Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Cruise Control is where the '07-'08 Altima has the advantage here (sorry graduate). It's quite uncanny with the CVT. I've gotten to the point that I don't even look @ the tach anymore, because the car doesn't "downshift" when trying to maintain speed on a hill. It simply revs up and maintains speed. Then when the terrain levels out, the revs just die down, and you're back to cruising. There's no drama at all. I don't know if that idea was in the original conception of Nissan's CVT, but you just can't beat it at highway speeds.
I'll do some research on my car and post back what the actual MPH per 1000 RPM is, but if I had to guess, I'd say its right around 30 mph per 1000 RPM. However, the CVT acts dynamically based on power needs. I've noticed that when cruising @ 30mph the engine stays around 1200-1500 RPM to maintain power, but when you get closer to 60 mph, its right around 2000 RPM. It's quite interesting to watch actually. It's not like any automatic I've ever driven. :P
A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website.
2002-2004 3049Lbs
2005 3075Lbs
2006 3090Lbs
2007 3055Lbs
2008 3112Lbs(!)(sedan)/3052(coupe)
60lbs in one year...
But at 3055Lbs for a 2007 - less if you swap in some alloy wheels... It's awfully close to 3000 lbs. (I get ~3020 with alloys - about 10lbs per tire saved)
2009 Buick LaCrosse - 3495Lbs
2008 IS250 - 3455Lbs
2008 CTS - 3861 Lbs(where my 800lbs figure came from). Sure, it as a V6 instead of a 4 cylinder car, but it's about the same size.
2001 Buick Park Avenue - 3778
Yes, that's no typo - the CTS is 75lbsheavier, and almost 150lbs with the automatic! And my dad's Park Ave is a behemoth rolling down the road.
Something is badly wrong with the way they make cars lately. Way way way too much bloat and power. I'd gladly have them de-tune the 250+HP in most cars to a more reasonable 160 or so, drop 500lbs or more in weight, and give us back 10mpg.
2008 Civic DX - 2586 Lbs. This is why it gets 40mpg highway.
Also, saying car A only weighs X when you use aftermarket equipment isn't a fair comparison either, when you don't let the other vehicles in your comparison have the same advantage. Picking and choosing model years doesn't fly for a fair comparison either.
All that being said, I do get your point; cars today weigh a LOT compared to those of 10 or so years ago. My '96 Accord has a 2.2L engine with 130 hp, and weighs approximately 2,855 lbs. BUT, it shares the about the same interior space as a new Civic (which is similar in weight).
If you care to look at it differently, my 2006 Accord in comparison with my 1996 Accord has several inches more usable interior space, 5-star safety with ABS, 6 Airbags, EBD, is 2 seconds quicker to 60 miles per hour, is much more insulated from noise, and gets noticeably BETTER fuel mileage. To top it off, it doesn't cost any more than the old 1996 model.
It's not that the cars are getting too heavy for their size; their size is simply growing.
The 2008 Accord crossed the line into "too-big" for me.
By the way, I didn't intend to point out that the '96 Accord was a "good size" or not (personally it lacks legroom to me yet I've been driving it since 2002 ). I was just showing how far we've come since the '96, and how much quicker, roomier, and more fuel efficient the newer vehicles are than the compact '96 Accord. In a way, we're having our cake and eating it too thanks to new and continuously improving technology.
I'm not saying we risk adverse and heavier(US citizens) shouldn't shoulder some weight(pun intended) but the average car buyer has grown and wants more safety and the manufacturers are simply responding.
60mph ~ 2000 RPM
65mph = 2050 RPM
70mph = 2200 RPM
75mph = 2350 RPM
80mph = 2500 RPM
The funny thing about those results is that until you get to around 65mph, the revs don't rise in a normal fashion. In fact, they're modulated based on speed; at around 25-30mph, the revs range from around 1000-1200 RPM, but around 60mph, the engine revs to almost exactly 2000 RPM. It would make sense on a normal automatic, but since the CVT modulates power differently, it's not exactly 28-29 mph per 1000 RPM.
Weird huh? :sick:
That said, I definitely will pay attention to fuel consumption increases reported by the trip computer and more likely dismiss the 'calculated' method - if I'm looking to further evaluate how well my car is running at any given time.
Regarding filling gas tanks, I think some cars have better "fillability" than others. This is one of those little things you find out after owning a car for a while. I have to say Mazda seems to have done a great job on this with the 6. Every time the pump clicks off, it is pretty close to as full as you can get it.
Most cars I have had would click off, then I set the pump on a lower rate and a fairly significant additional amount of gas goes in before it clicks off again. With my Mazda6 after it clicks off on the high settng, if I try it on a lower setting it clicks off again immediately and not much can be added by manually topping off either.
The CVT is I would guess the tranny of the future in this (and other) classes, simply because it is mechanically simpler and offers less mechanical losses (better FE) than the conventional auto tranny. The driving experience may never be quite the same...
I own a 2005 Mazda5 4 cyl mtx and I spin 3,200 rpm's going 70 mph in 5th
Ford is going with dual clutch Powershift in their new small cars claiming 10% better economy over a 6 speed auto.
Other than Nissan - who is committing to CVTs?
Maybe Mitsubishi??? Not that they are of much significance in the US. When is Ford planning to go to the DSG style automatics in the US? The interweb tells me it is already availble on European Fords.
Nissan certainly with the biggest - using the tranny essentially line wide - Toyota and Honda using them in their economy champions like the Prius/Civic. It's not like the CVT is new by any means, but something that has been improved/perfected primarily by Nissan. Would not expect a financially and developmentally strapped Co. like Ford to pioneer or even lead the way in the development of any new technologies. I think you'll find that Ford could not use the Volvo sourced chain driven CVT in the Taurus because it couldn't handle the HP increase that came with the bigger DT and was further problematical from a reliability perspective - something that hasn't been a problem in the Nissans since the Murano of several years back.
Pooh, pooh the CVT if you will - it does present the driver with a different kind of driving experience - but it is a solid choice in all our FE challenged futures given that there are significantly less mechanical losses vs. the traditonal auto.. If Ford is going to claim the efficiencies of an automatically shifted manual tranny - would suggest they look to VW as well as the Italians for advice in how to do it.....
Yes, because we know VW builds high-quality and long-lasting pieces of equipment! :lemon:
I'm a worrier, and no matter how much more fun the VW would be, the Ford wouldn't make me nervous on a long trip. After seeing two different friends of the family with VWs (2001, 2004) and how they both have POOR reliability, I wouldn't touch one for many years; not with my checkbook, anyway.
Many reports have shown Ford making a drastic improvement in dependability. Even CR recommends all of their sedans now. For has also taken a huge step in the interior quality of their vehicles. I drove a Flex today at my Ford store, and while I did not care for the vehicle its self (style or ride), the build quality and materials used were very very good.
I think Ford is really about to take off once their Euro designs go on sale here in the U.S.. They wont be in dire straights for too much longer.
this - I find interesting given your age - so young to be so practical! The VW (assume we're talking the Passat here,) while certainly more expensive does offer a much better driving dynamic as well as 'better' engine choices than any Ford. The 3.6 V6 is an engine that rivals the Toyota and Nissan V6s in many respects while the only car in this group that could even pretend to 'feel' like a Passat is probably the Mazda6- another car that is geared toward the younger buyer. Not that many years ago VW had a rep for making reliable cars - how things can change.
As in regards to the Mazda6 as being a young persons cars, Mazda has changed the target audience. Mazda has targeted the 40-55 yr old crowd with the new 6. A lot of current owners are not too happy about this. I on the other hand happen to really like it, even though I'm 28. I really think it's a much superior product then the 1st gen, and I also think it handles just as well. I'm still getting used to the overall size. It is much much bigger.
going to be very tough sell - this is where the big boys play
To each their own. I prepared for the future by getting a sensible, midsize sedan. Thank goodness I didn't buy a Mustang. :P
Now, the kicker is marketing and repeat Mazda6 gen-1 buyers. Look for the first advertisements in early September. Accord to Mazda, they have spent $$$$$ on the ad campaign. If they sell the target numbers of 100K, the car is a total success, and Mazda did it's job.
and on a spec sheet etc. it may be - but market perception and acceptance are something else entirely. 100k units isn't 300k,400k, or 500k .The Camcordimas sell a million+ copies a year, Mazda volume has never been anything more than a blip on the radar. Not that it can't be done, the Altima wasn't viewed as a viable Camcord alternate until the 02 redesign. However, it would seem more likely that the new Malibu or even the continually evolving Sonata would have the best chances at this kind of 'significance' - well before the Fusion and/or the 6.
I'm a VERY practical person (almost to a fault). The Passat, to me, is overpriced for what you get, as others have mentioned. VW priced themselves out of my shopping list. Maintenance cost and having notably poor customer service are the nails in the coffin.
As far as engines go, I have the sweet 2.4L from the Accord's lighter days (2006 model) and love its flexibility. I have also had lots of behind the wheel time in a Taurus SEL FWD with the new 3.5L in it; and engine which I think is underrated (not techincally) by a lot of people. It doesn't stand out against the other 3.5-ish liter engines here, but it is certainly competitive in every way as far as I'm concerned.
When Ford puts the 2.5L in the Fusion, and maybe upgrades the interior, it'll be on my short list.
For the record, I keep a list of cars I'd consider if I were shopping today. I have no plans in the next few years to go car shopping, though, so all the models out right now will probably be drastically different when it is my turn to buy!
If the Mazda6 sold on that level, and achieved the praise that the Mazda3 has gotten, then the Mazda6 is a smash hit. In my opinion, the Mazda6 is way better then the Camry and Accord. I have not driven the Altima.
The Mazda6 does not need to sell 300K to be competitive.
Soon grad, soon. The barely camoed 2010 Fusion in the pics below appears to be equipped with the 2.5L I4. A hybrid most likely will have the single exhaust too, but I doubt it will have those big ol' wheels.
2010 Ford Fusion Pics
I just have two items on my wish list for the 2010 model (and I will most likely be ordering an SE to my exact specifications)-
1) I hope the Sport Appearance Package (SAP) will be an option on the 2010 model. The wheels and interior accents make the Fusion even more unique and sporty while still looking very tasteful.
2) A 'manu-matic' type shifter or any improvement over the current automatic shifter with only 'D' and 'L' positions available.
A heated CLOTH seats option would be awesome, too....but I'm not holding my breath on that one...
Meanwhile, I'm right there in the middle of your purported target age range and am inclined to dislike the new Mazda6...or at least to prefer the old one (only based on what it looks like in photos and what I have read).
Vw has some great heated cloth seats in the 5dr Rabbit...
While on the VW subject, we may as well stop talking about the passat 3.6 as vw as dropped it. It was a great engine and I'll miss it!! Thankfull, the 2.0T is still strong and fast!
ps: This post has come a looong way since my post #20!
-Cj
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-ford-fusion-spy-shots/976654/
Agreed. But looking at those spy shots I and akirby later posted you can see that the 2010 Fusion has some pretty big wheels there. They look like 18 or 19 inch so I would expect some kind of sport appearance package to be available then too.
A 'manu-matic' type shifter or any improvement over the current automatic shifter with only 'D' and 'L' positions available.
Don't hold your breath on that either. I'd be more pleased with a full manual tranny with the V6 personally.
I like it a lot - I think it's a big improvement.
The spy shots of the interior from a while back show a nice improvement too. No more radio "brick"! Hopefully the backlights are the new Ford Ice Blue instead of the old swamp green too.
$5K less than the fall-apart-on-command Passat? Wow...
Just another notch in the best for the Mazda6. Now lets see if Mazda can sell them!!
A bit of exageration regarding VW reliability there and hey for about $5K less than the new Mazda6 you can probably get the 2008 Mazda6 .
Probably nit-picking, but the review does hedge a bit on the handling with:
feels relatively nimble and precise , and
somewhat crisp feel
aviboyJust another notch in the best for the Mazda6.
No more notches please!
Given the dozen or so former VW owners I know that have moved on and swore to never get a Vee-Dub again, you're right, it may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much...