Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1…144145147149150…235

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Ever heard of different conditions affecting engine/launch abilites? Different grip will affect launch times significantly.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    People keep saying how the Nissan 3.5L engine is so great. But in all the tests I've seen, the little 3.0L Honda engine performs just as good. Vtec is the equalizer.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    What are you saying? C&D is bias because they fudge their test numbers on Hondas and BMWs. It's one thing to feel C&D is bias on their opinions but to believe they're being dishonest on acceleration times is carrying your argument to lunacy.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    "People keep saying how the Nissan 3.5L engine is so great. But in all the tests I've seen, the little 3.0L Honda engine performs just as good."

    And lets don't forget that Honda has a 3.5 V6 too that compares quite nicely to Nissan's 3.5 V6.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    And lets don't forget that Honda has a 3.5 V6 too that compares quite nicely to Nissan's 3.5 V6.

    Yes, unfortunately Honda drivers must move up to much more expensive Acuras to experience that engine in a sedan. For now, Honda drivers are left with a lot less (38 lb-ft?)torque than Nissan ALtima drivers (although Honda doesn't have a torque steer problem in its Accord like Nissan's Altima).

    It is a sweet engine, but it is quickly becoming one of the smallest top-engines in the class at only 3.0 liters.

    Nissan - 3.5L
    Toyota - 3.5L
    Chrysler - 3.5L
    Hyundai - 3.5L
    Saturn - 3.6L
    Chevrolet - 3.9L

    Ford/Mazda/Mercury make do with 3.0 liters like the Accord, however. The Honda offers the most horsepower of the 3.0L V-6 choices out there.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    This will most likely change next year with the new Accord. Even if it only gets the 3.2 V6 it will likely be more than competitive with the other V6 engines you mentioned in driveability. And there is such a thing as having too much torque in a FWD Platform. Useable torque is more important.

    Take the Audi A3 with the 2.0t and 3.2 V6. The V6 has way more power and torque but performs only marginally better. Unless AWD is a priority it seems the extra power and torque is hardly worth the extra cost of the A3 V6.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I definitely agree (which is why I brought up the torque steer issue). I think the Accord with the TL's 258 hp 3.2L should be quite sufficient to compete with this current class of cars. Frankly, I still think 200 horsepower seems like a lot (coming from a 4-cylinder Accord owner... one with 130 hp, the other with 166 hp). Anything extra is just icing.
  • ambientflierambientflier Member Posts: 10
    The 298hp Infiniti COUPE IS faster than the accord. It does it in 5.5 seconds. The G35 SEDAN has 260, and that's what got the 5.9 second time in car and driver. Since the G35 Sedan weighs more than the accord, yet has 20 more hp, the identical times make perfect sense.

    How can you even argue about a tenth of a second, anyway? Every single vehicle is different, and the test conditions are highly different as well. So the sedan is faster on that particular day. Oh well.

    And yes, the 335i IS more powerful than an M3, because it is highly underrated from the factory. It makes around 350hp, 20 more than the M3, and 350lb-ft, 90(!) more than the M3. All that extra torque cancels out the extra weight. Makes sense for it to be fast, doesn't it?
  • ambientflierambientflier Member Posts: 10
    It performs just as good IF you drive it to the limit the whole time. If you don't redline it at 7 grand, it won't pull as hard as the Nissan engine will. That's just low-end torque. And don't forget, Nissan has "vtec" too. It's called cvtc. They just don't need to plaster 17 stickers all over every car that has it.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    there's no contradiction.. reading comp might be improved tho..

    The TCH does have V6 power ( ~ 190 hp )

    I chose however not to get it and got the Prius instead, because

    The ~190 hp V6 is excessive for my needs.

    There is no contradiction at all.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    They just don't need to plaster 17 stickers all over every car that has it.

    Um, what car does Honda have now that says VTEC other than on the engine cover, where, if I'm not mistaken, Nissan has CVTC, Toyota has VVT-i, Chevrolet has "Vortec," Dodge has Hemi, etc...?

    Nowhere on my Accord does the moniker "i-VTEC" show up except hidden under the hood.

    I agree, Honda's 3.0 liter engine has less torque than the Nissan's 3.5... it SHOULD have less, it is down by 1/2 a liter in engine size. The Honda on the other hand has less of a history of torque steer than does the Altima.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Low-end torque is great if you drag race people from stoplight to stoplight. Don't know about you, but I don't drag race with my family car. Where I do want the most power, is when passing, and merging into high speed traffic. This is where the 3.0 liter Accord engine shines, and will pass the Altima and it's mighty 3.5 liter engine.
  • jrock65jrock65 Member Posts: 1,371
    "This is where the 3.0 liter Accord engine shines, and will pass the Altima and it's mighty 3.5 liter engine."

