Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
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
It was 100% predictable that you would hear it.
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.
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.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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...
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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!
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..
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:
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.
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?
Don't bother arguing it, it'll just pollute the boards.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
In acceleration? Probably, but not by much. Don't think "spank" is the right term...
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.
True, but theres a difference between discussing and nitpicking...
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
And my wife in her Altima 3.5?- she would sooner get rid of me than allow me to take her 'hot rod'.
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.
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.
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.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
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.
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".
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.
I think its great that you are totally stoked with your purchase. Its always nice to see pride of ownership.
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.