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

1241242244246247544

Comments

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0907_ford_fusion_honda_accord_com- parison/index.html

    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".
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think Honda cloth seats are overly stiff, but I really like their leather. I think D3 leather tends to look a bit on the vinyl side, although I haven't seen the 2010 Ford Fusion leather yet.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Fusion sets mark for best sales month ever - 18,321. Add in Milan and they're over 20K. Pretty strong considering the current market. 6th time in 7 months that Ford has increased retail market share.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    WOOHOO Welcome back Ford!
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    And, Ford is doing it without the government!
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    I love the Accord's cloth seats better than any others I've tried recently (including the '09 Fusion cloth). I'm one of the few who prefer cloth to leather. I was pleasantly surprised when Honda intro'd the current Accord with an EX V6 with cloth interior. Previously, all EX V6 models were "EX-Ls".

    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.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    That's why its smart to try seats out for a distance. I've found that Ford generally has nice seats. Cloth and leather each have their advantges and disadvantages and I agree that all models should be offered in both.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    I would like to see a comparo with the new 6-speed 2.4L Malibu LTZ. It gets better mileage, I have read as much as 39 MPG on the highway. I have not been in the new Fusion, I will have to check on out sometime. I liked the exterior of the old one better though.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    In fairness they were giving away 2009 Fusions. Locally they had $8000 cash credits with 4 cyl models with Sync going for C$16,500 (less than U$14K). At that price, they better be selling!
  • maxamillion85maxamillion85 Member Posts: 78
    Yea, I read over at Motortrend that the bulk of the Fusion's 18K sales this month were 09 models (not surprising really) something to the tune of 80 percent. Even still its quite remarkable that Ford was able to push that many Fusion's out in one month. I hope the 2010 can keep up the momentum.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    You may have been reading that congress is getting closer to passing something along this theme and it appears from what I've read if you're current vehicle gets 18mpg or less and the new car gets at least 22mpg you would get a $3500 voucher. If the new vehicle gets at least 10mpg better than your present one the amount would be $4500.

    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?
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    If that's true then I better swap my '94 Dodge truck for a Fusion or Milan pronto!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I was pleasantly surprised when Honda intro'd the current Accord with an EX V6 with cloth interior. Previously, all EX V6 models were "EX-Ls".

    It's essentially replacing the LX-V6 trim level that existed in the 2007 models.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    My question is does anyone know how the EPA gets the average?

    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 :cry:
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I would guess they would use the revised numbers in all cases as they are the ones that said they are "more correct" than the original numbers they came up with. I think my original average mpg on the suv was 17. I hope to be able to use the "new and improved"(revised) epa calcs.

    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?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    At the top of my page it says last post on this message board was at 9:17pm on May 6. However the last post I can see is my last one at 10:50am on May 6. Were posts deleted or something?
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    That field comes from the actual last post in the discussion so even if posts were deleted, you wouldn't be able to tell from that display.

    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?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    My guess is you were on page 624 and did not see the post right before yours which was on a new page (625).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    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?

    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)
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Tks. Can't explain it but your post came up on my page 624 when you were already on 625. Maybe margins or something. Oh well.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    That's good either way. Tks. Now we'll see if they use the revised as of 2008 averages. I'm assuming the first things dealers will do if you are going to get a $4500 voucher is to lowball the trade as you will probably have to trade it in to get the voucher versus selling private party. Hopefully, they will have some kind of process to address this or the dealers will really have edge.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It has to be junked to get the voucher. So there would be no trade in value. If your trade is is worth more than the $3500-4500 voucher then you would not want to use this program.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Nah, my vehicle is probably worth about $7k trade in. Junkin em does make a little more sense from an evironmental viewpoint. However, nothing I have read has mentioned that the trade must be junked unless it is just considered so obvious to be assumed. Originally, they had in the legislation that a vehicle had to be 8 years old as well but that was taken out. I guess we'll have to wait to see what the final rules are. I would tend to agree with you though. If it is the case are old gas hogs suddenly going to jump in price from $500 to $2k or so because somebody can trade them in for nice profit?
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Yep. You'll see the old SUV tanks and trucks jump up in value quite a lot, while the more frugal cars like almost every U.S. made car in the 80s and 90s, will not be eligible. Case in point - my dad's Buick. Averages 24mpg. Oops.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    But you replied to the post you couldn't see, that's the part that puzzles me. You actually used the reply link to the post that you saw noted as the last post. :confuse:

    Oh well, must be gremlins somewhere. :)
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Member Posts: 936
    So exactly what makes a car a gas Hog? Does my 97 Town an Country qualify?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    To qualify for the voucher the car you're getting rid of must average(per EPA) 18mpg or less and the new car must avg 22, again per EPA, or better.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Just to add to the mystery. Your post that I am now replying to shows up at the bottom of my page 624. Strange isn't it.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Just to add to the mystery. Your post that I am now replying to shows up at the bottom of my page 624. Strange isn't it.

    Could your screen resolution, font size, etc (big screen/small font). have anything to do with that? Just guessing. :confuse:
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Could your screen resolution, font size, etc (big screen/small font). have anything to do with that?

    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.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    However, nothing I have read has mentioned that the trade must be junked unless it is just considered so obvious to be assumed.

    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
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    They give bailouts to companies for making bad decisions. Now, they want to reward consumers who bought gas guzzlers they didn't need. So someone who was energy conscious, and didn't buy a gas guzzler (they didn't need) is out of luck. No credit for you. It pays to be ignorant these days. :sick:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Toyota asked Japan for "bailout" money, too. What bad decisions did they make?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Must be something like that as I am still on page 624 and at the top of the screen it does indicate that I can go to "next" and it does not show a page 625 as in "624 0f 625". I don't have a large screen, only a 19" tube type monitor. The page fills my whole screen and I have text size set to largest so I'm not really sure what it could be. I see all the posts so it not like I'm missing something I guess....just kind of strange that eveyone else seems to be on a different page.

    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.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    You are correct, there is nowhere a page will say "624 of 625", that's just not how the display is designed. If you have a "Next" link, that means you are not at the last page of the discussion and, as I suggested in my last post to you, that would explain your issues. Again, the size of your monitor, text settings, etc., would not have an effect on what you are reporting that you are seeing.

    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.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    I bought my first van in '90 and then sold my 3.8 L Monte carlo and my 5.7L Formula. The three were 21, 23, and 23 mpg on trips. Ten years later, gas was 89 cents a gallon and the Astro was $70 a year to insure. It was deemed too small for our needs and we needed a larger van and went and got it. It was another 23 mpg on trips vehicle. All 4 qualify as 18 or under combined mpg clunkers. This is not being rewarded for buying a gas guzzler. All these cars were medium engine sizes except for the Formula which got sold due to high ins premiums and egress with a car seat issues. Someone who likes roominess in their vehicles is not any less energy concious. It could be practicality or affordability or comfort is their overiding need.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Thanks Pat. I'll see how it goes. I have decided to ignore the page numbers.....problem solved! I'll just make sure the individual post numbers are sequential unless one gets zapped by the hosts. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    . This is not being rewarded for buying a gas guzzler.

    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.
  • nananomnananom Member Posts: 11
    Hi folks; could someone please tell me how to work a camry manumatic gear. I also understand the '07--2010 camry I-4 have timing chains while the V-6 has belts. True?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I agree. A more effective solution to get people out of the gas guzzlers and into midsize cars :D , would be to set up a gas tax that would keep gas at $4 per gallon. That seemed to be pretty effective, people were trading in or just parking trucks and SUVs at those gas prices.

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    And you could still get a V6 that has an EPA avg of 23mpg. Toyota Camry V6.

    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?
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    rounding error--19 for the Camry could be 19.4, while 19 for the Accord could be 18.6.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Very good, thanks. It would probably have to be on the city side or probably both to cause that much difference.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    A more effective solution to get people out of the gas guzzlers and into midsize cars , would be to set up a gas tax that would keep gas at $4 per gallon.

    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.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    We already have this kind of thinking. Have you bought a pack of cigarettes lately?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The logic is...given the premise that the government wants to encourage you to use less fuel, the best way to accomplish this goal is to make it cost more. This says nothing about whether or not the goal is a worthy one.

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Presently there is such a broad spectrum of gas usage that it would be unfair to suddenly create an artificial price level like $4 a gal. People that have small cars already would be punished(albeit not as much) along with the gas guzzlers.

    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.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    A better way would be to just tax vehicles at purchase according to avg EPA mpg ratings

    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.
  • mark_wnymark_wny Member Posts: 70
    Since this forum is about regular mid-sized cars, just wondered if any of you have tried BMW 3 series or MB C class - and then come home to a mid-priced product (Accord, Camry, etc.).
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I'd say virtually none as they would try Infinti, Lexus, Acura, and many others before dropping out of the "luxury" mindset. It's the same reason you get zero cross-shoppers between the RX8 and the base Cayman, despite their being nearly identical on the test track.
Sign In or Register to comment.