    Yeah, right...
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Yeah, right...

    Yes, right. In 1/4 mile testing of the two cars (edmunds own tests) the Altima pulled stronger off the line (more low-end torque), but by the end of the 1/4 mile the Accord catches up, to make it a dead heat. From 45mph and up, the Accord is faster. Believe it, or not.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    The new M3 will have a 400hp V8
  • jrock65jrock65 Member Posts: 1,371
    First, the Edmunds comparison test was done in 2003, when the Altima V6 had a 4 speed auto. The 2006 has a 5 speed auto.

    Also, nowhere in the article does it say that the Accord is faster from 45 mph and up.

    All you can tell from that article is:

    Altima V6 4 speed auto: 60 to 90.8 mph in 8.3s
    Accord V6 5 speed auto: 60 to 90.6 mph in 8.2s

    If it were a 2006 V6 Altima 5 speed auto versus a 2006 V6 Accord 5 speed auto, my money would be on the Altima, at any passing stage.

    In any case, that's all old news. The 270 hp 2007 Altima and the 268 hp 2007 Carmy are clearly ahead of all the others in this power pissing match.
  • to626nto626n Member Posts: 14
    No. The G35 I referred to was a 2005 MT they used in a comparison test. As of 2005 both sedan and coupe versions of the G35 had 298 hp. The C&D road test of the Accord was performed in 2003, before the new SAE ratings. Therefore it mau have had much less than Honda's claimed 240 hp. Even so, look at power to weight ratio on both the G35 and Accord. There is no way the Honda is just as fast as the G35.
  • to626nto626n Member Posts: 14
    It's not just skewing the numbers. Car & Driver dislikes Toyota very much.

    They recently had an article titled "10 Best and Worst Automotive Makeovers" or something like that I forget.

    Anyways two of the cars that stuck out to me the most was the Toyota Camry and Pontiac G6.

    The G6 is not a stellar car, but C&D couldn't stop praising it for being that much better than the Grand Am it replaced.

    This is what they had to say about the Camry:

    "... grafted on a ponderous schnoz and a cellulite-puckered rump, the latter crime more grave. The result looks like an aging starlet who’s had work done, only to be exposed and damned by the invention of HDTV."

    If that doesn't convince you, just read some of their recent road tests of any Toyota/Lexus product.
  • to626nto626n Member Posts: 14
    Yes perhaps, however it's odd that these "different launch conditions affecting engine launch abilities" usually favor Hondas and BMWs.

    In the real world, we all know that a Porsche Carrera is quicker than a 335i.
  • to626nto626n Member Posts: 14
    Come on, this is just as fast as a 298 hp G35 MT? Sounds a little fishy.

    Would love to see these two cars drag, my money is on the G35.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually, that's the best description of the new Camry's styling that I've read yet! :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Frankly, I've never seen a test which put the 298 hp G35 below 5.6 seconds to 60 MPH. One test I recall showed the G35 in the low 5s.

    My money would be on the G35 too!
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Some magazines test with more of a NotMyCar attitude than others. Also, some of them get press cars that have been "tested" previously.
    Side-stepping the clutch at 4000 rpm and speed shifting may produce faster 0-60 runs, but its not something I am going to do after I shelled out 20gs to get to work and back for the next x-number of years.
    Also, the "engine broken in fast is fast" rule is partially true with the exception of needing rebuilds prematurely. That said, if someone hammers on the car for a few thousand miles and then gives it to the press, it can be used up, or just really fast.
    Lastly, if you think there aren't a ringer or two in the press pool...then I don't even know what to tell you.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    I don't think all of these speedy cars fit in this category. If you want to compare 0-60 or 0-90 speeds in cars that aren't midsize sedans..you should find another spot to do it. :mad: Where is our moderator on all of this nonsense? You seem to be able to eliminate many other "off topic" items, why not these too?
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I don't see how debating the performance of midsized vehicles in this class is off topic.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Must be my mistake, I was thinking that the midsize sedans would be those that would fit the description of "family sedans" not hi-performance vehicles.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Some magazines test with more of a NotMyCar attitude than others.

    Exactly, that's why I tend to pull my numbers from the same magazine to be fair when having discussions like this (I realize I'm not a main "debater" on this particular topic, but I wanted to add that). The same magazine that got 5.9 sec for the Accord 6MT I believe got 5.3 sec for the Infiniti in a comparison test (I'll have to look that one up another time - I'm headed for campus now).

    They launch in a way that most people never would, but if we're gonna talk about apples, we might as well compare to other apples.

    See y'all later!
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    What exactly is the definition of midsize sedan for this forum? Would it include..Jaguar, or Ferrari, or even Cadillac also? Just what is the deciding factor? I would never think of a Porsche as fitting here. Maybe we should more closely limit it to midsize family/work sedans. Or maybe it is just me, if so, sorry 'bout that.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    thegraduate is right on the 5.3s for G35. I think the mag that got that number is caranddriver. For some reasons C&D always has the lowest 0-60 numbers. How they get it is totally beyound me.

    C&D 0-60 times:

    Accord 6MT: 5.9s
    2007 Camry V6: 6.1s (not sure, need to check on this)
    2007 G35: 5.3s
    2006 IS350: 5.1s
    2007 335i coupe: 4.9s
    2007 335i sedan: 4.8s :surprise:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Well they are both in many cases. I just find it humorous to read the silly nonsense like..."my engine has a higher HP number than yours", "my car gets to 60 mph 0.5 sec faster than yours, when driven abusively by a professional driver in the automotive press", and "oh yeah, well, my car goes from 45 to 60 mph 0.2 sec faster than yours, when those guys drive it". :D
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Thank you. Agree with "silly nonsense". If we are going to compare numbers, let's at least keep it within the confines of the "midsize family sedans", whatever that is. By the way, I think my car might actually be about 0.1 sec faster than yours in the 45-60mph. I run mostly downhill. :);)
  • tamu2002tamu2002 Member Posts: 758
    C&D has a time called street start 5-60 mph, which is probably more like the way you and I drive. The usual 0-60 test numbers don't mean zilch to me, 'cause I aint never gonna drive my OWN car like that.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    So you want something slow and heavy to cart your family around? Something with weak brakes so you can't stop in the shortest possible distance?
    What is important in a family sedan? How well the seats are scotch guarded? That is riveting conversation :D
    A car is a car, it will always be measured by performance, how ever someone defines that. If its 0-60, fine, if its interior volume, fine, if its MPG, fine, if its crash test results, fine, even if its, bahahahahah Consumer Reports, fine, but I don't think because one person's measure doesn't match person's index or measure that it makes it invalid.
    How do you measure if a car is good or not?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If this subject (acceleration capabilites) is bad and should be forever banned, fine by me. But at least come up with something else to discuss instead of just continuing to say you don't like the current discussion. Be proactive and introduce a new idea if you hate this one so much.

    I'm not trying to be rude, but things aren't going to change unless someone actually poses a new idea to talk about. If this discussion wasn't taking place, the board would be silent, because frankly, I don't see any other conversations floating around here.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    "So you want something slow and heavy to cart your family around? Something with weak brakes so you can't stop in the shortest possible distance?"

    I don't know where you get that idea. I just think that the specs on "midsize sedans" should apply to them. Certainly they apply, including the mpg etc. Just need to more closely limit them. Cars that aren't included shouldn't be compared here. That's all.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Cars that aren't included shouldn't be compared here.

    I agree. Someone was trying to emphasize that a magazine flat-out lies :confuse: about cars they like to make them look better, earlier, and was using other makes as an example.
    That's how it all started.
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Gottcha, understand all that.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The usual 0-60 test numbers don't mean zilch to me, 'cause I aint never gonna drive my OWN car like that.

    That 5-60 probably makes sense for comparing manual transmissions.

    The only acceleration tests I typically pay much attention to is CR's. They do their acceleration test by just stomping on the gas pedal...that is what I am going to do when I do want to accelerate as fast as possible. CR also usually tests automatics and since I am intending to go to an automatic this time, they seem to be the best source for comparisons.
  • lweisslweiss Member Posts: 342
    For me, all of this talk of V6 mid-size sedans going 0-60 in less than 7 seconds seems ludicrous. For many of us (maybe "most" of us") our vast majority of driving is city/suburban/light freeway with one person in the vehicle- for which a 4 cylinder of 150+ HP is more than adequate. My Volvo S-70 with a normally aspirated 5 cylinder is 0-60 is 9.4 seconds that is fine. 60% of people buying mid-size cars are opting for the 4 cylinder versions. And when (not if, but when) gasoline goes back up to $3.50/gallon, it will even make more sense.
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    Sounds like a bit of envy to me.

    A new V6 Accord with 235hp getting 30 mpg highway leaving you in the dust can do that.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I agree with you, on the basis that these cars have a purpose that is almost the anti-thesis of hot-rod acceleration. That purpose, IMO, is to provide a roomy, safe, comfortable car at a price that won't break a bank account.

    Of course, it doesn't hurt if the cars come with nuances that make purchasing them more pleasing (things that set one car apart from another) such as extra power, unique interior features, or an abnormally low price.

