tank as I had 90 normal commuting miles on it.
    Last hundred miles after that are at 31.6, so I think beating the EPA highway of 33 MPG, should not be a problem.
    Due to the condition of a lot of the highways, I think I'd drop the tire pressure a bit next time at same temps.
    I did notice what I think is something I don't like.
    With the cruise on, going down a hill it will sometimes shift down a gear. One time it downshifted 2 gears. I guess it's something to do with the 'grade logic'. Turn off the cruise and it returns to more normal coasting.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    It does that to maintain the set cruise speed. It's more accurate than letting it coast and exceed the set speed.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,046
    edited April 2013
    I owned an 87 Toronado Trofeo. It had come in to my buddies shop and had the timing chain replaced, but the owner couldn't afford the repair and signed the car over for the bill. I picked it up for $1000, in 2002. It was a really cool car, and it had mega-buttons....but every single one worked. I flipped it for $2500 in less than a week to a collector. It had fog lights, digi-dash, dual exhaust, and Buicks' 3.8 liter V6. The new owner threw a rod in less than 6 months.
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Waleska, GeorgiaPosts: 790
    The ’86- Riviera, ’88-’91 Reatta and (if fairly certain) some Toronado (maybe only Trofeo) had the CRT touch screen for control HVAC, audio and trip computer functions. They were mandatory on the Buick models...and this was at a time when they touch-screen ATMs were so bad that it was easier to just skip spending any money and stay home!

    My mom was a loyal Olds Cutlass owner and had three between 1974 and 1994. The last one was an ’86 Cutlass Supreme and it had electrical/electronic problems starting within the first year and never fully resolved. I think they actually snickered under their breath when she took it in to have it fixed under warranty! My aunt, who mistakenly thought she was better than the rest of my family, got a new Caddy Coupe Deville in 1982 with a digital dash, automatic climate control, automatic headlights with auto low-high beam and (:shudder:) the 5.7L Diesel V8 (better known as the engine that turned Americans against diesels for decades). The dealer kept it for months at a time because they had so many others in line ahead of it! They finally traded it for an identical-looking model with the new HT4100 V8...another boat anchor of an engine that ate more head gaskets and used more oil than gas.

    And my best friend’s mom was asking for trouble when she bought a 1985 Cutlass Ciera with the digital dash, high-end radio and the 4.3L DIESEL V6. I won’t even elaborate on that one...

    Needless to say, the idea of new or cutting-edge technology being used in GM vehicles was like Russian Roulette (with it fully loaded). But by some miracle, the touch screens were very reliable and lasted longer than anyone expected! They were so dreadful to use that many owners avoided touching them unless absolutely necessary (A comfy 75 degrees year round and that lovely station that plays Anne Murray and John Denver will be fine for the entire time I own the car). Maybe that’s why they lasted so long, they weren’t used? But still impressive, considering how many amazingly bad screw-ups that GM made back in those days.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Admit it. For those of us of a certain age, cars were just bad until about the last 20 years.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I could listen to John Denver on a 75 degree day... Just not in an 80s GM vehicle please.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,046
    edited April 2013
    What is a "Tragic Wagon"

    Is it the lovely 1983 Reliant K "shooting brake" ? LMAO
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,046
    edited April 2013
    Thanks for posting this new comparo.

    I was shocked at the prices first of all. No way am I going to pay $30k for a base 4 cylinder car. For that kind of money; you can get an Accord V6, Optima Turbo, Altima 3.5 s (V6), etc. I can't see spending more than 27k for the base engine models.
    One thing I was glad to see were 0-60 times that show the Accord is no faster or slower (relatively) than any other mid-size size with the base/automatic powertrain.
    I like the Mazda best from the side view, the Accord the best from the front, and the Altima best from the rear. I would call this theoretical car the "Alticord 6". Did anyone notice the Monte-Carlo line on the 6 as well?

    Also, I know I am going to take a hit for this, especially because Mazda had the guts to try something other than tan or grey for it's interior. However...can you say "Moooo?!"

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gnazone.com/wp-content/uploads/20- 13/01/2014-Mazda-6-Interior-White-Black-1024x640.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gnazon- e.com/2014-mazda-mazda-6-preview/2014-mazda-6-interior-white-black/&h=640&w=1024- &sz=90&tbnid=O14ktWnXVNwj4M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=141&zoom=1&usg=__vOKIYGFITGQ8l_WySvW4l- oyHAVY=&docid=dWoC01XtEGAzNM&sa=X&ei=w8B_UcGrPOPS2QXRFg&ved=0CEgQ9QEwAA
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    With today's 4-cylinder engines, a lot of people find a V6 pointless. 7-second 0-60 times are plenty quick for a daily grind. Trust me, I made an urban+interstate commute on 70+ MPH interstates every day in a car that ran a 0-60 closer to 10 seconds. I lived to tell about it after 9 years and 235k miles.

    Today's driver wants more features per dollar, not just cubic inches under the hood. Frankly, I'm glad we have the options, and don't just limit high-end features to cars with the high-end engines.

    I say this as the owner of a V6 midsized sedan (249hp vs. it's 175hp 4-cyl) so I'm not biased against having the bigger engine.
  • suydamsuydam Posts: 881
    Strangely this comparo is at odds with other reviews of the same vehicles, where they couldn't praise the Accord high enough and found the Altima rather mushy. See http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-ford-fusion-se-ecoboost-vs-2013-hon- da-accord-ex-2013-nissan-altima-25-sv-2012-volkswagen-passat-25-se-comparison-te- st
  • tundradweller1tundradweller1 Posts: 74
    edited April 2013
    Agreed, with the advent of direct injection, variable valve timing and multiple ratio drive trains the V-6 will eventually go the way of the V-8.
    I find it humorous that detractors lambaste Mazda for not providing a V-6 or turbo option yet have not driven the car or other similar four cylinder equipped cars.
    As for the comparison I test drove all 3 and put the Altima at the bottom. To each his own.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,046
    Not cubic inches necessarily, just a 2.0T instead of a base 2.4 or 2.5. My car stickered at $24,260, and negotiated $21,880 for the Optima EX. There is't a feature in the world that is going to make me pay $31,000 without a performance bump...or even a Hybrid. I just would personally feel ripped off if that 10 grand got me only a 5.8 touchscreen and a few more electric nannies.

    I am not making this a personal thing. I drove the Mazda too...and I really liked it. I just don't like it for $31,000 without a turbo or a Hybrid mill.
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Waleska, GeorgiaPosts: 790
    "Admit it. For those of us of a certain age, cars were just bad until about the last 20 years."

    I grew up with my parents and grandparents all driving domestic cars and trucks typical of the era. I was born in 1975, so typical translates into mediocre at best....and at worst, bursting into flames, engines and electronics rushed to market without bothering with any testing..."we'll just let the idiots who buy it do the testing and help us work out the bugs".

    But my cousin went to work for a Honda dealer as an apprentice mecchanic in 1982 and by 1984 was the best mechanic they had. I went to work with him any time school was out or when he worked on Saturdays. The more I learned about Hondas, the more confused I became about cars in general.

    How could Honda build a 4-cylinder Accord that was quicker than a GM sedan with a V8? How could Honda and GM make cars with the same amount of interior room, but the GM car weighed 1000 mores? Why did GM put the cruise control buttons on a stupid stalk where you couldn't see them and they were hard to operate, yet Honda made them into two buttons on the steering wheel you could press with your thumb? Why didn't American cars have a place to put coins? How come 4-year old Hondas still feel tight as a drum and domestic cars squeak and rattle long before that?

    Finally, I realized that domestic cars absolutely sucked! But I didn't really know why they sucked and how it went on for so long during college when I spent some time studying the auto industry. I learned all about corporate politics and, even more fun, corporate corruption. Complacency and arrogance also played major roles in the drama. Many of the people that held executive level position at the Big Three in the 70s and 80s would be in prison if they acted the same way in the present day! A prime example, could you imagine what would happen if a car was exploding upon rear impact and the company knew about the flaw? And they did an analysis that determined it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits of the people that died in the fires than to recall and fix the cars??? It happened at Ford with the Pinto....

    I'm fairly certain that you had to be a sociopath or psychopath to be a Big Three Exec back in those days! Anyone with a conscience could never do the job!
  • Yeah, I got the Sport with AT and find it more than acquit and for far less outlay. We also have a Sonata SE 2.0T. Really like the twin scroll turbine with very little lag. Still find it hunts and pecks around 35 mph. Not sure if it's the trans. or the motor. Also have had some issues with it. Really just needed something big enough to be comfortable, engaging to drive (tough in this segment), easy on the eyes and great mileage. So far so good.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,046
    Yeah, I like the Accord Sport with the 18" rims. Almost like a 4 door Prelude! I like my Hyundai/Kia product too, but I was scared of the long term turbo reliability. The 2.4 in mine is more than adequate for me as well. I do wish I had 18" rims for the look, but with 3 kids in grade/middle school my 17" will have to do!!
  • serenity185serenity185 Posts: 22
    Yeah, the results of Edmund's comparison test of the Accord, Altima, and 6 surprised me as well. The Altima hasn't fared very well in most other comparison tests, so I expected it to be a distant third here.

    It's not without its virtues, though. In contrast to a lot of recently redesigned cars, the Altima seems to be veering more toward comfort than handling. The outdated 4 cylinder and CVT issues I've read with the 2013s is enough to keep me away from one, though.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    "Outdated" as it is, it's still quick and got the best fuel economy of the bunch in the test. 182hp and 27/38 isn't bad at all. I like that they've made strides in making the Altima lighter than its competitors. Save weight, and a whole host of problems can be alleviated.
  • suydamsuydam Posts: 881
    I don't think it's outdated. I just found the Accord engine to be much quieter. The Altima is a great car and we had a hard time choosing between it and the Accord. Oddly, though the Altima is lighter, it felt like the bigger, less agile car when we drove it. Both of them light years better than the Camry hybrid though, which truly felt like a boat in comparison. I was really disappointed in the Camry; because of the fuel economy I wanted to like it.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    I agree. Furthermore, DI has more expensive components to service and repair. I remember back when individual fuel injectors were starting to replace throttle body fuel injection. It took years and years before the IFI surpassed the fuel economy of TBI. Personally, I'm not all that enamored with DI as long as we are forced to make it burn 10% ethanol. Plus, it may offer impressive hp and torque but if you tap too heavily into that, it throws any fuel economy potential out the window. I see this theme all the time and most recently by cski right here on this board.

    I am a bit amazed that Nissan has managed to make their 2.5 as strong a performer as it is and get the better FE. Certainly less car weight helps, but it takes more than 150 lbs or whatever the difference is.

    One drawback to reduced weight though...depending on how they managed it, is crash protection measures. Some of Accord's extra weight could be attributed to that very thing, since apparently it has performed well in that regard.

    I still can't quite comprehend how the Altima does as well as it does if the transmission is so quick to allow the engine to spool to 5000 rpm on such a regular basis. That seems to be the most common theme when reading about it no matter the source. I can't help but think that if someone's usual style is not being light-footed, and if they liked all three cars relatively equally, they'd be best to go with the Mazda and its conventional 6 speed auto in order to extract the best FE potential.
Sign In or Register to comment.