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

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1199200202204205544

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I really doubt 200 lbs would make a dent in FE, let along a 4 mpg impact.

    I know when I have a 200 lb passenger in my 05 Mazda6, my FE does not go down at all.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I'm not really sure if the up coming TL is actually a mid sizer or not, however, I thought I would comment on the official photo Acura released. I like it, except for the grille. What the heck happened?? What is with Acura and their need to put a shield on the front of their new designs?!
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    It's becoming a recurring theme at the Honda/Acura design center. FAIL.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I know when I have a 200 lb passenger in my 05 Mazda6, my FE does not go down at all.

    I recently read something that claimed every 25 pounds reduces mpg by 1%. If true, that's mean an 8% drop in FE with an additional 200 pounds.

    I can not believe that it would have that much impact. OTOH, if your car weighs 3000 pounds and you reduce that by 2500 pounds, you would certainly get a big increase in mpg and 25 pounds would be 1% of that change in weight.

    EPA says: An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    That would apply more to city FE but on the highway it doesn't take much hp to keep an extra 200 lbs moving compared to the HP required to overcome wind resistance at higher speeds. That's why mileage drops so much when you go from 60 to 80 e.g.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I don't know where it is exactly in the Illinois code but where I got the info from was the Chicago Tribune. Every once in awhile someone will write in to the Sunday Transportation Section editors with a question about doc fees and they explain the state law in detail. It's always the same rule about charging everybody the same amount, etc but the amount allowed is revised upward(of course) every few years.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yes, they have an interesting chart on that too...

    image
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Heh that looks like for a pretty terrible car. Most mid-size sedans get over 35mpg at 55, probably closer to 40. And I know mine gets over 30mpg even at 75-80.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It's always the same rule about charging everybody the same amount

    Which is meaningless in the end, since the price paid is the document fee plus vehicle price.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Who said it was even a real car? It's just an example. And I doubt the average person could get 40 mpg in a midsized sedan even at 55.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If I can do it at 70 mph in my 2.4L Accord ('06) without doing anything but driving down the road and not changing my speed, the average person can CERTAINLY do it at 55mph.

    And no, this wasn't an "instant readout" kind of thing. This was calculated manually (miles driven/gallons pumped on the refill). Not a one-time thing, either. I average 37-38 MPG on trips now, with the E-10 blend.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Man, don't start that one. People with the computers will get a 40mpg reading for 10 minutes and all of a sudden that becomes their mantra...."I get 40 mpg freeway with this thing".
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Which is meaningless in the end, since the price paid is the document fee plus vehicle price

    Of course the bottom line is the sum of the two---but at least there is one constant for everyone that doesn't need to be negotiated.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The point of that is just to show a typical drop in mpg with speed. Looks like about 25% drop going from 55 to 75 mph. If that is correct then near 40 mpg at 55 mph may be about right. I'll never know...I can't drive 55. I do get over 30 mpg at 70-75, though.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    My mileage is terrible. I get only 15mpg at 150 mph. :confuse
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Why are you ignoring the extra gear in the transmission?

    In general, more is better, for fuel efficiency and performance. However, I think matching the powerband of the engine, with the gearing in the transmission is more important. If the transmission and engine are not matched up well, the extra gear is not going to make up for it. For example, if the 6th gear is taller than a 5th gear would have been, it will help fuel efficiency, but it will need to downshift more for even slight inclines. More gears also means more shifting. If you make the transmission reluctant to downshift, that will also help fuel efficiency, but who wants to have to push the accelerator to the floor, to get the tranny to downshift? I don't want better mileage, at the expense of drivability. Where will it end? When we have transmissions with 10 gears? 20? Most cars in the 70's were 3 speed automatics. Now we have 6. I think we are getting to the point where more gears is not much of a benefit anymore.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    That sounds like a GREAT problem to have. Where we finally don't need additional gears in our transmissions. If 6 is enough to be good enough, we can focus on improving other things in a car. Plenty of ways to work on performance and fuel economy :) I'd certainly like to see more midsize sedans with weights around 2900-3000 instead of 3300-3500.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,250
    my fusion has a 6 speed. gears 1 and 2 are very close to each other. i think 5 and 6 might be, too. my guess is, the new 3 is close to what the old 2 was and the new 4 is close to what the old 3 was. it is not linear progression.
    when you need a downshift from top gear(new 6, old 4), it drops a smaller amount into 5, instead of 4(old 3).
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    For example, if the 6th gear is taller than a 5th gear would have been, it will help fuel efficiency, but it will need to downshift more for even slight inclines. More gears also means more shifting. If you make the transmission reluctant to downshift, that will also help fuel efficiency, but who wants to have to push the accelerator to the floor, to get the tranny to downshift? I don't want better mileage, at the expense of drivability. Where will it end? When we have transmissions with 10 gears? 20? Most cars in the 70's were 3 speed automatics. Now we have 6. I think we are getting to the point where more gears is not much of a benefit anymore.

    I am a big fan of 5 and 6 speeds where the top gear is actually an overdrive. Engines are powerful enough to get up all but the steepest inclines regardless of gear, and my foot would be more than willing to depress the pedal on the left while my arm relocates the gear selector into the next lower gear, either 4th or 5th to complete my climb, or possibly 3rd if I need to pass that line of trucks and RVs.
  • milkman1milkman1 Member Posts: 80
    I test drove the malibu and didn't feel like the gear set up favored efficiency I just felt like the car felt a little heavy, could have performed better with better tires, and didn't have a good field of vision or as much interior space. And I know that sounds harsh, but I liked the car. If they would tune it a bit and fix that trunk they might be in the contest.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I am a big fan of 5 and 6 speeds where the top gear is actually an overdrive. Engines are powerful enough to get up all but the steepest inclines regardless of gear, and my foot would be more than willing to depress the pedal on the left while my arm relocates the gear selector into the next lower gear, either 4th or 5th to complete my climb, or possibly 3rd if I need to pass that line of trucks and RVs.

    Manual tranny would be nice, at times. But those times would be few and far between. An automatic transmission that shifts quickly, and predictably, is perfect for me. If I can easily control the transmission with my right foot, it's all good. :D
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    kdshapiro My mileage is terrible. I get only 15mpg at 150 mph. :confuse

    15 mpg is not terrible. Is this city or highway driving?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    At 150 mph I certainly hope it's a deserted highway........ ;)
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    That's why some manufacturers are going to CVT's....infinite gearing possibilities.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    infinite gearing possibilities

    Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Watch your mouth young man...

    After being in the Altima and a Murano, both with CVTs, I must say I really like them.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    Let's hope he meant shiFty. :shades:
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    "Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...."

    So that's the reason the Altima is sitting @ 9.3 right now? Funny how the Camry and Accord aren't that high....
  • karpediemkarpediem Member Posts: 46
    Before someone says the Accord has more reviews...it doesn't. Combine the 2007 and 2008 reviews for the Altima (same car) and it's been reviewed 425 times...still at a 9.3. CVT isn't for everyone though, but once you learn how to drive it, it's pretty sweet.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Felt infinite shi?ty too...

    Brilliant response...

    Better get used to the CVT...you're going to see more and more of them...
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Why are you only adding 07 and 08 on one car and not the other, new car or not?

    Don't answer it because that was not the point. Comparing how many reviews one car has, certain model year(s) vs. certain model year(s) of another car prove little in the overall scheme of things. In addition, a more (or less) reviewed model concludes little to nothing about the function of the CVT.
  • karpediemkarpediem Member Posts: 46
    I am going to answer it..... the 07 and 08 Altima is the same car, the 07 and 08 Accord is not. Having only 10 reviews of a car is not a good representation of what the car actually is compared to 100's....unless you actually believe the 09 Malibu should have a 10.0 rating :confuse:
    You are right though, the consumer review mean nothing when comes to the actual mechanical function of the CVT, but how the consumer likes the CVT probably plays a huge role when they are reviewing an Altima.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I didn't like the Altima either. Didn't like the way it drove or the styling. With regards to the numbers, you can take away what you want, but there are at least twice as many reviews for the Accord, and the Accord probably sells at 2:1 to the Altima.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...

    Although a poor choice of words, it does show just how the CVT has affected car buyers. Some have grown to like it, some absolutely hate it.

    Of course, it doesn't affect me, since I don't consider cars without a clutch pedal anyway... :)
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    I'm not sure that I'd easily acclimate to the CVT with a lower powered engine like the Sentra or Versa. I had a Sentra 2.0S CVT as a rental a few months back and it just felt weird even after a week driving it.

    The Altima 2.5S with 175hp is awesome with the CVT, in my opinion. Tests have pegged 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the fuel economy is impressive as well. A co-worker recently bought an '08 2.5S and I've driven it numerous times. Other than training your ears/brain to accept the engine noise to remain much the same until you get up to speed is the only tricky part.

    I will be very interested to see how Nissan's CVTs hold up over the long haul. But there's no arguing with the fact that they do increase efficiency both in fuel economy and performance. The Altima with a 5-speed automatic would trail a bit behind the CVT. The Versa does- SL has CVT but S is saddled with 4-speed automatic to keep price lower.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Better get used to the CVT...you're going to see more and more of them...

    That's okay, looks like the DSG is really catching on too so I guess I am saved...

    Test drove the Altima 3.5L with the CVT... didn't really like it.

    Then I had an Audi A4 with CVT as rental for 2 weeks... really don't like it now.
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    The CVT is hit or miss unfortunately. So many people have come to accept automatics/manual transmissions that people are resistant to change. As another poster said though, you'd better get use to the CVT. You're going to see more and more of them.

    More than likely, there's 2 reasons Nissan's chosen to adopt the CVT so widely

    1. reliability (less moving parts = more reliable)

    2. fuel efficiency (optimum power/gear ratio)

    You'll see more people complaining about quirks from other cars. The Accord's fuel consumption for the 190hp 4-cyl and wind noise come to mind. The Camry isn't so great either. The 2.4L 4-cyl in the Camry is slow and lethargic while the V6 has/had transmission problems. On the other side of that canyon, there are very few reviewers that complain about the CVT in the Altima... that includes professional reviews.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    forgetting about the main reason? Cheaper to produce? I also believe the reason why those reviewers don't generally find fault with the CVT is partially attributable to Nissan's rather transparent application of the technology, as well as those reviewer's understanding of what a CVT actually means relative to the driving experience - they are simply getting what they expect in the Altima.
    In my CVT equipped Rogue (Altima drivetrain) it is interesting that if I 'shift' into a 6th gear at 70 mph engine rpms are at about 2600 rpm BUT if I leave the CVT alone the the engine speed can be as much as 500 rpm lower to hold the same speed.
  • budhbudh Member Posts: 109
    For someone who values low wind noise, low cabin noise, few squeaks and rattles, and takes bumps in the road well, which of the following tend to be best or worst in these areas?

    Civic, Corolla, Sentra, Elantra
    Accord, Camry, Altima, Sonata
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The Camry is probably the quietest, smoothest riding car in this segment, but you may fall asleep behind the wheel.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    If I recall correctly, the Sonata has the best NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) in the group. It has been reported the cabin is so quiet that often times one would not realize the engine having been turned on already.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Yes, Sonata = Camry clone.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Hater ;)
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    The Camry/Sonata are incredibly quiet, but the Altima is also fairly serene when idling and cruising. It's amazing how subdued the wind noise is for such a sporty midsize sedan.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The Accord's fuel consumption for the 190hp 4-cyl and wind noise come to mind.

    I can't speak to the wind noise, but I know the 4-cyl can hit in the high 30s with conservative freeway driving at speed limits.

    On the other side of that canyon, there are very few reviewers that complain about the CVT in the Altima... that includes professional reviews

    Car reviews are like restaurant and movie reviews. :surprise
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    I can't speak to the wind noise, but I know the 4-cyl can hit in the high 30s with conservative freeway driving at speed limits.

    Yeah, just about any midsize sedan can hit the high 30s, if they're tailgating an 18-wheeler.

    I can understand mid 30s, but 38-39 MPG? Right... Got any proof?

    Car reviews are like restaurant and movie reviews.

    That's right, they're called opinions. If you don't care for the CVT, fine, but there are a lot of people that do, and there's no reason to mock them for it.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The advantage to a CVT is that it can keep the engine RPM at a constant speed and it can choose whether that speed is the most fuel efficient or the most powerful depending on what the driver is asking for.

    The disadvantage is that it's expensive compared to a regular transmission and until recently could not handle much torque. Long term reliability is still a question mark.

    The other downside to some is that it simply feels different because the engine RPM doesn't change the way it does with a conventional transmission. To others it's a neat feature.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Well except for the fact they don't look alike, the interior of the sonata is better, and it's way cheaper :) That and it gets better gas mileage and has more power :) Not much of a clone is it.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Got any proof?

    Yep.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    I can understand mid 30s, but 38-39 MPG? Right... Got any proof?

    I think the OP was talking about an 08 Accord but several of us get the high 30's on the highway quite frequently in the 06/07 version. We even have a 40 mpg club with several members. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.