    Let's face it, if we deisgn a car to be "acceptable" but not exceptional, we get a Taurus. :) Nothing wrong with a Taurus, but it's not something that most people desire to drive, is it?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    A new V6 Accord has 244 hp and gets 29 EPA MPG highway. I'm not sure he's envious; he sounded quite down-to-earth in his post. Cut him a little slack.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "A new V6 Accord with 235hp getting 30 mpg highway leaving you in the dust can do that."

    That would be great if the Honda Accord V6 automatic actually achieved 30MPG. Better get out on the net and visit a few more car chat rooms before making that claim ;)
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    "Nothing wrong with a Taurus, but it's not something that most people desire to drive, is it? "

    Nope there is nothing wrong with the Taurus. It is actually a very reliable and can cost thousands less than a ccomparably equipped Accord/Camry. Image is what hurts the Taurus along with the media. All in all the Taurus is a very practicle, low cost family hauler. I personally know 7 people with different years of Taurus and they have no complaints.. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I think you kind of missed my point. A Fusion is something people would "desire" to drive because it is stylish, handles really well, and comes at an affordable price.

    The only thing desirable about cars such as a Taurus is its (now) ultra-low price.

    A lot of people want something that is more exciting or desirable than their Maytag dryer. The dryer may be incredibly reliable, but it lacks the "it" factor that entices people to certain cars.

    For example,
    For me, the interior of the Accord was the best I could get within my budget. It made the car "desirable" to me, even though I knew it was reliable, and probably a safe bet to begin with.

    For my friend, the "Acura" badge was all he was concerned with, so he bought a used one for the same price he could've bought many other new cars that were 95% as nice.

    There are certain people though that all they want is reliable basic transportation, and for them, a basic Taurus is perfect.

    I refuse to respond to that "media" line any more.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Are for the media only. Soon Ford will reveal a 268HP 3.5 for the Fusion/Milan. I even have to ask why? The only reason why is for the media and for Fords image. Along with those not really understanding what a tenth of a second or a half of a second 0-60 time really means. I commute to work 22miles each way. No-way am I ever going to use the 0-60 time, I'm stuck behind traffic! :surprise: The fastest I can go is about 65. Any faster I'm going to rearend the car in front of me.
    I look for value, driving feel, fit/finish, quality and content for my $$. I want more safety, stability control, back up sensors/alarms, Blue tooth, ect to be standard across the board in all family sedans. I sure hope the CEO's of all car companies are reading this... :shades:
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Looking at the reviewes uptop here..

    I just noticed the Camry rates and 8.8??!! with 171 reviews.. OUCH! These are actual owners also. Not the media...Doesn't look good for the Camry... :surprise:
  • lweisslweiss Member Posts: 342
    Highway mileage is meaningless to me- didn't I say that 98% of my driving was city/suburban- lot of good these 250 horsepower cars are when I am sitting on the Washington Beltway going 15-25 miles per hour. So the city mpg is much more relevant to me and most V6 mid size cars get about 20mpg, but 24 mpg with the 4 cylinder version, a 20% difference. And (and this just could be me), it's not just the $$$ savings, I would rather keep my money in my bank account than send it off to the Arab sheiks or Venezuelan idiots that are selling us crude oil to feed our "need" for acceleration. And by the way, even if I did highway driving, the 4 cylinder mid size cars happily car cruise at 75+ mph and get about 35 mph.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    For me, all of this talk of V6 mid-size sedans going 0-60 in less than 7 seconds seems ludicrous.

    I agree with you. The 4 (or 5) cylinder mid-size cars with 150 HP or so are fine with me too. My wife's 5 cyl Jetta has about the same acceleration time as your S70, it is plenty fast enough. Even when we were on a trip with 3 people and luggage, it never felt under powered. The old minivan, that I am driving until I get something new has similar acceleration stats and this has always been more than enough.

    Most of the time there is someone in front of me accelerating more slowly than I would like, anyway. Having a more powerful car would just be more frustrating.

    I'd like to drive a nice sports car really fast and hard once in a while (like I got to do at zoom zoom live saturday :D ) but for my normal driving it just would not be that exiciting to actually own one...and the same goes for having an over-powered mid size sedan.
  • comp386comp386 Member Posts: 56
    At this point Toyota won't suffer anything bad unless they totally screw up. It took the domestics years of producing junkers before they lost their market share. If the domestics want to take back the market they have to much better and not just equal to the imports. The Fusion is a good start. If I were in the market for a midsize today, I'd probably get one. But I don't think Toyota will be running into the hills with an 8.8 from Edmunds user reviews.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles