Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the real world, we all know that a Porsche Carrera is quicker than a 335i.
Would love to see these two cars drag, my money is on the G35.
My money would be on the G35 too!
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.
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!
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:
What is important in a family sedan? How well the seats are scotch guarded? That is riveting conversation
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A new V6 Accord with 235hp getting 30 mpg highway leaving you in the dust can do that.
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?
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
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..
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.
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:
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:
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 ) 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.