Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

bobad · October 2006

What is also funny is, I knew you wouldn't hear it.

It was 100% predictable that you would hear it.

kdhspyder · October 2006

But no matter what else you think, a family sedan that runs a 7.7 0-60 and gets 35+ mpg in real world (EPA 40/38) is pretty damn impressive.

This is what might revolutionize the auto industry. True V6 performance but the fuel economy of a Corolla/Civic/Accent/Sentra.

The point about the CVT us a key one as well. Other than a coolant change at about 60,000 miles it requires no maintenance whatsoever. AFAIK there has not been a single reported instance of any difficulties in this CVT in the Prius', HH's/400h's or TCH's. It has been flawless throughout it's first 3 years of service.

zzzoom6 · October 2006

keep in mind the ford 500 weighs 500 more pounds than the mazda6...I'm not surprised that that engine was a bit more strained hauling around that kind of heft: in fact that should be expected. but in a lighter car, especially with the duratec with vvt, it does quite nicely.

when I'm puttering around town and keeping rpm's below 3k, it is very quiet. my uncle, who owns a lexus 430, sounded surprised at how quiet it was when I drove him home the other day. this is one characteristic that he knows I don't really care about since I always have told him that I was more interested in a "fun" car than something bland. when we went for an aggressive drive through some twisty roads, we talked about many things about the car, but quiet was never a subject that we ever brought up. but when I decide to drive it smooth and mellow, that engine/car does quite well.

but when I want to punch it or need to pass someone, acceleration is very linear because of the long flat torque curve. the great thing is that the engine is very strong and pulls hard without being like an on/off switch that leads to torque steer when you don't want it unlike the last generation altima. when vvt surges the car forward at around 5800 rpm, you can definitely hear the engine get a lot louder until it hits it's 6500 rpm redline. it's not like a scream that you'll find in a s2000's 8k redline, but it's nothing like what you hear at 3k. but...duh. when you drive the car at 6k rpm or above, smoothness is not a charcteristic you are going for...it's about aggression, stimulation and speed.

at least in the mazda6, the duratec does just fine and helps the 6 achieve it's goals: to provide an engaging experience when you want it, and to not be noticed when driving in day to day traffic. and it's not just the duratec that makes the 6 remarkable; it's the best in class brakes, the best in class handling, the accurate and tight steering, comfort for the driver and passengers, body styles that let buyers choose the level of practicality they need, and a great engine.

mz6greyghost · October 2006

at least in the mazda6, the duratec does just fine and helps the 6 achieve it's goals: to provide an engaging experience when you want it, and to not be noticed when driving in day to day traffic. and it's not just the duratec that makes the 6 remarkable; it's the best in class brakes, the best in class handling, the accurate and tight steering, comfort for the driver and passengers, body styles that let buyers choose the level of practicality they need, and a great engine.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

qbrozen · October 2006

There is not one Nissan I can honestly say I like the styling of.

Of course its completely subjective, but I think the 350Z is one of the best looking cars on the road. It draws my attention more than vehicles costing several times more.

qbrozen · October 2006

at least in the mazda6, the duratec does just fine and helps the 6 achieve it's goals: to provide an engaging experience when you want it, and to not be noticed when driving in day to day traffic. and it's not just the duratec that makes the 6 remarkable; it's the best in class brakes, the best in class handling, the accurate and tight steering, comfort for the driver and passengers, body styles that let buyers choose the level of practicality they need, and a great engine.

Well, to each his own. I've been a Mazda fan for almost 30 years, and I really wanted to like the Mazda6 enough to get one, but I made the "mistake" of driving it back-to-back with an Accord. There is simply no comparison. Its not that the mazda is necessarily bad for what it is, I think its more to the point that the Accord is just that good. I was comparing both of these vehicles against a bunch of used luxury cars (A6, S60, S80). The Accord compared favorably, while the Mazda felt exactly like what it is, a midsize sedan on a budget.

captain2 · October 2006

imagine what the car would be with an extra 40 or 50 horsepower of smooth 'Japanese' V6. While Mazda has always had leanings to the sporty 'go cart' side of the handling/ride tradeoff, their cars have suffered for years in the fact that the V6s were Ford engines - all the way back to the Probe/MX5 in the 80s. The Mazdaspeed6 will, of course, easily keep up with Altima, Accord, Camry V6s of this group - at least until that 'blown' engine blows. The 215hp V6 not a prayer.

kdshapiro · October 2006

There must be two models of Ford 500. I needed a rented car and got a 500. I didn't like much about the car. I felt, the engine had to work very hard and was noisy with not much power.

mz6greyghost · October 2006

imagine what the car would be with an extra 40 or 50 horsepower of smooth 'Japanese' V6.

Yeah, it's called "torque steer". Ask a late-model Altima 3.5SE owner about it.

...their cars have suffered for years in the fact that the V6s were Ford engines - all the way back to the Probe/MX5 in the 80s.

IMO, The Duratec is a very smooth, flexible, durable engine. It has been for years, and many current Mazda6 owners are former Probe/Contour/MX-5 owners that enjoyed the Duratec V6 so much that they bought another one. I don't think they've "suffered" at all.

The 215hp V6 not a prayer.

In 2003, when the Mazda6 was first introduced, the 220HP V6 has right in the thick of things in terms of HP and torque. Granted, the competitors have gone bigger and better since then, but the Mazda6 is due for an overhaul for '08, with the new Duratec 3.5L V6 rumored as an option.

captain2 · October 2006

as an owner of an 03 Altima 3.5, yep it sure does have more than it's share of TS, as Nissans generally have for years. And you know what, the car will leave any Mazda V6 in its dust. In terms of proven, reliable engines that are not 'meat grinders' the Nissan VQ has no peers.
Honda and Toyota, incidentally, have taken a more aggressive approach to limiting TS through suspension geometries and electronic transmission tuning. But all cars with even decent HP to a FWD design will have the 'problem', even the Mazda V6 maybe just not as apparent.

jeffyscott · October 2006

I really wanted to like the Accord enough to get one, but I made the "mistake" of actually looking at the Accord after driving it. There is simply no comparison to the Mazda6. Its not that the Accord is necessarily bad for what it is, I think its more to the point that the Accord is just awful to look at. :P

qbrozen · October 2006

I won't argue that its attractive. Its not. But its certainly not "awful" to look at. How can anything so mundane be offensive?

If you are all about form over function, then the mazda wins the comparison, no doubt. However, if you open the door to simply looks winning a comparison, in its pricerange, there are far better looking cars than the mazda6, IMHO. Just off the top of my head ... the Mini, 350z, Chrylser 300, Dodge Magnum, and Mazda3. ;b

mz6greyghost · October 2006

Honda and Toyota, incidentally, have taken a more aggressive approach to limiting TS through suspension geometries and electronic transmission tuning. But all cars with even decent HP to a FWD design will have the 'problem', even the Mazda V6 maybe just not as apparent.

I'm hoping the '08 Altima has also made efforts to limit the TS, I've heard that it has, but I haven't driven one yet to be sure.

And no, the 6 V6 doesn't have that problem, at all. Even with a manual (which I have) that's driven hard (which I do), I haven't felt ANY sort of TS. Only the damn TCS (which is hyper-sensitive, BTW) killing my fun, that is until I turn it off...

jeffyscott · October 2006

The 6 functions very well, in addition to looking good, based on my test drives it has better steering feel and handling than the Accord. Braking is also better in the Mazda6, based on tests by others. In addition to functioning well, it sells for much less than a comparable Accord.

As for those other cars, the mini and the Mazda3 are too small, and I am not a fan of the giant truck grills on the Chrysler/Dodge products. So no, as a matter of fact

, there is nothing better looking than the 6 in the same price and size range.

kdshapiro · October 2006

I disagree. Accord does very well with form over function in mid-size sedans. If interior room is a priority, Accord wins. If sporty driving is a category than Mazda wins. Accord is better looking than Mazda 6.

qbrozen · October 2006

its good you think it looks better. Its nice to hear someone does.

qbrozen · October 2006

you may think it functions well, but the Accord is roomier, more fuel efficient, significantly more powerful, better fit and finish, quieter, smoother, etc, etc.

so if you are willing to sacrifice all of those advantages for looking a bit better, then the smaller mini and mazda3 should be an easy step for you.

And I beg to differ on the cost equation. According to Edmunds numbers, the Grand Sport with satellite radio comes mighty close to what I got my Accord EXV6 for (23,600 vs 24k). And, if you are leasing, there is no comparison: the accord was FAR cheaper when I talked to the dealers.

jeffyscott · October 2006

I pointed out several advantages, besides looks, that I see in the Mazda6 over the Accord. So no, I am not sacrificing the advantages that you percieve...I am gaining advantages that I percieve and spending less.

With regard to fuel economy, in the real world there will be no significant difference between these two cars.

With regard to price, in the model I am interested in (Mazda6 i, automatic, sport value) I would pay invoice minus $1000 rebate. This comes to $18,341. IMO, the most comparable Accord would be the Special Edition, for this I would pay invoice...which is $20,088. The difference is about $1750.

Another way to look at it would be that for about the price of the Mazda6 SVE, I'd have to go down to the Accord Value Package model.

I think you left out an additional $1000 rebate in your Grand Sport pricing...this is available if you take mazda's financing. The loan from Mazda can then be paid off, so there would be no reason to leave that money on the table. In addition the mazda could easily be had for invoice...which takes about another $300 off. So the difference for your comparison is also actually more like $1700.

captain2 · October 2006

seemingly a lot of those Altima/Maxima owners have learned to accept the TS condition and actually 'enjoy' fighting the steering wheel a little in exchange for that immediate responsiveness that the car does have. Would think the CVT in the 08 may serve 'mitigate' the problem a little.
finally, somebody out there that also seems to understand how intrusive and vehicle limiting traction/stability control can be. Glad to hear that Mazda at least had the foresight to let you turn the silly thing off esp. if is set that low relative to what your car can actually do!

scape2 · October 2006

"Accord is better looking than Mazda 6."

What?? You have got to be kidding yourself. The Mazda 6 is one of the nicest looking sedans on the market! The rear end portion puts the Accord to shame! Heck! Even Toyota copied the frontend styling of Mazda... :shades: The Accord is still bland... as much as they try and try to make it not.. Accord=bland..

scape2 · October 2006

"And I beg to differ on the cost equation. According to Edmunds numbers, the Grand Sport with satellite radio comes mighty close to what I got my Accord EXV6 for (23,600 vs 24k). And, if you are leasing, there is no comparison: the accord was FAR cheaper when I talked to the dealers."

This makes me laugh.. over and over and over Honda owners try to convice people that Honda vehicles are not expensive. Yet, anyone who actually shops the market will find out Honda dealers don't deal, pay what they want or walk.. Now way in my region are you ever, ever going to get an EXV6 Accord loaded with all options but NAV for $23,600. They would laugh you right out of the dealership. In fact a large well known Honda dealer in my city consistantly advertises Honda Accord EXV6 for $25,888.. This is an advertised price so we all know what that means.. thats the price, take it or leave it.. :shades:

I just about choked when a guy I know paid over $19,500 for a Civic EX!! I thought these were supposed to be "economy" cars.. :confuse:

mz6greyghost · October 2006

seemingly a lot of those Altima/Maxima owners have learned to accept the TS condition and actually 'enjoy' fighting the steering wheel a little in exchange for that immediate responsiveness that the car does have.

I guess my philosophy is "why have all that power when you can't control it?" Don't get me wrong, having all that torque RIGHT NOW is great, but TS is more of a safety issue than anything else (at least to me). Having the steering wheel slip in my hands, and the car pull to the left or right on it's own, isn't a good feeling to me, especially when the weather or road conditions are less than ideal. If one can learn to cope with it, fine, but that's not me.

finally, somebody out there that also seems to understand how intrusive and vehicle limiting traction/stability control can be. Glad to hear that Mazda at least had the foresight to let you turn the silly thing off esp. if is set that low relative to what your car can actually do!

The Traction Control on the Mazda6 can be fully defeated, which is indeed a good thing, since it seems to panic at the first TINY HINT of wheelspin. It's by far the most sensitive TCS I've ever dealt with. I understand the safety factor, but come on... For the record, I do leave it on for about 90% of my driving.

The Mazda6 doesn't have Stability Control, and even though I fully understand, and agree with, the benefits of SC, I think it should be able to be FULLY defeated as well. After all, I learned a TON about vehicle behaviors and dynamics in an empty parking lot with tires squealing when I first learned how to drive (and yes, this was a drivers ed. class with an instructor and other students), and I think it's made me a better driver because of it. Many drivers, especially younger ones, don't have a clue about the laws of physics and vehicle dynamics, and although TC and SC helps you to avoid those situations, they can't prevent EVERYTHING, and that's a tough lesson to learn the hard way.

captain2 · October 2006

TS is only an issue really when applying heavy throttle with the front wheels turned in some direction other than straight - as it seems you know, most noticeable accelerating hard out of a corner. And very few drivers actually do that much, so therefore, they enjoy what is left - effortless straight line acceleration and the corresponding smoothness of the engine doing it. The new TL/S, for example, now with 280hp or so, has a system that detects what direction the front wheels are pointed and electronically limits throttle travel so that the TS never happens - at the expense of acceleration, of course.
Really surprised that Ford hasn't decided to make SC at least an option on the Mazda6 - 'safety' sells even if it is with systems that could ultimately be dangerous! I believe it was Ford that just announced that all their cars would have it std. by 09 - an announcement that magically was made a couple of days before the NHTSA said the same thing - funny how that happens?

thegraduate · October 2006

Whatever happened to styling being subjective? (referring to everyone talking about this subject, not just scape - Accord owners too) Styling isn't a quantity or a measurement or something that can be objectively decided. It is stricly personal taste.

Don't bother arguing it, it'll just pollute the boards.

qbrozen · October 2006

i didn't say $23,600. I said $24k. That's what I paid, end of story.

thegraduate · October 2006

Get off it man. You can't prove what he said is true, but you have no proof that he's lying (and judging by the prices paid forum, $24k is right on the money for an Accord V6 from late summer of 2006 (check it out, it's also WELL KNOWN)). When you catch him lying, THEN mock him. Until then, leave him alone. He's done nothing to deserve disrespect from you, although the can't be said of you to him.

qbrozen · October 2006

So no, I am not sacrificing the advantages that you percieve

ummm... actually, you are.

I am gaining advantages that I percieve

yes, you are doing that, too. You chose to give up more room, better economy, more power, better resale value, and better fit and finish in exchange for a car you felt was better looking, had better steering feel, and better handling and braking.

With regard to fuel economy, in the real world there will be no significant difference between these two cars.

well, heck, if you choose to take that stance, there is also no significant difference between them for handling and braking, either. I'll tell you one thing, I'll notice a 2 mpg difference every day and a 3-foot difference in braking from 70 mph almost never.

I think you left out an additional $1000 rebate in your Grand Sport pricing...this is available if you take mazda's financing.

Actually, I did ya one better. I took off the full $2500 for NOT using Mazda's financing. If I took the financing and $1k, it would actually be MORE expensive than my Accord.

kdshapiro · October 2006

What! I disagree, the Mazda6 holds nothing for me. When you say it's the nicest looking sedan on the market, I'm sure you meant, IMHO.

Believe me, I surprised myself when I say I like the Accord. The Toyota is just ok. Mazda to me is bland as you believe the Accord is.

2zmax · October 2006

"well, heck, if you choose to take that stance, there is also no significant difference between them for handling and braking, either. I'll tell you one thing, I'll notice a 2 mpg difference every day and a 3-foot difference in braking from 70 mph almost never. "

Ha-Ha-Ha :P
That is until you crash into some hummer H2 and total your accord that did not stop, and he will be fine in his Mazda 6 - that stopped 3 ft. shorter than your accord. That argument is ridiculous.

2zmax · October 2006

And that comes from the guy who used to love his Maxima too.
Hey , do you actually own an Accord?, or just love everything that Honda makes, since you drive a TL?
Just wondering?
I myself don't like the accord - I like the inside, but the outside is not for me. As far as the engine goes - I'd take a 3.5L VQ any day of the week over the Honda's 3.0L or even the 3.5L.
But hey that's just me.
By the way the new Altima is going to rock! and it will spank that accord so bad -yeepeekaye

thegraduate · October 2006

I just have to say, how fast is the car going to be traveling when stopping at full power 3 ft from a stop? Not fast enough to total the car, that's for sure. Maybe 5 MPH tops? I'd have to do the math on this...

I'll agree, the argument doesn't quite work, but I couldn't resist

mentioning you won't be traveling 40 MPH 3 feet before stopping.

qbrozen · October 2006

That is until you crash into some hummer H2 and total your accord that did not stop, and he will be fine in his Mazda 6 - that stopped 3 ft. shorter than your accord.

How often do you find yourself in such a predicament? Maybe you should take a driving course? Just a thought. Honestly, how often have you even ever had your ABS pulse? I've been driving for 16 years and hundreds of thousands of miles and I have never been in a situation where even 20 feet difference in stopping distance would have mattered.

What is ridiculous is those who pick one aspect to focus on. If stopping distances mattered that much to you, again, there are cars that are superior to both the mazda and honda.

Not to mention, we are talking about "significant difference" here. 3 ft over the span of 170 is not what I would call significant. A fraction of a second in reaction time can make that kind of difference.

thegraduate · October 2006

the new Altima is going to rock! and it will spank that accord so bad -yeepeekaye

In acceleration? Probably, but not by much. Don't think "spank" is the right term...

mz6greyghost · October 2006

That argument is ridiculous.

The ENTIRE argument is rediculous. This is the reason why theres a CHOICE when buying a car. You like the Honda, fine. The Mazda6, that's fine too. Does it make one better than the other? No. Each has their strengths, and their specific customer that prefers one thing over another.

2zmax · October 2006

Did you actually think about the momentum and the kinetic energy? The difference will be enough to buckle that brand new accord's front end and put it in a shop for a week or two. After you get it back, it is never the same. So 3 ft could make a huge difference, not even considering the financial impact and the insurance premium hike.

thegraduate · October 2006

The ENTIRE argument is rediculous. This is the reason why theres a CHOICE when buying a car. You like the Honda, fine. The Mazda6, that's fine too. Does it make one better than the other? No. Each has their strengths, and their specific customer that prefers one thing over another.

BINGO.

Although, the thread is available to discuss the differences in those choices.

mz6greyghost · October 2006

Although, the thread is available to discuss the differences in those choices.

True, but theres a difference between discussing and nitpicking...

qbrozen · October 2006

This is the reason why theres a CHOICE when buying a car. You like the Honda, fine. The Mazda6, that's fine too. Does it make one better than the other? No.

Of course this is absolutely true, which is why I've been trying to be completely objective in my argument.

I've already conceded repeatedly that the Mazda has the advantages reported by the owners ... but, for some reason, some of the mazda owners don't want to admit to the Accords strengths over the Mazda.

thegraduate · October 2006

Once again, true.

captain2 · October 2006

the only 6s that in my mind are comparable to the VQ - the BMW straight 6s, the larger Acura 3.5, and now the new Toyota 2GR. The BMW engines, however, come attached to cars that cost twice what they should and the Toyota engine is just too new to be judged in terms of the durability and reliability standards set by the VQ. As an owner of both the 2GR and the VQ, I will tell you that the Toyota engine is smoother, quieter, and more powerful while still getting me a few extra mpg in a heavier car.
And my wife in her Altima 3.5?- she would sooner get rid of me than allow me to take her 'hot rod'.

elroy5 · October 2006

By the way the new Altima is going to rock! and it will spank that accord so bad -yeepeekaye

And after that you may need a hearing aid (from all the racket under the hood), and have to replace some fillings in your teeth (from the jarring ride). Not for me, I'll go smoothly.

jeffyscott · October 2006

So no, I am not sacrificing the advantages that you percieve

ummm... actually, you are.

No, the part you don't understand is the things you perceive as advantages either do not matter to me.

More room I do not need.

The fuel economy difference is only 1 mpg in the 4 cyl. This amounts to about $33 per year for me...pretty sure the $1750 initial cost difference more than makes up for that.

Actual acceleration times are close enough to not be a factor for me...they are within about 1/2 sec of each othe 0-60. This tells me the difference in power is not significant.

I keep cars forever, so resale value is not a concern. In addition, since I start out about 10% ahead, due to the lower initial cost, I would not be so sure the Honda has a lower depreciation when measured in dollars rather than percentages.

Your claim of "better fit and finish" is too subjective and general to debate.

qbrozen · October 2006

No, the part you don't understand is the things you perceive as advantages either do not matter to me.

ok... great. and the advantages you perceive mean nothing to me. So why are we even discussing this?

Oh yeah... you started this all out by replying how the Accord is unattractive. Gee... what was that about "too subjective and general to debate"?

Actual acceleration times are close enough to not be a factor for me

since you are looking at 4-cylinders ... no, i can absolutely see where acceleration means nothing to you.

enjoy your car.

zzzoom6 · October 2006

keep in mind, a v-6 w/ moonroof and bose and a hatchback can be had for way under 20k. I got mine a year ago w/ $400 worth of free accessories for 19.5k (we have no sales tax in oregon). and looking back on it, I think I could have done better.

the accord was always high on my list. I liked the engine, loved the tranny and interior. I have owned many honda products including 2 cars. In the end, it would have been my third choice of the cars I was considering (second to the legacy gt). styling of the 4 door was generic, the coupe had huge blind spots in all the wrong places, so these were minuses. the 6 got huge bonus points for being able to easily swallow a bookshelf sized display that I sometimes need to haul around for work (plus mountain bikes, lawnmowers, etc). and of course it could do this without looking like a wagon!

styling was nicer, warranty was better, and the price was several thousands less than the accord or the legacy, backseat space was comfortable for 6 footers...the choice was easy for me.

Plus I find going fast in a straight line pretty boring and generally pointless b/c of police and stop lights. I find carving around corners more rewarding and envigorating when I get a chance to do so safely. and since I wanted a manual tranny, I couldn't get an accord with a v-6 without leather which I didn't want (slippery when cornering, higher maintenance, hot and sticky in the summer, and cold in the winter). there were many things that i like about the accord and legacy for that matter, but all the things that mattered to me kept pointing to the mazda6. it was the more fun, more practical car that happened to be the value option.

jeffyscott · October 2006

you started this all out by replying how the Accord is unattractive

And you agreed that the Accord is unattractive, so we have established that as an objective fact.

You then proceeded to dengrate my preferences by saying "you are all about form over function".

lilengineerboy · October 2006

So when I was pricing similar models, it looked like the Jetta was more in the same price range with the lower model CamCord/MazUsions I was looking at. It also looks like it has the largest displacement, the lowest horsepower and the worst fuel economy. Even the interior (typically a VW strong point) didn't look that great from the pics on Edmunds.
The Passat isn't active in the sub-20k arena as far as I can tell. There just has to be something more interesting than the CamCords thats not in the stratosphere.

elroy5 · October 2006

In my eyes, Quality and refinement are attractive. My EX V6 Accord is beautiful.

lilengineerboy · October 2006

Elroy,
I think its great that you are totally stoked with your purchase. Its always nice to see pride of ownership.

elroy5 · October 2006

I know it's hard to believe, but it drives even better than it looks.

jeffyscott · October 2006

I took off the full $2500 for NOT using Mazda's financing. If I took the financing and $1k, it would actually be MORE expensive than my Accord.

No, you are looking at it wrong. The $1000 is an additional rebate on top of the $2500. You get this for taking non-discounted financing. So with non-discounted financing the total rebate would be $3500.

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles