Midsize Sedans 2.0

elroy5 · July 2008

Many consumers are down-sizing from large SUVs. These consumers are used to large V6 or V8 engines. Many of them will not even consider a 4 cylinder, because they consider them too noisy. When they are shopping around for V6 sedans, to replace their SUVs, they will be looking at the mileage estimates, you can be sure of that. Just because they want a V6, doesn't mean they don't care about mileage.

auld_dawg · July 2008

Well..........

You might want to wait on that until some Mazda 6's with the 3.7 are out for a while, and there's some "Real World MPG" out there.........

Having spent some time going over the "Real World MPG" threads, I've found it interesting that the Ford Taurus, and the Azera {08 models} seemingly get the same "real world" mileage that the 08 Accord V6. The Taurus and Azera, of course, are "full size", and the Accord still competes in the midsize.

The real world mpg of the Acura TL, seems to be noticeably better than the 08 Accord V6. As does the Sonata.........

So... personally, I'm not as taken with the EPA estimates, as I am the real world potential of a vehicle..........

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Mazda 6 V6 at least equals the Honda Accord V6.

auld_dawg · July 2008

Then again, a lot of the V6's will surpise in real world mpg. The 03 to 07 Accords with the right driver could blow away the EPA estimates, folks getting 35 mpg on the freeway were not unheard of..........

The Acura TL's, the Fulans, the Sonatas, all have several people in the "Real World MPG" threads mentioning 30+ mpg freeway mileage. Not up to 4 cyl mileage, but not bad compared to what a lot of folks are trading out of these days.........

milkman1 · July 2008

The only car I have really seen beat EPA estimates no matter who is driving is my friend's VW GLI. We have taken it cross country twice. 3 people and a full load of camping gear each time. I like driving 80 on highways no matter the limit and I was averaging about 32 per gallon. He drives right at 70 no matter the limit and was getting 34. Our friends on each trip had similar numbers. We actually did even beter inside the national parks we were going to. Those road tend to fall between 35-45 but with very few stops we were getting over 40 mpg. The epa estimate doees not appear to hold for the vw 2.0 turbos.

Also... I don't really see how the 2.5 on the 6 can be called class leading. There is more power in the Accord by a good bit and more torque in the Altima with all the power at much lower RPM. I have just test driven both of those cars and the engine power is on par with my 2003 mazda6 with V6. Clearly the CVT on the Altima helps it. I have no idea where the power comes from on the Acord but it was nice.

2002slt · July 2008

Many consumers are down-sizing from large SUVs.

I would be included in that group.

I went from 14mpg on premium (Trailblazer SS) to 26mpg on regular in my '09 V6 Sonata. I test drove several 4 cyl's (Accord, Camry, etc...) and just couldn't get used to the lack of power. I couldn't be happier with my decision. I cut my fuel bill in half and still have some passing power when needed. :shades:

jeffyscott · July 2008

Many are going all the way to compact 4 cyl cars, however. Here is one indicator of what is desirable today:

moparbad · July 2008

can understand the economy comment, but when Mazda went to redesign the 6 2+ years ago, fuel economy wasn't as big an issue as it is these days.

When Mazda redesigned the 6 they improved fuel economy, made it 200 plus pounds lighter than the previous model, and made it slightly larger. At least this is what happened with the Japanese and Euro Mazda6/Atenza, for the North American version of the Mazda6 is actually heavier and no significant improvements in fuel efficiency.

IMO, which I know is not going to be shared with the majority, the new Mazda6 is just another midsize Accord/Atlima/Camry clone as it is much more similar to it's competitors now than the previous generation 6 was to it's competitors.

jeffyscott · July 2008

While I would agree it appears to have become more like it's competitors, fuel economy rating did improve for the 4 cyl or at least stayed the same, while power increased. EPA has the 2008 4 cyl at 21/28, while the 2009 is at 21/30. However, for some reason combined is listed at 24 for both and annual fuel cost estimate is the same also :confuse: .

The V6 is a US only engine, which may have something to do with the apparent inefficiency, if it was designed with cheap gas in mind.

igozoomzoom · July 2008

Apparently, Mazda was trying to match the class leaders in fuel economy with the 4-cylinder and top competing V6 models in performance/power. Unfortunately, they didn't foresee $4+ fuel prices at the time. Sales of the V6 models will suffer, no doubt.

At least the 2.5L is a huge improvement over previous 2.3L in terms of performance and NVH issues. All reports so far have said the 2.5L feels more than up to the task. The most impressive feature of the new engine is the increase of 24hp and 28lb-ft of torque AND highway mileage improved by 2mpg.

The V6 succeeds in matching or beating the other guys in terms of power- compared to the old 3.0L, it gains 60hp and 72lb-ft of torque and fuel economy remains at 17/25.

It would be very wise of Mazda to find a way to improve the V6 fuel economy ASAP! The Ford Taurus, which weighs 100 pounds more and uses the 3.5L V6 that the Mazda's 3.7L is based on, manages figures of 18/28. The gains are primarily due to different gearing in the 6-speed automatic. Similar changes to the Mazda6 would hurt performance a little, but the mpg gains would be worth the trade-off.

akirby · July 2008

Ford's new PIP 3.0L will only have 240 hp but will have better fuel economy than either the old 3.0L or the 3.5/3.7L duratecs. Given the price of gas this may turn out to be one of their better decisions.

madpistol · July 2008

I want to hear what the new Mazda 3.7L engine sounds like. Go listen to the sound clips of the Ford Taurus's 3.5L on youtube. I thought that the 2.5L engine in the newer Altima sounds better, let alone all the Japanese 3.5L engines. The V6's from Japanese automakers sound like supercars compared to Ford's 3.5. That being said, I'm sure the 3.7L has more of a sport tuned engine, so surely it has a much throatier engine and exhaust note... Lets hope so.

madpistol · July 2008

To add to my earlier post, I found an engine sound clip here @ 1:30 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF-DMsQjQ5w

IMO, it sounds 10x better than the 3.5L Ford engine.

thegraduate · July 2008

For the month of June, as a brand, Honda was up 14%. GM was down 8%, Ford down 19%, Chrysler down 28%, Toyota down 12%, and Nissan down 7%.

As models, here is how the top ten stack up:

1 Honda Accord 39,697

2 Honda Civic 37,257

3 Toyota Corolla 36,205

4 Toyota Camry 35,939

5 Ford F-150 24,988

6 Chevrolet Silverado (1500) 24,799

7 Nissan Altima 23,208

8 Chevrolet Cobalt 20,888

9 Ford Focus 17,950

10 Hyundai Sonata 16,875

igozoomzoom · July 2008

I wonder if Ford's recent infatuation with all things turbocharged (EcoBoost) might even result in a light-pressure turbo 4-cylinder supplanting the V6 in the not-too-distant-future?

I have read about a possible Fusion GT (or SVT, SVO, or....) with a 300+ hp turbocharged engine, but it will be interesting to see if it comes to fruition in the current economic climate. I don't even want to imagine what the EPA ratings would be on such a beast!

I've also wondered if Ford has utilized the turbocharging experts that are, corporately speaking, already under the Ford umbrella- Volvo. They could take a car that weighed as much as a tank, had an old 2-valve 4-cylinder under the hood and the aerodynamics of the Hoover Dam and, with the addition of a turbocharger and a few other tweaks, they suddenly had a station wagon that seemed more fit for the Autobahn than car pool duty.

Sadly, they probably didn't even think to ask for Volvo's help....

thegraduate · July 2008

Sadly, they probably didn't even think to ask for Volvo's help....

It's not that... they just can't afford the long-distance call to Sweden.

akirby · July 2008

Given Mulally's mandate for global engineering and utilizing Ford resources everywhere I think it's a safe bet that Volvo engineers were/are involved if they have expertise to offer.

There are supposed to be 2.0L and 2.5L EcoBoost engines to replace/augment the V6 engines but they were scheduled later than the 3.5L. My guess is they're trying to pull those ahead and maybe working on a 1.6L EcoBoost also. Unfortunately Ford doesn't have a lot of resources left so they're having to pick and choose what to work on first.

igozoomzoom · July 2008

I'm a little surprised that the Accord outsold the Civic, though only by 2,440 cars. The sheer numbers are even more amazing because the Civic and Accord are the only vehicles in the top 10 that are NOT sold to fleets. I just wish the Civic wasn't so darn ugly!

I wonder if the number of Civics sold was limited by physical inventory available? They sold over 53,000 of them in May and exceeded everyone's (even their own) expectations and/or projections. So it stands to reason that dealer inventory can't possibly recover overnight (or in a week or two, even).

thegraduate · July 2008

You can check out the link for more info, where they talk specifically a lot about your question.

June Sales Up For Honda

baggs32 · July 2008

So what is it exactly that makes you think the Taurus' exhaust was tuned for a sporty sound? It's not only the engine that makes the sound coming out of the taile pipe(s). Different headers, pipes, and/or mufflers can tune the sound a great deal either way.

akirby · July 2008

I'm sure it was exactly the opposite - why would you want a large, quiet family sedan to have a throaty exhaust?

thegraduate · July 2008

Yep - the Taurus has a distinct exhaust note, but it is neither sporty nor intrustive. If I had to describe it, I'd call it a "smooth yet husky hum."

jeffyscott · July 2008

Thanks for the article link, very interesting. in addition to small car sales being restricted by availability, the article seems to confirm the decline in the "only a V6 will do population", which was hypothisized by someone on here not too long ago

.

Four-cylinder vehicles accounted for 40 percent of GM's June sales, compared with 22 percent a year ago...in vehicles offering both four- and six-cylinder engine options, the penetration of four-cylinder purchases has reached about 75 percent.

Fusion four-cylinders accounted for 70 percent of the model's sales in June, up 13 percentage points compared with a year ago. Similarly, the four-cylinder Escape is responsible for about 51 percent of the model's sales, about 13 percentage points higher than a year ago.

imidazol97 · July 2008

I was behind an Accord with a green sticker, that's Enterprise, rental yesterday. White, of course, a popular rental color hereabouts.

thegraduate · July 2008

New '08? I used to see 06/07s once in awhile (LX models). I think Accord fleet sales are somewhere close to 2% (they were last year anyway), compared to Camry at 14%, and the domestics and Hyundai in twenties and up.

backy · July 2008

I have seen both Civics and Accords in the Hertz fleet. These models are sold to fleets, but in smaller percentages than cars like Camry, Mazda6, Optima, and Sonata (although Sonata rentals seem to be down in numbers from what they've been in recent years).

busiris · July 2008

I have seen both Civics and Accords in the Hertz fleet. These models are sold to fleets, but in smaller percentages than cars like Camry, Mazda6, Optima, and Sonata (although Sonata rentals seem to be down in numbers from what they've been in recent years).

Yes, so have I, along with Enterprise...In fact, I rented an Accord about a month ago from Enterprise.

I'm glad to know that others have seen them in fleets as well...I might still be nuts, but not due to that...

baggs32 · July 2008

I'm sure it was exactly the opposite - why would you want a large, quiet family sedan to have a throaty exhaust?

Yes, exactly. I should have proof read what I typed because I did not type what I meant to say, that's for sure!

madpistol · July 2008

Then the question remains: Why did Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all put throaty exhausts on their otherwise "bland" midsize sedan cars? I can understand the Accord and Altima being on the "sporty" side of bland, but that doesn't explain why the Camry's 3.5L V6 sounds throaty as well. Honestly, if Ford wanted to appeal to a broader audience, they needed to make the engine nearly silent @ low speeds and throaty at high RPM's much like the Camry, Avalon, Accord, Altima, and Maxima in which I assume the Taurus is currently competing with. Instead, Ford chose to put a buzzy/weak sounding exhaust on their "flagship" sedan.

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?

BTW, the Fusion's 3.0L V6 has a much nicer exhaust note... it doesn't make sense.

akirby · July 2008

But the Taurus does not compete with those cars - the Fusion does. So it makes PERFECT sense.

baggs32 · July 2008

Why did Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all put throaty exhausts on their otherwise "bland" midsize sedan cars?

You call those "throaty"? :confuse: I had an '04 Mazda6 V6 and its exhaust note sounded like a NASCAR exhaust compared to those you mentioned. I don't find any of them to be particularly enticing myself and consider all of them to be on the very mild side.

Are you sure you weren't hearing one of those "fart cans" the kids keep tacking on their cars these days? :P

thegraduate · July 2008

They are all sewing machines relative to the Ford/Mazda exhaust note. I agree with ya baggs.

It doesn't make one worse than the other, just different.

elroy5 · July 2008

I find the exhaust on the 08 4 cylinder Accords is a good bit louder than it was on the 07 Accords. When an 07 Accord passes my house, I hear the engine. When an 08 passes I hear the exhaust. The 07 & 08 V6 exhausts both seem to be pretty quiet, so I haven't noticed a difference there.

louiswei · July 2008

I don't think those figures are right, at least for the Corolla and Camry they certainly aren't.

According to the press release from Toyota:

Camry: 41,572
Corolla: 42,180

Source: Toyota Reports June, Second-Quarter And First-Half Sales

thegraduate · July 2008

I wonder if these figures you quote here are including Solara and Matrix sales? :confuse:

I dunno.

joe97 · July 2008

They do.

m6user · July 2008

Why wouldn't they? The Matrix is just a station wagon Corolla and the Solara is just a two door Camry.

akirby · July 2008

Wow - Ford has stated that fuel economy for the upcoming 2010 Fusion/Milan (on sale in January) with the new 2.5L 4 cylinder engine will top Accord and Camry and the hybrid will beat the Camry hybrid.

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=28660

I don't think they'd be saying that if they weren't 100% sure. If so that would be a huge step up for Ford. There are tons of other changes in that press release, too - I've never seen any car company make that many changes that quickly in response to a change in the market. You gotta give Mulally credit - he's not waiting around or making small incremental changes.

lightfootfl · July 2008

re 10259
I would like to think that Ford could do something right, but experience shows otherwise. I don't think Ford could ever get real mileages that would even closely compare, much less be better than some others. Also, they would have to improve their warranty by a long shot to be competitive, they don't honor their present warranties as it is. Sorry, but I won't believe it, til they prove it. Just my opinion.
Been burned by them twice. They just don't honor their customers at all.
van

louiswei · July 2008

Why wouldn't they? The Matrix is just a station wagon Corolla and the Solara is just a two door Camry.

Exactly.

If Honda combined both Accord coupe and sedan sales then I don't see what's wrong for Toyota to combine the Camry and Solara sales.

Also, let's not forget that the Civic sales includes the coupe version as well and Corolla doesn't have one. So including the Matrix sales really doesn't hurt the merit of comparing Civic and Corolla sales numbers.

backy · July 2008

I was actually pleased with the FE on the current I4 Milan, when I drove it as a rental a while back. On a road trip from suburban Chicago into central WI and back, I was getting mid-to-upper-30s mpg cruising at 65-70 and averaged about 32 mpg for the trip, which included quite a bit of congestion around Chicago and some in-town driving. And it looks like the 2010 Fulan will do even better. So, not too shabby at all for a mid-sized sedan.

akirby · July 2008

Their warranty matches everyone in the class except Sonata. Every mfr denies warranty claims that the owner believes should be covered. I will admit that Ford has some bad dealers out there that aren't as helpful as they should be but I don't think they are any worse than any other mfr regarding warranty coverage.

joe97 · July 2008

Except Camry and Accord are no longer the benchmark in terms of F/E.

backy · July 2008

And Galant. And Optima.

akirby · July 2008

Correct - I was only referring to the mainstream entries.

kdshapiro · July 2008

Jeez, when I stated an Accord got 38mpg average on a long road trip, I'm not quite sure it was believed. Which to me is why Accord rules.

igozoomzoom · July 2008

It's quite possible that the 2010 Fusion/Milan with the new 2.5L 4-cylinder will match or even slightly beat the Accord and Camry 4-cylinder automatic models.

Accord and Camry models with the 4-cylinder/5-speed automatic powertrain have EPA mileage ratings of 21mpg city and 31mpg highway.

The 2.5L in '09 Mazda6 has EPA fuel economy ratings of 21 city (same as Camcord) and 30 highway (only one mpg behind Camcord).

The current Fusion 4-cylinder models weight about 200 pounds less than the new Mazda6, so that could have an impact. The Mazda's automatic transmission is most likely geared to strike a certain balance of performance and economy...with an emphasis on performance in keeping with Mazda's "Zoom-Zoom" image. If that's the case, Ford could gear it toward better fuel economy. Even better, they could follow Chevrolet's lead with the Malibu LTZ and match a 4-cylinder with a 6-speed automatic transmission to achieve significantly higher fuel economy!

I'm anxious to see how it turns out when the 2010 models hit the road early next year. If the 2.5L Fusion has EPA ratings that do exceed the Accord and Camry- WHERE DO I PICK UP MY ORDER FORM???

moocow1 · July 2008

Of course plans don't mean reality. I expect at least a few of these plans to be delayed, too much on the plate at once. However if they pull off having high fuel economy cars with good engines, 6 speed autos, good european driving dynamics. I gotta say I will be MAJORLY impressed. Long long ago, I once considered a focus. This could finally push me to at least look again at something.

Of course regarding the mid-size cars, the range of fuel economy is damn small. Generally we're looking at 20-22 city and 30-32 highway, if ford gets 23/33, I'm not gonna be particularly impressed with a 1mpg advantage over sonata(The best fuel economy right now for non-hybrid! woohoo!) If they pull off like 25/35, that would be a major midsize advantage over any other.

akirby · July 2008

These aren't "plans" - the cars hit the factory floor in just over 4 months. And all Fulans get 6 speed transmissions - manual, automatic, I4, V6. That's one advantage they'll have over the others.

Ford never had direction to achieve best in class fuel economy - it was never as important as emissions and other priorities. Obviously that's changed. Here is a quote from Ford product chief Kuzack:

It's all part of a mandate by Ford product chief Derrick Kuzak: When the company significantly changes a vehicle and updates its powertrain, fuel economy must be best in class.

"When we have new powertrains in a new vehicle, why would we have an expectation of anything less than being equal to or better than anything the competition is offering?"

thegraduate · July 2008

In my head, a nameplate's sales are a nameplate's sales (Corolla, Matrix, Accord). That Toyota calls them different things is their choice. Obviously not everyone thinks like I do.

I didn't intend to imply that it was wrong.

thegraduate · July 2008

22/33 for the 2009 Malibu is on its way (See It Here) I'm not sure what changed from the 2008 to the 2009 model to get the extra 1 MPG. The 6-speed 2.4L put the 2008 Malibu at 22/32. Where'd the extra mileage come from for 2009?

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles