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
Conclusion:
Driving and testing revealed no clear-cut winner in this comparo. Other criteria were called into consideration.
FIRST PLACE: HONDA ACCORD EX
By a margin as thin as its paint, the Honda's lower ownership cost and slightly comfier seating eke out a win.
SECOND PLACE: FORD FUSION SEL
Honda's peer in real-world performance, handling, and spaciousness is let down by no-choice shifter, lower-than-promised fuel economy.
I'd have to strongly disagree with the seat comfort conclusion, at least in cloth versions. I sat in the Fusion (with cloth) at the auto show and it was a very comfortable seat for me, amongst the best I have ever tried and definitely better than Accords for me (The Fusion tested by MT was a leather equipped one).
They also said wrt seats:
To broader-beamed drivers, the Accord's seat might be more accommodating... and I am not "broad beamed".
My best friend has an '08 Fusion SEL (Tuxedo Black with Black Leather). Even though I don't care for leather, the driver's seat is very comfortable. I've driven from Atlanta to Houston and back in it (over 1600 miles) with no aches or back stiffness.
I'm assuming(yes I know....it's dangerous) that the numbers they are talking about are the EPA average. I don't see any 2010 numbers posted on the EPA website even though 2010 vehicles are on the lots with EPA estimates on the maroney labels.
I'm considering the Mercury Milan I4 auto Premier. According to the EPA the vehicle I may trade has an avg mpg of 15. Since EPA estimates on the window of the 2010 Milan are 22/31 I'm hoping it may get an average of 25 which would be 10mpg better than my present and qualify for the $4500 if that is what it turns out to be.
My question is does anyone know how the EPA gets the average?
It's essentially replacing the LX-V6 trim level that existed in the 2007 models.
It's based a 55/45 mix of city/hwy driving (or visa versa).
My question is what number are they using? EPA has adjusted numbers on it's website, but the summary of the current compromise that I read said 18 mpg based on EPA sticker, which implies you have to base it on the original estimates, not the revised.
My 1997 Windstar has revised number at 17 mpg, but original sticker at 19
Using your formula would the avg epa mpg for the 2010 Milan I4 auto Premier with a city/hwy of 22/31 be something like 25.3 mpg?
From what you describe, it seems the last post referenced in what you saw was the one you made at #12462 and that you have your display set to Central time. I conclude that about the time zone because I have my time zone set to Eastern and your post appears at 10:17 pm on May 6 to me.
Since your post 12463 was actually a reply to post 12462, surely 12462 was displayed when you made post 12463?
I had it backwards, it is 45% city and 55% hwy. I get 26.2 combined for 22/31, but I'm not sure what EPA does about rounding on the 22/31 numbers that are the inputs to the calculations. If prior to rounding it was 22.3/30.7 do they use those numbers to calculate??? I would assume so, but don't know.
(I did get 25.3, with the reverse of 55% city and 45% highway)
Oh well, must be gremlins somewhere.
Could your screen resolution, font size, etc (big screen/small font). have anything to do with that? Just guessing. :confuse:
Those things can affect the width of the text area but not the size (length) of the page.
M6user, now it is sounding to me like the confusion enters when you have more than one page of new posts to read. In that case the top display would show the actual last post in the discussion, but you would be seeing the first page of your new posts here, while posts beyond the 19 or 20 per page would be on next page.
What you need to do is pay attention to the page links on the gray bars at the top and the bottom of the message list as well as whether there is a post box on the page you are reading. This will tell you whether you are on the last page of the discussion.
Absolutely the vehicle has to be junked to get the voucher. I sure thought that was obvious, as one motivation of the plan is to get rid of a few gas guzzlers. Here is one article that mentions that the "trade in" must be crushed:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/cash-for-clunkers-4701160- 1
Actually I have been accused of that at times in my life so maybe it should be expected.
PS I am now on page 625 with the rest of you as I edit this message. OK, now back to midsize cars. Thanks for indulging me.
If you can see the post box at the bottom of the page, you are on the last page of the discussion. If you cannot see the post box at the bottom of the page, you are not at the last page of the discussion and you should have the "Next" link available to you. That is an easy way to tell.
One final suggestion for you if what I've said here does not help - take screen shots and use the Help link at either the very top or very bottom of the page to report the problem. If someone at that link looks at what you are seeing, I am sure they will be able to help sort it out.
IMO, it would be discriminating to those who don't have a guzzler to trade. The credit should be given to anyone buying a fuel efficient vehicle, and not reserved for guzzler owners only.
Of course, economic recovery will likely see rising gas prices and increased sales of midsize and other cars may help stimulate the economy.
Also the mileage standard seems kind of weak at 22 mpg for cars and having it even lower for SUVs and trucks seems counter productive. I think all 4 cyl midsize cars get at least 23 mpg, so that would seem to be an appropriate minimum.
Interesting note. If the EPA uses the 55city/45hwy formula how do they come up with these 2009 numbers?
'09 Camry V6 auto: 19city/28hwy = 23 avg mpg
'09 Accord V6 auto: 19city/29hwy = 22 avg mpg
There seems to be something else figured into the equation or the Accord would be the same or higher avg mpg. Or am I missing something?
That's just crazy big government "I want to control your life" type thinking.
How would you like to apply your same logic to electricity (gotta conserve power), groceries (don't want people getting too fat), or where you can live (people don't need single family homes with a yard--apartments provide shelter)?
Government is not the answer, at least not to people who believe in freedom.
The point is this has been demonstrated to be far more effective than all the CAFE nonsense.
Another way to do the same thing, but with less immediate results, would be to have tax/credit scheme that would reward and punish buyers of new cars based on the efficiency of their choice of vehicle. Again this is based on the premise that our society has decided that it desires to encourage people to make choices that result in using less gasoline.
A better way would be to just tax vehicles at purchase according to avg EPA mpg ratings. The lower the rating....the higher the tax. That way all the current owners of fuel efficient vehicles won't be penalized(could even be rewarded if structured right) and everone still chooses what they want to buy.
Intuitively it seems fairest that taxes should be based on fuel consumption and the resulting pollution. The driver who drives more should pay more.
This would also encourage carpooling, reducing traffic, encouraging the use of alternatives such as mass transit, etc.
It would, however, hurt people in rural areas, as they often have little choice but to drive more than their urban counterparts. Perhaps there could be some sort of rebate program?
*sigh*
The more we look at this, the more complex the alternatives appear.