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

1…200201203205206…544

Comments

  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    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

    Seems to me that less moving parts equals less cost, and from what I have read, that theory appears to be true. Can you cite any evidence to qualify the claim?

    I somewhat agree on the reliability issue. But, to be fair, seems that Toyota has been having far more auto trans serviceability issues than Nissan has been having with CVT's.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    You're forgetting volume. It costs a lot more to tool up a plant to produce a few thousand CVTs than it does to produce hundreds of thousands of regular transmissions. If they were producing and selling hundreds of thousands of CVTs they may well be cheaper.

    Short term reliability seems to be fine now but we're still not sure about 6-10 years out. And there is still a significant torque limit.
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    That's exactly what I'm talking about. The '03-'07 Accords were very fuel efficient and quite peppy in 4-cyl form. That's what made it so appealing to most normal consumers. The new '08 Accord, however, boasts the same fuel economy, but higher horsepower. I've heard numerous complaints about people getting between 20-22 mpg in mixed city/highway driving. Some of those drivers claim they drive mostly on the highway. That's not a very good number for a midsize (?) 4-cyl sedan. At the same time, some of those people may have gotten the accord thinking it's a 4-door, 4-cyl sports car... bad assumption. A lead foot will never get you very good mileage.

    Now, I'm not saying that all of those people that complain about the new Accord's gas mileage are idiots. I'm sure their findings are grounded in a fair deal of driving and personal research. People just need to realize that it's a larger car, a higher horsepower engine, and Honda tuned it to be a fun car to drive. Naturally, that's going to make people want to drive it harder. I think that would have an effect on certain people's opinion about the car's fuel efficiency.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,315
    what is your method for measuring the gas mileage?
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    You're forgetting volume. It costs a lot more to tool up a plant to produce a few thousand CVTs than it does to produce hundreds of thousands of regular transmissions. If they were producing and selling hundreds of thousands of CVTs they may well be cheaper.

    Not really...I was comparing apples to apples. Number of units to number of units.

    In Nissan's case, its more than a few thousand...the vast majority of Altima's come with CVTs.

    But, I agree if you are referring to a few units .vs. many units.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Hey everyone,

    My first Mazda6 is on a truck headed to my dealer as we speak. It's an s GT in Performance White. I should have this car early next week. I will check back once I give it a test drive!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    What is yours?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    For the smaller cars, Corolla, Elantra, and Sentra are all very good in these areas (for a small car anyway). I noticed a little more wind noise in the Corolla and Sentra than the Elantra. Civic is a clear step down from these cars in cabin/wind/tire noise and in ride firmness. Of these four cars though, only Elantra and Sentra are mid-sized, interior-wise.

    For the bigger cars, Camry and Sonata have the advantage in the interior noise and ride smoothness.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    what is your method for measuring the gas mileage?

    I figure my mileage the real way... or the old fashioned way. :shades:

    I also have a trip computer with my Navi unit and the two are always pretty close either way.

    (lol, kdshapiro)

    More details here: Honda Accord Real World MPG
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    I'm really looking forward to seeing how the 2009 Mazda6's compare to the '07-'09 Altima's, as they seem to be perfect competitors. Please let us know what your initial impressions are of this car! It's quite good looking IMO. :)
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    So the '07 Accord EX 4 cyl 5 speed manual will hit 15k in the next tank of gas. I looked on AutoTrader and comparable vehicles are 18-20k asking price in my area. I think that is wildly optimistic but can't find any transaction price data. It has 2 scratches that are about an inch long each on the back door, but other than that its pretty much perfect (I am pretty anal about cars).

    If I don't dump it, it will get shocks and springs ($650) and tires and wheels ($800) as well as a trailer hitch ($125+50) for the bike rack. It would also get a leather wheel or leather wrapped wheel or whatnot as the generic vinyl wheel feels, eh, bad. Oh, and it needs some way to connect an iPod.

    It is a great family car and holds baby seats very well and has room to sit next to the rear facing infant seat. It gets great mileage, my worst tank was 30.4 (although Ms LEB got 24 on a tank). In 15k I have spent $20 on maintenance (tire rotation).

    So I am thinking I will see what the new Mazda6 looks like, see what deals they have on the outgoing Fusion SEL 5 speed manual or its Mercury sibling, or try to find a previously loved MazdaSpeed6 (the lead idea). I am concerned I am crazy for giving up 30+ mpg on low grade to get 24-27 on super high grade, but having a fun ride might make up for it (in addition to the $1500 worth of stuff the Accord would need that the MS6 wouldn't - suspension tires and wheels, leather wheel/shifter).
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So you are thinking that a Fusion SEL will out-handle your Accord? Doesn't the EX sedan already have pretty big rubber? Based on driving that vintage of Accord vs. the Fusion and Milan, I highly doubt that, unless the Fusion also had special suspension bits and tires/wheels.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Doesn't the EX sedan already have pretty big rubber?
    The V6 does, it gets 215/50R17 while the the 4cyl gets somewhat neutered 205/60R16 (the issue is more with the aspect ratio of 60 than the tire diameter of 16, there are great 205/55R16 performance tires available but 205/60 is pretty lacking).

    I highly doubt that, unless the Fusion also had special suspension bits and tires/wheels.
    Yeah, the manual transmission FuLans are typically either a beer can (NO options) or highline SELs with appearance package (big tires and wheels). And then I would get SYNC.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,315
    there are many methods people use to measure their fuel mileage.
    i measure fill up to fill up.
    some zero out their trip computer and check it after a few miles, and say i'm getting xyz mpg.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    some zero out their trip computer and check it after a few miles, and say i'm getting xyz mpg.

    Nothing wrong with that as long as you disclose that's what you're doing.

    I reset mine often to measure my 11 mile, 25 minute daily commute. I get anywhere from 18 mpg to 24 mpg depending on traffic and stop lights (and weather). Overall I average around 20 mpg in my "city" driving. But you can't compare one person's city driving to another - too many variables.

    You can also use it to measure mpg on the highway at different speeds. e.g. in our new Edge I get 25 mpg running 60-65 and 23 running 75-80. Average is 24.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Hey Everyone,

    My first shipment of 2009 Mazda6's arrived this afternoon. Since they won't be PDI'ed until tomorrow morning, I can't fully test drive them yet. However, I did take a little spin, and got to play around the cabin. Here are my first impressions.

    Build quality is fantastic. Plenty of soft to the touch materials and great build quality. Placement of controls is very user friendly, and if you currently drive a Mazda6, it's not much of a transition to figure out how the new 6 works.

    Interior space is leaps and bounds over the the first gen. I am 6'3" and I had 3-4 inches of leg room between my knees and the driver seat, with the drivers seat in a position that I would be comfortable driving in. The seats are very comfortable, and the cloth and leather surfaces do not seem cheap. The stereo controls and HVAC controls are also of good quality and feel sturdy. Overall, the car felt very very solid.

    The 3.7L V6 and all transmission are built in Japan, not in the U.S like many thought. The 2.5L is built in Mexico like the previous 2.3L

    Overall, the car really does not look that big. The Accord, Camry and Altima LOOK much much bigger. The style really hides what size the Mazda6 does have.

    Once I can take a full test drive, tomorrow morning, I will fill you in and see if the auto journalists were right about this car.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,315
    exactly. i just want to know how it is being measured.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    Can I get one for $300 over invoice yet ? :)

    Your comments about the legroom have me excited, at 6'6" I need all the legroom I can get. Did you drive one with a sunroof and how is the headroom?
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    there are many methods people use to measure their fuel mileage.

    I always fill my tank and I calculate mileage based on the whole tank.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    there are many methods people use to measure their fuel mileage.

    I always fill my tank and I calculate mileage based on the whole tank.


    How can you calculate using the whole tank capacity, unless you run it dry? I think dividing miles traveled by gallons burned (between fill ups) would be easier. :confuse:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If I had to guess, that's what tallman meant. I've said it like that before, while meaning what you wrote.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Yes - "whole tank" meaning the amount of gas required to fill up the tank. Wasn't that obvious?
  • madpistolmadpistol Member Posts: 126
    Thanks for the initial impressions! I can't wait hear about how it drives! I really want to drive one myself... I may just pop down to my local mazda dealer tomorrow and see what's going on. :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Yes - "whole tank" meaning the amount of gas required to fill up the tank. Wasn't that obvious?

    No, it's not obvious. Not with the posts I see on these forums. Some people obviously don't know how to calculate mileage.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    If anyone is interested, I posted my "2009 Mazda6 First Drive" in the 2009 Mazda6 thread, post #700.
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    C'mon Elroy... you know me well enough to know what I meant. ;)

    I check my mileage with every fill up. I've never run the tank dry... yet. :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    C'mon Elroy... you know me well enough to know what I meant.

    I didn't really look at who the poster was. :blush:

    I check my mileage with every fill up. I've never run the tank dry... yet.

    Is it really necessary to check the mileage that often? I check my mileage once or twice every six months, just to make sure the engine is running as efficiently as it should. But every fill-up? Are you a hyper-miler? :surprise:
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    I just do mine roughly in my head every time I fill up using the gallons pumped and the readout on the trip odometer. I just like to see that things are about the same. If they are substantially different that's usually because the city/highway balance is unusual for that particular tank. I know a lot of people figure it to the tenth or hundredth of a gallon for each tank and then average it over a period of time, and that's cool. But I'm happy (and less obsessed!) just doing it on the fly by the seat of the pants just to make sure nothing unusual or unexpected is happening. :)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    And the trip computers that are on most mid-sizers now make it really easy to check FE with every tank... and every half-tank... and every quarter-tank... and in some cases, instantaneously! :)
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    And none of that is nearly as reliable as figuring it by the mileage and the gallons pumped. As I know you know. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I know a lot of people figure it to the tenth or hundredth of a gallon for each tank and then average it over a period of time, and that's cool. But I'm happy (and less obsessed!) just doing it on the fly by the seat of the pants just to make sure nothing unusual or unexpected is happening.

    I wasn't going to use that word, ;) but I do think some are "obsessed" with mileage. I check the mileage every now and then, just to make sure it hasn't dropped considerably. I can say I get roughly 20-23mpg with daily in-town driving, and I can get 30 on the highway, if there's not much traffic. I do some things to save gas, like coasting to a red light, not tailgating, and not taking off like a "bat out of hell", but that's as much about saving my brake shoes, drive line, and engine, as it is about saving gas.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Prove it.

    Seriously. I hear that assertion all the time--that fuel economy numbers calculated by hand, based on different pumps (each with its own idiosyncrocies), are more accurate, or "reliable", than the numbers from a computer. I've compared the two several times myself, and the difference is very small--small enough that I have no idea whether the error is with the computer, or with variations in the pumps used. I do know that, depending on the pump, I can put up to 2 gallons more (or less) into my tank before auto-shutoff. On a 14-gallon tank, that is a lot of room for error.

    So... how about some proof?
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    Seriously. I hear that assertion all the time--that fuel economy numbers calculated by hand, based on different pumps (each with its own idiosyncrocies), are more accurate, or "reliable", than the numbers from a computer.

    Well, I don't know about Pat's vehicle but on mine I always compare the computer mpg readout with a calculator, trip odometer and the gas pump receipt. My manual calculations have always shown it to be 1.5-2 mpg higher than the computer display.

    I reset the computer after each fill-up. I suppose I could go a month without resetting anything if I saved all of my receipts and see how close the two readings are then. I don't like doing it that way because if I use one tankful at a significantly lower mpg average than usual I might forget that I did a lot of stop-and-go city driving some week earlier in the month and instead think that something was wrong with the car.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Elroy, I was only speaking of my own obsession, not saying that about anyone else. I'm the kind of person who can easily get caught up in details and I'm happy to not do that about fuel economy anymore. :D

    Backy, I told you how I calculate my mileage. Obviously it is not precise. I have no reason nor need to prove a thing. Sorry I misunderstood the intent of your post, for some reason I thought you were being sarcastic. My mistake.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    When I do decide to check my everyday mileage, I will park at the same pump, facing in the same direction. I think that's pretty accurate, and I don't need a computer to do simple division. I wouldn't trust the computer to be accurate, and would end up checking it my way anyhow, so what's the point? Just another gadget I don't care for. Like the outside temperature display, which I consider another useless gadget I don't need, and would rather not have to pay extra for. If it's hot outside, I know it. The exact temperature is not important. It seems the automakers add an item that costs them $50, so they can charge an extra $100 for it. And the button/toy happy consumers are more than happy to oblige. :(
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    No, I was not being sarcastic at all. I was simply pointing out (I thought with a bit of humor) that others (like me) like to check FE regularly, and it's really easy to do with a trip computer. That was all.

    But I was serious about asking for some proof (if not by you, then by someone else and probably in a different discussion) that FE calculated by a trip computer is significantly less reliable/accurate than FE calculated manually. Maybe some organization has actually studied that question before. Or, maybe fodder for a future Edmunds.com report?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I've lived just fine w/o an outside temperature gauge for most of my driving life also, but I can see where it would be useful to know if the temperature is approaching freezing, e.g. when going over bridges. Other than that, I see no practical use for it. But I do like those trip computers--especially those that have both average and instantaneous readouts.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Reading your post made me remember my old ex Bimmer beeped at 37 degrees to warn the driver of potential freezing water on the roads. One time I compared the mileage calculated by the trip computer to the ol' tried and true method of gallons/miles and the match was close enough for me, within .5 mpg. After that I always used the trip computer.

    There were two absolutes with regards with gas mileage. Heavy stop and go driving lowered the mpg while highway driving at a steady cruising speed increased mpg. Above that, after a while I really didn't care about the mileage because it was a function of traffic and my foot. It is what it is.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Drove back to Chicago from Minneapolis yesterday and when the outside temperature dropped to 80 I turned off the air and cracked a couple of windows. Now I could have somewhat gauged the temp by opening the window and feeling the air but it almost always feels cool going 70 mph but I knew if it was 80 I would be comfortable without the a/c on. Is the OS temp readout necessary for safety....not really not but I find myself really liking in my vehicles. Maybe I'm just a gadget freak.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Drove back to Chicago from Minneapolis yesterday and when the outside temperature dropped to 80 I turned off the air and cracked a couple of windows

    Given the mileage discussion, you would probably have been better off with the windows up and the AC on at highway speeds. At lower speeds, or if you are driving a 90s F150, I don't think it makes a difference.
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    Is the OS temp readout necessary for safety....not really not but I find myself really liking in my vehicles. Maybe I'm just a gadget freak.

    Same here. I don't really need to know what the outside air temp is to be able to operate my car but it's nice to have. The same goes for the digital compass. Heck, I have a GPS nav map screen if I really want to know what direction I'm going. The NE, SW, etc., readout is still handy.

    I'm one of those drivers who occasionally cycles through the display just to see what the individual air pressure is on each wheel as I drive along. Gadgets all the way. ;)
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I just crack the back windows an inch or so to let the fresh air in. If I lose a mpg so be it....the outside breeze felt good. Hey I got a 4 cyl....ain't I doing enough! :D
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I'm one of those drivers who occasionally cycles through the display just to see what the individual air pressure is on each wheel as I drive along. Gadgets all the way.

    I don't wonder how head-on collisions happen. :sick: One of "those" drivers.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    There's actually some cars that make you cycle through "the display" just to see the time. Lawsuit waiting to happen, maybe?? ;)
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    I don't wonder how head-on collisions happen

    That's how we do the airbag check. :P
  • tallman1tallman1 Member Posts: 1,874
    Are you a hyper-miler?

    I'm not a hypermiler but I admit to a certain obsession with mileage. I enjoy keeping track of it. I'm a data freak. :)

    I also like the outside temp gauge. And the clock. Hey, maybe my next car will have a rain gauge!! :P
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    Re: MPG
    I think there are many of us that keep records in a "car record" booklet for either our own record or for IRS (just in case) as needed. Then it is obvious not only what the mileage is per refill, but also whether or not things are holding their own, or getting better or worse. The most accurate way of determining the MPG is by checking it over a longer mileage. Personally I not only check this way, but also note the mileage on each page of the record book, reflecting the page mpg, and the mpg from the 1st tank recorded, (ie, from the dealer, as new). MPG will always vary slightly from tank to tank, but over the longer periods the average will be evident. Also, when on road trips, my record book reflects the hwy mpg too. For me, this is the most accurate reflection of the vehicles MPG.

    van
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    I have the trip/fuel computer...er, Driver Information System (DIS) in Mazda-speak, but have always just reset my trip odometer at every fill-up and do a quick rough calculation when I refill the next time. I spot check the data from the DIS (especially the MPG avg for each tank full) a few times a year and it's been very close every time...so I trust the computer's figures to be accurate.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    I have the dash computer that I obviously check at the same time I record all my info for the record. I have found that the computer seems to round things off some way different than I can figure. I find it to be about 1 to 3 mpg off at various times. But I still check it and record it too. (Wow talk about a data freak, that's me.)

    van
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    What kind of vehicle do you have, just out of curiousity? I'm wondering if a 1 to 3 mpg margin of error is pretty common to most trip computers?

    My best friend has an '04 BMW 330i and he has mentioned that his averages are signifiantly off from his own calculations. The BMW actually reports LOWER numbers than he does based on mileage between fillups divided by number of gallons required to refill the tank. I've even checked his math.

    The 'Average MPG' and 'Remaining Miles' are the only two items that are useful, in my opinion. The average MPH is depressing because it reminds me how often I sit in traffic and the 'Current MPG' is totally useless because it's all over the map. Going downhill with my foot off the gas, it shows 99.9 and on the highway at 75mph, with cruise set on level ground, it still fluctuates from 23 to 32 mpg which tells me very little.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles