Midsize Sedans 2.0

stephen987 · October 2010

Since when is 3,400 lbs (the curb weight of the current TSX) "almost 4,000?"

Since some folks can't tell a TSX from a TL from an RL. Either that, or the TSX the previous poster drove had three corpses in the trunk.

jeffyscott · October 2010

Well, I might be willing to give your theory a try and consider RWD, but since I am not willing to pay BMW or Mercedes prices or drive a Miata this does not seem to be an option.

Kirstie_H · October 2010

I'm going with the latter.
Daman92, please use your own words, posted on this site (not linked to another) to discuss your feelings about vehicles.

plekto · October 2010

The 4 cylinder is 3400 lbs dry weight, but add in a normal driver, fuel, and so on, and the weight is at 3700+ lbs going down the road. The 6 cylinder is just approaching 4000 pounds and with the V6's power, it's got all of the FWD issues associated with it. Note - the Camry, Accord, and many others also suffer the same fate with their V6 versions, so it's not just a problem with this vehicle.

The previous generation came in at just over 3500lbs using the same standards. It's heavy but barely tolerable, IMO. Though, closer to 3000lbs would be better.(does anyone even make a 3000lb mid-size car any more?)

jeffyscott · October 2010

I don't think there are any midsize cars under 3000 lbs. I believe IIHS categorizes cars strictly by weight and 3000-3500 pound is their "midsize", while 2500-3000 pounds is small. There are no midsize cars in their list of 2500-3000 pound cars:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40

In fact, their midsize category includes some compact sedans: Audi A3, VW Jetta, Volvo S40.

stephen987 · October 2010

I think the lightest of the major midsize players is probably the Sonata, with a base curb weight just under 3200 lbs.

stickguy · October 2010

even smaller units like the Cruze and Jetta (big compacts/small mid size) are pushing 3,200#s curb weight now. Tiny things like a Fiesta are probably in the 2,600-2,700 range.

Safety and gizmos add weight.

The 1991 626 I mentioned the other day, at 179", also only weighed about 2,600-2,700#s depending on model, and that was not stripped either.

m6user · October 2010

Actually, according to Edmunds, the Altima 2.5 I4 auto weighs less than the Sonata GLS by 19 lbs. 3180 for the Altima vs. 3199 for the Sonata.

aviboy97 · October 2010

And AWD is a worse situation in most cases as it imparts a false level of security, which leads to stupid decisions more often than not. At this point, it makes little to no difference.

AWD does not forgive the need for using common sense when driving, but, it provides far superior drivability on both wet and dry pavement. To even think of discounting the benefits of AWD is complete ignorance.

I have owned FWD, AWD and RWD, and I would take an AWD car in the snow every dave of the week and twice on Sunday's over a RWD car. Having snow's on a FWD or RWD does help with traction, but, still not as good as AWD.

RWD was never an issue for generations until little 2000lb and under cars came out and lacked the mass to dig down and hold onto the snow without FWD.

Name 1 RWD car over the last 30 years that are a "little over 2000lbs". I can only think of one....the Mazda MX-5 Miata.

stickguy · October 2010

well, going back a ways, one of th ebest cars ever in the snow was the VW beetle. RWD and way less than 1 ton! Of course, the engine in the back probably helped.

But, someone above mentioned the advent of really wide wheels/tires as helping. If anything, that is a negative in the snow. Wide tires become tobaggons. Skinny ones (like on a beetle) dig in and head for traction.

as to the QWD debate, it is usually argued as FWD/RWD with snows vs. AWD with AS tires. And in that case, I am taking the tires. But, logically, winter tires on an AWD car should be the best option.

Keep in mind though that while AWD helps in certain conditions, you are always dragging around extra weight, friction losses, and paying more for the privilege!

so the best choice probably depends on where you live and what conditions you drive in. And if you really need significant snow mobile abilities, might want something other than a mid size sedan!

fushigi · October 2010

I think friction losses are far less than they used to be. My CUV gains 144 pounds and loses 1 MPG going from FWD to AWD. Those are small enough differences that they aren't worth worrying about. Using the EPA combined MPG estimates and assuming 12K miles/year the loss in efficiency costs less than 3 gallons of gas a year. Other than the upfront cost of the AWD system I'm not paying particularly much for the privilege of having it available.

I've lived in the snow belt (Illinois & Indiana) all my life. I grew up on RWD cars but have spent most of the last 25 years with FWD cars. I've never done chains or winter tires. If the roads were so bad that those would be required I'd simply stay home. Now that I have AWD, my definition of "so bad" has shifted but the same rule applies. If the weather doesn't want me on the road, on the road I shall not be.

akirby · October 2010

AWD gets you going in slippery conditions and prevents you from getting stuck. However, it does nothing to help you stop or steer. A lot of people overdrive their traction with AWD and 4WD vehicles and that leads to problems. It's not the vehicle - it's the drivers.

explorerx4 · October 2010

Here in New England, many people are willing to trade off some lost performance/fuel mileage for AWD.
Snow tires are nice, but you never know when you will need them.

xmech · October 2010

I know this is sponsored by Subaru, but it's still very enlightening. Be careful what the maker of your car defines as AWD...

Subaru AWD test

fushigi · October 2010

Yeah, but as noted in the comments, for the Honda & Toyota vehicles Subaru left traction control on which means wheel spin was stopped before the transfer of power from front to rear could occur. That pretty much invalidates the test.

Of course, I'm not saying that CR-V and Highlander drivers understand AWD systems enough to know that they might need to turn off TC/VSA in their quest for traction since it's somewhat counter-intuitive, but Subaru should have known better and at least shown the test with TC both on & off.

Subaru's Marketing Dept. at work...

jeffyscott · October 2010

I think AWD is oversold, but my understanding is that Subaru, Audi, VW do have a superior system to others.

As for traction control, if I am driving, the traction control is going to be on...especially if there is ice and snow. The only exception would be if you want to spin the wheels due to being stuck in snow. I don't understand this system that does not work with traction control, I'd think if front wheels lose traction power should automatically shift to rear wheels. I should not have to turn traction control off for this to happen.

brainfertilize · October 2010

I guess I don't really understand reviewers.

The following is what I recall from my own research from all sorts of sources, so I can't provide a link.

The 2009 Mazda6 is just barely smaller than the largest car in the class (the Accord).

It has the biggest trunk in its class.

It has the tightest turning radius in its class.

Some reviewers complained that getting bigger made it less maneuverable...I have to wonder if they actually drove the car, because other reviewers said it had the steering precision you come to expect from Mazda, and I myself thought it was every bit as nimble as the 2010 Mazda3 despite its larger size.

Reviewers complained that the 4-cyl was underpowered, even if it got gas mileage similar to its rivals.
Then reviewers complained that the 6-cyl got slightly worse gas mileage than its rivals, even though it had plenty of power and torque.

The Accord does get better gas mileage than the Mazda6, but it attains the better mileage by cutting sound insulation so road noise is significantly louder in the Accord than the Mazda6. And the Mazda6 is universally praised as being more fun to drive. So the Mazda6 is the car to look at if you want large size, good handling, and relatively quite noise, if you are willing to accept slightly worse gas mileage as a trade-off.

Despite the previously-mentioned complaints about the larger size negatively impacting handling and lack of power in the 4-cyl, reviewers almost universally agreed the Mazda6 is the 2nd sportiest vehicle, exceeded only by the Altima...but most reviewers agree the Altima's ride is far more harsh, as well as significantly smaller. (and some reviewers HATE the Altima's CVT). So the Mazda6 is the car to look at if you want a sporty car that is still smooth over bumps.

Exterior styling is according to personal taste, but lots of reviewers think it looks the best. In any case, it is clearly better than the Accord, and a toss-up with any other car.

Interior styling is less subjective, and the Mazda6 always gets high marks for materials, layout, and appearance.

If that weren't enough, Mazda has apparently done a great job packaging options into the trim levels, so you can get base luxuries like cruise control, auto, door locks, and traction/stability control at a cheaper price than most.

So if you want a low-priced car that handles well (nearly best in class), is smooth over bumps, has plenty of size for passengers and cargo (class leading or too close to matter), is relatively quiet on the road, and has a decent record for reliability, the Mazda6 should be on your short list.

That it isn't recommended more by reviewers is inexplicable to me.

The Mazda6 is up 48% over last year's sales. Unfortunately, last year's sales weren't all that hot.

By now, however, it is 2 years old. Newer competitors (like the Hyundai Sonata) have newer technology. But the 2011 Mazda6 (due in the Spring, I think?), should be a strong candidate for good sales.

jeffyscott · October 2010

"you can get base luxuries like cruise control, auto, door locks, and traction/stability control at a cheaper price than most."

Luxuries? I don't think these are considered luxuries any longer. Aside from the automatic, aren't these items standard in even the lowest trim level of any midsize car?

As for the auto, that would always be available as a separate add on to the base trim level.

plekto · October 2010

AWD gets you going in slippery conditions and prevents you from getting stuck. However, it does nothing to help you stop or steer.

Correct. And this is why it's a trap. Transferring power back and forth just doesn't work at all. They all it all-wheel-drive, but it's really a part-time FWD/RWD transfer system. So of course it gets nearly the same mpg. It's in 2WD mode 99% of the time. Compare that to a 4X4 or full-time system which really does work to keep you on the road in snow and bad weather.

akirby · October 2010

Not sure about other systems but Ford's system doesn't just transfer 100% of the torque from front to rear so in most cases there would be torque on both the front and rear. Also remember Ford's AWD system is 100% electronic and can therefore transfer torque in anticipation of slippage before it occurs - such as accelerating while cornering.

Ford's system could split torque differently if needed since it's all electronic (note the 2011 Explorer - same hardware) - but in a passenger car it's not at all necessary most of the time.

It would be nice to be able to lock in a 50/50 torque split for slippery conditions. I'm sure there's a reason they don't do it.

fushigi · October 2010

Not quite. These systems don't move from FWD to RWD. They move from FWD to a blend of split power between front & rear wheels. They're still typically front-biased but even sending, say, 30% of the power to the rear can help move the vehicle. Maybe not uphill on ice as simulated in the video but through more common conditions like a slushy parking lot.

Some systems also include side-to-side differentials. On my vehicle the FWD power can also be split between either of the front wheels. Which is how it can also help you steer in adverse conditions. It also offers an electronically controlled 4x4 Lock mode but I doubt I'll ever use it as I've no need to do true off-roading.

I do agree, though, that AWD doesn't help when it comes to braking. Engine braking, perhaps, but not normal braking. And I think there's a general consensus that the AWD systems in the CR-V and Highlander (and RAV4) aren't exactly the best. They're easily more primitive than Subaru's system.

But little of this discussion is germane to midsize sedans since few offer AWD.

akirby · October 2010

On my vehicle the FWD power can also be split between either of the front wheels. Which is how it can also help you steer in adverse conditions.

On dry pavement that can help by causing the outside wheel in a turn to get more power.

But in adverse conditions moving the torque side to side won't help. Either the front tires have grip or they don't and that's what affects steeering.

stephen987 · October 2010

But little of this discussion is germane to midsize sedans since few offer AWD.

Fusion
Legacy
Kizashi
LaCrosse (though some would call it full-size)

I wonder if we will see others soon? Or is the cost of developing an AWD system so high that it doesn't pay off at this price point?

fushigi · October 2010

I don't think the R&D is too onerous. Like the engines and many other components, the AWD systems can be adaptations of the systems developed for the CUV that runs on the same platform. For instance, if the Edge & Fusion run on the same underlying platform I'd wager their AWD systems were related (though probably not identical). Likewise the Legacy/Outback and probably Tribeca.

stephen987 · October 2010

Then it shouldn't be too hard for there to be

--a Camry All-Trac with Highlander/RAV components
--an AWD Altima with Murano drivetrain
--an AWD Mazda6
--an AWD Sonata (borrowing heavily from the Santa Fe)

Etc. I know my friends in Canada and upstate NY would appreciate having these choices.

fushigi · October 2010

It isn't hard from a technology standpoint. The hard part is the same as it is for manual transmissions in family sedans: Convincing the automakers that enough sales would follow to make the move profitable.

Of the above AWD midsizers, Legacy aside, what percent are sold with AWD? I see plenty of Fusions around, for instance, but it's pretty rare to see one with AWD badging.

jimbres · October 2010

You're probably right. It wouldn't be hard to develop AWD variants of these sedans.

But I'm not sure that this would make much business sense. These AWD sedans, if they were available, would only cannibalize SUV sales. Why go to the trouble & expense of building an AWD Altima for a customer who would have bought a Murano anyway? I doubt if you would see a significant net sales increase.

Something else to keep in mind is that many buyers in rural areas (upstate NY comes to mind) want the increased ground clearance that an SUV provides.

explorerx4 · October 2010

You do have a point about poaching your own sales, but i think an AWD Altima would take sales from the Infiniti Gx models.
On the other hand, Hyundai wouldn't poach from other sedans they sell.

explorerx4 · October 2010

Interesting video, although I think it was produced by a Subaru dealer, not corporate.
I wish they had compared against the Ford AWD system, since I have a few of those in my driveway.

jimbres · October 2010

You do have a point about poaching your own sales, but i think an AWD Altima would take sales from the Infiniti Gx models.

From Nissan's corporate perspective, that's an excellent reason not to bring out an AWD Altima. Why tempt a customer with a cheaper alternative if he's willing to pay for the premium model?

Having AWD sedans in the lineup is one way that Infiniti dealerships can differentiate themselves from Nissan dealerships.

tlong · October 2010

From Nissan's corporate perspective, that's an excellent reason not to bring out an AWD Altima. Why tempt a customer with a cheaper alternative if he's willing to pay for the premium model?

Well, the business marketplace is strewn with the corpses of businesses who didn't innovate or provide products customers wanted because of their fear of hurting existing business. Then of course a competitor does it anyway and they lose the business altogether.

The music industry vs. Apple comes to mind. This is also playing out right now in the movie industry.

mtnman1 · October 2010

Autobytel Review.

http://www.autobytel.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_id_- int/8825/id/32356

jimbres · October 2010

Well, the business marketplace is strewn with the corpses of businesses who didn't innovate or provide products customers wanted because of their fear of hurting existing business.

Good point. You could argue that sooner or later a competitor - quite possibly Hyundai, which has been on a roll lately - will bring out a mid-priced AWD sedan, so you might as well grab that territory first. (I'm overlooking the fact that Subaru has offered mid-priced AWD sedans for years.)

Still, I can't help wondering how many of the prospective customers for these sedans would rather buy a CUV instead.

xmech · October 2010

Yeah, but as noted in the comments, for the Honda & Toyota vehicles Subaru left traction control on which means wheel spin was stopped before the transfer of power from front to rear could occur. That pretty much invalidates the test.

Like I said, I knew it was made by Subaru, so I wasn't sure there weren't any gimmicks going on, but I don't see how leaving traction control on would make it invalid. You're stop at a light, your 2 front wheels are on ice, you hit the gas to go, your front wheels will spin and the brakes will grab, but where should the engine power go? If anything, with the spinning wheels being held by the brakes, even with just plain simple differentials all around, then the other wheels should get power. I haven't watched it in a while, are you sure they didn't say they turned traction control off? I could see that invalidating the test.

Also, if they did leave tcs on, are you expected to turn it off in slippery conditions so your AWD will work? Maybe I don't fully understand it, but it all seemed pretty simple and logical to me.

backy · October 2010

I really wish I knew why the Mazda6 doesn't sell better. About the only thing it's not at or near the top on is fuel economy, but it's not like the FE is terrible. It's possible that some mid-sized family sedan buyers find the styling too much, but then look how well the Sonata is selling, and that car's styling is even more extreme to my eyes than the Mazda6's. If I were looking for a new mid-sized car, the Mazda6 would be on my list. I was very close to buying one of the prior generation 6s (used) a couple of times. I really like that car, even though it's on the smaller side for a mid-sizer these days. Maybe that's one reason I like it.

One thing that worries me a bit though is reliability. I own a 2000 626, not quite 10 years old, bought it in January 2006. Had 84k miles on it but was in excellent condition (probably a daily commuter). I've only driven it 5-6k a year (my oldest son's college car now), has 115k on it. Really not that many miles for a modern car. But the thing is beginning to fall apart! Had to spend $1500 on repairs a few weeks ago. Some things have just worn out, e.g. brakes. But other things e.g. axles, rear bushings (twice), alloys (corroded--a first for any of my cars), etc. And the engine is the roughest-sounding I4 I've heard in ages, and the AT has been problematic all along (limping along with an external cooler and fluid changes every 15k miles). On top of that, I owned a 2002 MPV which I really liked, and THAT car started having all kinds of problems after only a few years. So maybe there is a perception (based in some reality?) that Mazda reliability is not on par with some competitors, e.g. Ford, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai. Just a thought.

explorerx4 · October 2010

Depending on the business model, for someone like Nissan, it makes sense that it does not compete with Infiniti in AWD sedans.
Audi, BMW, and Mercedes don't really have that same internal competition.
Their AWD sedans are very popular in the Northeast.
Like a lot of people, I already have an old school V8 SUV, so I don't need an additional one.
An AWD sedan fits the bill. AWD really does take quite a bit of the drama out of driving in bad traveling conditions.

akirby · October 2010

What happens in snow is that the wheels start to spin, then are stopped by TC which brakes the wheel and cuts engine torque. This can effectively disable the vehicle, especially when trying to go up a snowy hill. In this case you must turn off TC allowing the wheels to spin through the loose snow to find traction below. This is all explained in the owner's manual (Ford's at least).

dash5 · October 2010

Regarding the Mazda 6, I think it's a combination of the styling and reputation as a sporty car. People probably arent giving it a chance. I agree with what you say about the Sonata being even more extreme but I think Sonata successfully skews towards luxury looks. A Lexus or Mercedes styling. The 6 though, I just cant put my finger on it but it doesnt appeal to me visually.

stickguy · October 2010

mazda will never sell in volumes like Honota. don't have the reputation, or the dealer network (especially in the middle and probably southern part of the country). But, still seems like the 6 should sell a little better. It is a really nice option.

then again, the majority of buyers of "full size mid size" cars like this are looking for reliability by reputation, and quiet isolation. Not sporty, which has always been relatively niche. Altima seems to get away with it better, but I think that nissan really hasn't positioned it that way (and people don't actually know what they are getting!)

akuma · October 2010

technically, the Hyundai Elantra and Kia Forte are now classified as mid-sized according to EPA since they both have over 110 cubic feet of total volume (over 95 cubic feet passenger volume). both cars are under 3,000 lbs. the Sonata is actually classified as full-sized (over 120 total cubic feet).

brainfertilize · October 2010

I had a 626, too. It had already had a history of transmission problems when I bought it with about 85k miles. It was in Hawaii, so the paint job had developed leprosy (the sun and salt air is hard on paint jobs). And it had lots of rust in the radiator, maybe because it had been sitting in the owner's parents' garage for a while?
In any case, the radiator blew and had to get replaced.
Other than that, it drove well and had no problems for me for the 2 years I drove it.
Proper maintenance would have prevented the radiator problem, I think, and the transmission didn't affect me at all.
But I have heard Mazda had a problem with its transmissions for a few years...when I was looking at used cars, I ran across a half-dozen Mazdas that were extremely cheap because the tranny needed replacing.

But Mazda's reliability has really improved in the 00s. Maybe the average person doesn't pay as much attention as I do to that?

If you look on Edmunds' model review, you can see the reliability of Mazdas rise...and Honda has actually had more reliability problems in the early part of this decade (02-04) than Mazda!

So that convinced me to not be afraid to buy Mazda this time.

brainfertilize · October 2010

Reputation may be the problem, or maybe it is just that people don't value sportiness.

I don't know.

One of the reasons I blame reviewers is because the opinion of the more professional reviewers didn't match my own experiences.

I had my heart set on a 2010 Mazda3 because I previously driven a 2008 Mazda3 and that was, to date, the most fun to drive car I had ever driven. Reviewers said that the 2010 Mazda3 was as good in every way, or better. It was just as nimble, but with a stiffer chassis and slightly larger interior. What's not to love?

My previous most-fun-to-drive car was a 1995 Honda Civic. But I had also really enjoyed my 1998 Mazda626, especially the feeling of luxury from size (compared to some Corollas I had owned, that in turn, felt larger than the '95 Civic) and also being able to corner very well despite its size.

So I test-drove an '08 Mazda6 w/ a V6. It was nice, it was sporty, it had power, but it just didn't grab me the way that '08 Mazda3 did.

While I was reading car dealer advertisements, I noticed that I could get a 4cyl 6 iSport for only a little more than a 3 iTouring...it would be similarly equipped, but the 6 would be much larger and with the larger engine, so probably a better value than bumping up to the 2.5l of the 3 sSport/sTouring. But reviewers said the '09 Mazda6 was #4 or #5 on their list at best, because its larger size had robbed it of all its fun to drive.

So, clearly, my best choice was the 2010 Mazda3, right?

I negotiated my price, and had a choice between a completely new 2010 Mazda3 or one that had been driven about 1000 miles for $500 cheaper. They showed me the cheaper one first. I was a little turned off by the scratches and scuffs, so when I drove it and it didn't immediately WOW me, I thought I should try out a Mazda6 as a comparison.

Well, I immediately got a smile on my face.

I don't know how to explain it, but it felt equally as nimble as the 2010 3, and being equally as nimble in a significantly larger car made it feel much more fun to drive, if that makes sense.

And while I intellectually realize that the 2008 6cyl Mazda6 can get to 60mph much faster than a 2010 4cyl Mazda6, I didn't feel like the newer car was lacking in acceleration at all. It had plenty of torque to get me up to speed on onramps and for passing.

So I shifted gears and purchased the Mazda6, and haven't regretted it at all. I still get a little thrill when I punch it, or even just when I brake and glide into the turn lane for a sharp turn. The 6 just goes exactly where I want it, like it was on rails. I know that phrase is used a lot, but it really does feel a little bit like a smooth roller coaster.

The frustrating thing about the reviewers is that they seem to knock the 6 for its weaknesses but not give it credit for its strengths. Or knock it for its weaknesses without knocking competitors for theirs. Or knock it for its weaknesses without recognizing the trade-offs inherent to physics.

Like, they give the Altima props for being sporty, but knock the 6 for not being quite as big as the Accord...despite the 6 being bigger than the Altima but far sportier than the Accord...and despite the 6 being a much smoother ride than the Altima.
Or, they knock the 4cyl 6 for not being powerful enough, but knock the 6cyl 6 for not being fuel efficient enough. Or they knock the 6 for not being as fuel efficient as the Altima, despite saying they don't really like the Altima's CVT.

Or they complain about the Accord's excessive road noise but praise its fuel economy, and rate it above the 6...not willing to point out, I guess, that Accord achieves its better gas mileage by, in part, skimping on sound insulation. Less insulation = lighter car = better fuel economy; more insulation = less noise = heavier car = worse fuel economy. Its physics. You can say you disagree with the manufacturer's choice, but you shouldn't drop a car in the ratings for failing to overcome physics.

To me, it is significant that the Mazda6 4cyl is the best blend of size, sportiness and smoothness. Its suspension isn't quite as sporty as the Altima, but it is close, and far smoother and far bigger. Its size isn't quite as big as the Accord or quite as fuel efficient, but it is extremely close, and far more fun to drive and far quieter.

Then add in the biggest trunk and the best turning radius in its class.

Then add in the extremely nice interior styling and materials.

Then consider the subjective benefit of its exterior styling (may be a deal-killer for some).

The Truth About Cars rates it as the best family sedan for those reasons. After my personal research and test-driving, I have to agree.

Why do C&D, R&T, Edmunds, etc, miss this train of thought? That's what I don't get.

Sorry for rambling...I feel strongly about this.

fushigi · October 2010

Not a midsizer, but I had a '93 MX3 GS with the 1.8L V6 (130HP, 115 lb-ft). Fun 2-door hatch. Nice front bucket seats, loads of space for hauling stuff, lightweight (2300 pounds IIRC), and with 12.3" discs all around it stopped 60 to 0 in like 113 feet without ABS. I often got 30MPG out of it.

But the trans went at 38K. Covered by warranty except I wasn't reimbursed for the rental during the week it was in the shop. OK, fine. I was upset but in the end it was tolerable. The trans went again at 76K and I had to pay out of pocket to get it fixed. Seeing the pattern I dumped it before I got to 114K.

Though I won't say "never again" to buying a Mazda, I'll certainly have to give it some major thought before doing so.

jimbres · October 2010

Less insulation = lighter car = better fuel economy; more insulation = less noise = heavier car = worse fuel economy.

Interesting, but I have to wonder how much of a car's total weight is represented by insulation. Is it enough to affect fuel economy?

According to Honda's website, a 2011 Accord sedan can weigh between 3217 lbs. (for a stripper LX) & 3605 lbs. (for a top-of-the-line EX-L V6).

For the Mazda6, the weight can range from 3258 lbs. to 3547 lbs., depending on which model you choose.

So the 2 cars have pretty much the same weights. The less expensive Accord is about 40 lbs. lighter than the equivalent Mazda6, but is this enough to make a difference in mpg? And is the difference entirely (or even partly) attributable to the Accord's allegedly skimping on insulation? I don't know. Do you?

stephen987 · October 2010

The Accord's gear ratios are chosen with economy in mind, while Mazda places greater emphasis on quick response. That, in my estimation, accounts for much more of the mpg difference than the meager weight difference does.

On the other hand, a base Regal CXL, which has an automatic that's programmed for fuel economy weighs in at 3600 lbs--nearly 400 lbs more than the less-equipped base Accord. Is that enough to cost you 4 mpg? I'd say the answer in this case is yes, especially in city driving where you are accelerating that extra mass more frequently.

Sandman6472 · October 2010

This has got to be the best car we've ever owned...a real hoot to drive & totally reliable to boot. With 82.6k on the clock, besides standard oil changes, tires, a tranny fluid swap, a couple of radiator flushes & brakes all the way around, it's been a great car. This fall, we needed to replace the drivers window motor and a small tranny part. Not to bad for the mileage it has. Have decided that we'll get rid of it if another big problem occurs. But we love the car, the wife says it's the most nimblest car she's ever had and she can get into any parking space. I love the power of the 2.3 engine.

Would we buy another Mazda...absolutely...but we're going to get a smaller 4 cylinder one next time...it likes the petrol a bit to much. The Mazda2 is nice, but the hatchback design is a deal breaker for her. Looking towards Hyundai now, as the one we have in the family is excellent. And she wants to downsize to a smaller car. Right now, the new Accent is on the top of her list. Time will tell though. I'd like to buy a 2013 model if possible.

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

m6user · October 2010

On the other hand, a base Regal CXL, which has an automatic that's programmed for fuel economy weighs in at 3600 lbs--nearly 400 lbs more than the less-equipped base Accord.

What's with the apples to oranges comparison? An Accord comparably equipped to the CXL, an EX-L w/auto weighs 3421. That's only 179 more pounds for the Regal. A base Accord LX w/stick weighs 3217. I know you said less equipped Accord, but why wouldn't you use a comparably equipped car to make your point.

I agree it would be nice if the Regal got better mpg but I think it's a combo of gearing and a little weight that make most of the difference. You mentioned that the Regal's gearing is set up for MPG but I have not read that anywhere......do you have a reference?

stephen987 · October 2010

The EPA mpg figures we see in the ads (23/34 for 2011 models) are based on the Accord LX. That's why.

brainfertilize · October 2010

I didn't compare curb weights.
I guess that's a fatal flaw in my argument.

The gearing argument in the post following yours makes sense.

But if you follow Honda like I have over the last 15 years, EVERY Civic, Accord, and CR-V suffers from excessive road noise compared to its peers.

Noise insulation IS heavy. Skimping on noise insulation absolutely saves weight, absolutely helps in fuel economy, and absolutely makes cars noisier.

But if you compare 2 equal-weight cars head-to-head, sure, insulation cannot explain fuel economy difference, so you are 100% right about that mistake on my part.

m6user · October 2010

Why do C&D, R&T, Edmunds, etc, miss this train of thought? That's what I don't get.

It's a conspiracy against the Mazda6. Edmunds for years was just setting you up by naming the Mazda6 the most desired midsize sedan in their opinion and then when the new model hit, wham, they didn't like it as well. Then they called all of their competitors and paid them off to pan the new 6 as well. That coupled with the fact you own a new Mazda6 and are, admittedly, very passionate about it kind of sums up your rambling.

Seriously, it sounds like if you owned any other midsizer you would be just as passionate about it and would find the same faults with the auto writers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you as I myself own a '07 Mazda6 and love it and it has been absolutely trouble free. But I read all the reviews like you and don't see the bias you are seeing. Could it be that you are just a little biased yourself because you own one and love it?

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles