Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
Well, they did risk continuing to use a troublesome auto in their Odyssey.
Who knows though, maybe their idea of a CVT is an improvement over their usual auto attempts...probably is. The Civic also had issues with its auto. Did the Pilot and Ridgeline have the same issues the Odyssey had?
But when Honda gets something right, it often is something that competitors will try to emulate. (variable valve timing and then later variable intake track lengths as a good example)
I think coast-ability, at the right times, is probably still one of the most difficult instructions to make a CVT work with.
But if these transmissions are so hardy and capable, why did Audi have a relatively restrictive horsepower cap on their first versions? Shortly after, Nissan did too if I recall.
I maintain these transmissions probably do work in a superior way in order to satisfy EPA ratings (and don't ever under-estimate the importance of the almighty EPA numbers and crash stats) but in the hands of a generally aggressive driver, or even most owner's real world, can't do nearly as well as a conventional auto. That's why the impressive numbers tend to fall off quite dramatically unless really babied.
The one thing that I think a CVT can excel at, providing the mfgrs get 'em dialed in right, is allowing near optimum engine rpm's at practically any speed you want to go. The final drives are geared so tall on all cars now that we see sub 2000 revs even when we talk about 75+ mph. And on the other end of the scale, if you have a conv auto in manual mode and let it lug right down (as a couple random examples..a Cruze 1.4 l turbo 6 sp auto or Jetta 2.5 6 sp Tiptronic) in 6th gear at less than 25 mph, on level ground with one or two people the tranny actually will let you cruise along at revs just barely off idle...like quite literally 1100 rpm. And the instant fuel use gauge gives numbers right off the chart. All until you either accelerate a bit or find a grade or headwind. This is something that can be accomplished with predictability in the right hands with the 6 sp conventional auto...but can be done with not nearly as much deliberate driver involvement...(read, the masses) with a properly dialed in CVT. All that is required though is a non aggressive light foot. But don't confuse non-aggressive with indecisiveness which can be a real fuel user in a CVT. And this gets back to why when being driven so gently and at times you want it to coast, it makes it that much harder to program all that into a CVT because the variables are...just that...constantly varying..
And this is why many 6 sp sticks will EPA at fewer mpg than the autos, but is because of generally lower chosen final drive gearing. You give the stick guys that SAME final drive as the tall autos have and then you would see even better hwy figures. And one of the reasons is there is less reciprocating mass with most standards than what I imagine a CVT has, and certainly has way less parasitic losses than the conventional auto.
I have been down at the road the past couple weeks cutting a huge red oak for firewood. Been there a lot and see (and hear) the actual cars that go by my rural road. I am just constantly amazed at the number of drivers who couldn't hold a steady throttle if their life depended on it! You know the ones....they are either accelerating or decelerating, with no in-between...just constantly dialing in throttle, then letting off, then dialing CONSTANTLY! You hear them go up the road all the way doing that until they disappear. Is that the way they were taught? Does it not occur to them that it is ok to just hold the throttle steady? It makes me embarrassed on behalf of my local community drivers. Anyway...these are the idiots that should use CC mandatory whenever the roads are dry and definitely should steer clear of all CVT's..
...and 38 mpg with a 189 hp engine on the Mazda6 (vs. 38 mpg with 182 hp on the Altima).
If you peruse the Altima forum, many are complaining that their real world mpg is nowhere near what they expected. Plus there is a recall (or TSB) on some Altima CVTs in the 2013. That is surprising since Nissan has been using CVT's for quite some time.
extract (not me):
"Just finished my 3rd month driving 2013 Nissan Altima 2013 2.5SL and my car has been consistently delivering 18 MPG or Below. Monitored MPG manually several times. Bringing back to the dealer for the 2nd time. Also recieved a safety recall from Nissan (campaign# PC186). CVT belt slips during driving. There is already another safety recall (campaign# PC182) that has to do with power steering rack bolts and tranverse link bolts issue.
Problem after problem with this 2013 Altima and the year 2013 has not even started yet."
I know it's not a true mid-sized sedan (for those people tracking such things here), but my Sentra--which has a mid-sized interior at least--with the CVT has done very well in real-world driving over 3 years, exceeding its EPA numbers. But that's MY real-world driving, and I drive with a light foot and have learned to milk that CVT for all it's got. Not everyone will be able to drive that way, or want to.
What an intelligent statement you've made in the past:
"What a huge difference speed makes for fuel economy! Something for folks to consider when they don't see their Optimas or (Sonatas) hitting the EPA fuel economy numbers on the highway, but tend to drive at 70+ mph."
Something to check on your wife's Sonata:
FWIW, in my 2011 Sonata, the speedo reads 2 mph high. example: I have to drive an indicated 62mph to attain 60mph. At lower speeds, it still reads high. Confirmed with GPS, local radar, a pace car, and a few middle fingers for driving too slow.
Of course speed affects fuel economy. Everyone knows that (or should know it). But I still think a car rated 35 mpg highway should be able to get better than 31 mpg cruising at 70... recall I said CRUISING. If you're kinda/sorta going 70 but passing vehicles, accelerating/decelerating/braking, some non-freeway mixed in... all bets are off!
The 2014 Mazda 6 sport was a hoot to drive, the four almost has the torque of a V-6. Rather noisy on the highway (it was windy) and the sight lines are not great, small mirrors too.Still felt more like a sports car than a sedan, though you do feel every road irregularity.
The 2013 Accord LX 4 cyl. - still looks like a grocery getter compared to most others.
decent motor, handling was surprisingly sporty, CVT a little weird though much better than the Nissan Altima which I will avoid due to CVT issues and power steering whine with no dealer fixes.
Ford Fusion, after all the issues with the first gen fusion transmissions and no fixes I'll pass. Recent recalls cropping up too.
The wife has a 2011 Sonata 2.0 T - back to the dealership numerous times for front end pull (common) they FINALLY replaced both struts. Paint chipping off, partial re-painting etc. etc. Avoiding KIA/ Hyundai for now.
Chevy, not even a consideration.
The Passat, dated, under powered and worst MPG. High long term costs.
The trend for car makers is to cram all the gee wiz gadgets into the vehicle. Trouble is what good is it if the drive train and peripherals are junk? I don't get it. Maybe I'm not a marketing guy, I just want them to work...for 200,000 miles.
Sounds like the Toyota Camry is right up your alley.
Camry 31,897 +8.2%
Accord 23,924 +68.1%; PHEV 2
Fusion 22,399 +64.5%
Altima 21,464 -4%
Malibu 15,823 +7.8%
Sonata 13,247
Optima 11,252
Avenger 9,628 +69%
Passat 8,856 +40.2%
200 8,846 +26%
The Camry continue to dominate, which is a slight surprise given that Camry was just rated Poor in the IIHS crash test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByPAhoeU6UQ
But, the Camry offers a lot of bang for the buck, low financing, and the Toyota name. Also it seems like the other auto makers have been too nice to make an ad out of that video.
The average consumer is incredibly ignorant and probably has no clue that the Camry performed poorly in this test. I think most Camry purchasers must blindly buy that car without any comparison testing. I don't think too many people in their right mind would actually choose a Camry over some of the newer offerings from competitors.
Thanks for your observations. Can you clarify a little what you mean about that the "sight lines are not great" on the Mazda6? I thought visibility would be pretty good in that car.
Several midsize cars have poor rear visibility, including, I think, Fusion, Optima, Sonata, Passat, Malibu, and Altima.
The best visibility is found in the Accord, and that's one of the hallmarks of Honda's designs: Form follows function. Some people say it's not exciting enough, but it works better than some competing designs for providing rear headroom and good visibility. You also can roll down your rear windows on an Accord almost all the way. Try that on the others. Can't do that on any of these others, I don't think, except the Camry and Mazda6.
My guess is that all of these cars will have very long lasting engines and transmissions. Probably all of them are designed to make it to 200k as long as all maintenance is done as scheduled and they are not used roughly. Will they all make it to 200k? Hard to say. Hyundai, Kia, and Honda now have direct injected engines, and I don't think many have yet gone more than 100k to test whether long term they have issues. In durability tests Ford's turbo DI engines seem to do very well. Ford engineers have strengthened several parts to make these engines pretty tough, and I'm sure all the others have too. Honda's CVT is new, but they've been building these for a while, and have apparently done a lot of engineering to design in long term durability. But with any new design there can be question marks. Anyway, I think we are all probably fairly safe for durability of engines and transmissions with all of these.
I'm sure you've thought of this already, but if you want fewer gadgets buy a base model—you'll save money now, and potentially trouble in the years ahead.
Even the base models of all of these cars are pretty lavishly equipped compared to midsize cars of 10 years ago.
Hope you'll let us know what you pick!
Considering I'm driving a 2004 Taurus SE that's approaching 200,000 miles, maybe color my opinions old school :shades:
The Gadgets I don't mind and in fact embrace them (I'm rather digital for my age) I really like the touch screen on the 6. My comment was geared more toward manufacturers than my preferences. The safety features on the horizon look promising, some may even save the increasingly distracted from impending doom.
I didn't mention Toyota because I just am not interested in the most recalled brand in spite of their huge sales numbers. I agree that some people just buy them because they are so popular. Ironic as they rarely make the top 10 in various car magazine reviews.
These are heady times for car buyers. More competition, more options for the same money, better performance while returning improved mileage and safer vehicles. This is going to be fun!
I think the Passat looks fine; but you really have to lux-it-up to match the levels of equipment in some competitors. Why would I buy a 5 cyl engine with 30 horsepower and 15 torque's less than a four? MPG of 22/32 is ok, but that 5th cylinder is costing you at least 4 mpg hwy and 2-4 city based on competition. Also, it costs 26,800 for the Automatic. vs 20-24 for competitors. a 5 speed manual is std on the SE. (where is the other gear?? all competitors who offer a manual trans have 6 speeds).
Again though, it depends on priorities I guess. It has a huge back seat and trunk. Fit and finish are excellent.
You guys should know that I owned a 96 TDI so be nice!
Now that's more like it Mazda. Also, the new interior is awesome looking. The flat screen is integrated nicely and Automobile magazine raved about the seats. They look comfy in the pictures. YES I AM SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THE 6 BACKY!!! :P
Lastly, I can't get with the silly grin front end. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
So pretty much all mid-size sedans have poor rear visibility!
NEW BODY STYLE SWAPS SMILE FOR SERIOUS FACE
It wears the second production application of Mazda’s new KODO design language, losing the smiling front end and exclamatory headlights for a more pronounced grille and sharper body style.
Test
"...I think the Passat looks fine; but you really have to lux-it-up to match the levels of equipment in some competitors. Why would I buy a 5 cyl engine with 30 horsepower and 15 torque's less than a four? MPG of 22/32 is ok, but that 5th cylinder is costing you at least 4 mpg hwy and 2-4 city based on competition. Also, it costs 26,800 for the Automatic. vs 20-24 for competitors. a 5 speed manual is std on the SE. (where is the other gear?? all competitors who offer a manual trans have 6 speeds)..."
Agree with all of this. The Passat is a nice looking car. And I think VW has significantly improved quality and reliability. But to cut costs they cut some things that are now making them less competitive. I read somewhere that for the 2014 model year the Passat is going to have a more advanced engine, and maybe they'll get a 6 speed manual with that.
For now, however, VW is blowing them out the door with 0% financing for 66 (!) months. Good deal on a good car!
http://www.vw.com/en/models/passat/gallery.html
http://www.kia.com/#/optima/offers
Also regarding the 2.5 - 5 cyl. Passat, they have been making that motor since 2005. No wonder it does not measure up in performance and economy.
As for FE being your primary beef..ya gotta pay to play/enjoy..
Mazda 2.5 - 189 HP 189 ft. lb. torque - 0 to 60 7.6 seconds - fuel economy 26/38
It may "feel stong" off the line but the numbers tell a different story. Already reading about VW dumping the 5cyl. for 4cyl. for next year.
Cheers
If they were changing the engine this year, the Passat would still be on my shopping list. Can't wait for the 2014 model this fall; my lease is up in 2 months
accord drops. Must be all about the buck, no honda finance deals,no cash poor lease support. December had for a short time 500 cash if financed.
Seems that crash test results have little effect on camry sales,if the general public knows about them.
I suspect honda will have to lay out some form of support soon.'
Old Mike
I suspect honda will have to lay out some form of support soon.'
Perhaps many people don't worry so much about a new crash test as they do the new technologies in honda. Honda has a long history of transmission problems (well known to most, but denied by isellhondas) and coming out with a new CVT transmission (i.e. a first year effort) for the 4 cylinder probably isn't very soothing to many consumers. And the 6 cyl honda with its VCM leaves a lot to be desired, too. There seem to be no shortage of complaints over the 6 to 3 / 3 to 6 cyl changeover AND it also got a new transmission (a 6 speed). And if you want to have homelink (i.e. if you don't want to have a garage door opener on your sunvisor) you have to buy a 6 cyl accord as it's not an option on the 4 cyl. IF I were looking for a car I would forego the accord this year myself.
VW's quality had been in place for a long time (with some exceptions) and reliablilty has improved. The TDI models have had great reliability at least since the early 2000's. The TDI Passat is a gem: quiet, powerful, economical. It is more expensive, but you will get that back on trade-in, even if you keep it 10 years.
To my eye, the new Accord, though an excellent all around choice, is a more boring looking car. The only standouts really are the Mazda6, Optima, and Fusion. The Sonata was on introduction, but no one much looks at them for their looks anymore.
None of the current crop is awful, although the 200 styling certainly borders on it. The Malibu actually has reasonably good styling. The 2014 will address the rear legroom complaint a bit. The Malibu is certainly is more attractive than, say, the Legacy, although that may be damning with faint praise. I note Consumer Reports rates the Malibu just a hair higher than the Fusion, although that could flip flop soon, as Ford sorts out some of the complaints with what is otherwise a nicely styled, great handling car.
It will be interesting to see if the new 200 coming will be a game changer. It is supposed to take Chrysler styling in a completely different direction.
sure, a flashy design gets a lot of attention, but it can get old fast, and will turn some people off. Especially if the style cuts into function.
I personally think the Passat and Optima are 2 of the best looking in the class. And the new Accord also looks sharp now the Fusion is sharp, but I find the Sonota to be too overdone and awkward.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
One other thing I wonder about... the new Civic is a pretty nice car and plenty roomy for four people. I wonder how many buyers go into the Honda dealership, see the high prices on the Accords, and gravitate to the Civic instead? Not as easy to do for Camry shoppers... the Corolla is a sorry excuse for a small car (yet still manages to sell pretty well). Similar thing could happen to Sonata shoppers (real good prices on Elantras now), Passat shoppers (Jetta is humongous inside for a compact car), and maybe Altima shoppers (new Sentra is quite nice inside and out and more roomy than before).
Well, first of all, there is no mid-sized car called the Sonota. There's a Sonata, and IMO it's still a head-turner, especially in Ruby Red (which my wife has). I give Hyundai points for at least trying to spice up the usually boring mid-sized family car class. The Optima is also quite sharp, in a different way than the Sonata--more European. The Passat? Well, if you liked the old Impala you'll like the looks of the Passat. Although the tail lamps are kind of Audiesque. The Fusion is quite a looker, although I'd trade some of the looks for more back seat room.
I liked the Passat better than the Sonata and my wife hated the Passat. She used to work in law enforcement and said it looked like a police cruiser, inside and out.
People who like simple lines on cars would tend to hate the Sonata, though. The Passat, Camry, or Accord would be much more to their taste.
I lean more towards the Optima because of the more angular lines, but the Sonata really is a looker in the category.
But obviously everybody gets to pick their own favorite.
Congrats on the car!
I also loved the Sonata when it came out. A neighbor came home with a 2011 black SE 2.4 with dual exhaust and fogs. We talked for 1/2 about it. 3 months later I bought the 2012 Optima version. ($24,260 EX base in Spicy red).
I found that the Optima was more to my liking as well. It looks a lot like the Lexus GS 250/350; a great looking entry level luxury sedan.
14 months later, I still love it. Not one thing has broken after hundreds of commutes into DC. I would recommend it to anyone.
However, there are a ton of fresh faces to choose from in this segment. The Fusion, Altima, Mazda6, Accord and Passat should be seriously considered and test driven before making a decision on ownership.
Happy hunting!
Accord annoyances:
Storage space (door, center console, armrest) are all pitifully small. Sonata wins it big time here with its big storage spaces and little nooks everywhere.
Short front seat bottom makes it less comfortable.
Automatic headlights go on and off on a bright day when the car gets into slightly darker spots.
Trunk is narrow and the wheel well takes away more space.
No HomeLink for garage door - Are you kidding me for an EX?
No light in the glove compartment. Come on Honda!
Poor cupholder location - Sonata's forward location next to the shifter is more preferred.
No place to put coins.
Door armrest is useless as it is so low.
Hanging accelerator pedal - Sonata's is attached to the floor which make it way more comfortable (per my wife).
Keyless entry - No way to open all doors without using the remote from the driver's side.
Rear seat leg space - The floor bump is much higher than the Sonata's.
Accord positives:
Memory seats - Sonata lacks this.
Back up camera
Nice steering wheel with nice controls.
Clear instrument panel.
Tie:
Design
Leather quality
Interior space
Driving dynamics (yes Accord seems better here but if you drive the way most family sedan owners drive, there is no real difference).
Bluetooth/USB - Bluetooth in these cars are still not optimal.
CVT vs. normal transmission - There really isn't much of a difference.
Overall, the Sonata is much better "family" sedan. It is not all about how well the car drives, it is more about how comfortable the car is for a family. And to pay slightly more for Accord for what I think is getting less of a car adds to my vote for Sonata. We will just have to wait for this lease is up. Oh well.
Thanks for the detailed post. My Sonata lease is up shortly and the Accord is #1 on my list. I will review your nits to make sure I don't have buyers remorse. As a second choice, i am looking at the optima with the convenience PLUS pkg (backup camera, high-tech mirror with Homelink). Optima has a $1500 price advantage for me due to incentives and that is why it's still a player. Need to do another test drive and look at some details i may have overlooked on short test drive.
A big reason I went with the 2013 Sonata GLS vs. an Accord late last year was cost. Hyundai had aggressive lease prices for a loaded GLS (every option including homelink mirror) and gave me a very generous trade in for my 2007 Sonata (beat up, but they have their own body shop so I bet they made out OK on that). All in all I saved $3,000 over 3 years on the lease with the Sonata vs. an Accord LX--assuming the Honda dealer would give me at least as good a deal on my trade as Hyundai.
For what my wife uses the car for, she would notice no significant difference drive-wise but does appreciate the extra features on the Sonata such as the heated seats and trick mirror. And I think the Sonata is a better looking car inside and out than the Accord, esp. the LX.
If the cars were priced similarly, I would have given the Accord a very close look. But at the pricing available back then, it was no contest.
Any other '13 Fusion owners out there experience this?
I'm wondering if they installed the Hybrid tank - which I believe is 13-14 gallons - by mistake...
Our 05 Nissan Quest is similar. It's about 21 Gallons and I can drive it below the E-mpty...but still it will only take about 16-17 gallons. I once drove so low I thought I'd run out...over a hundred miles more than I should have...and only put 18 gallons in (the most I've ever put in).
I see it as a suggestion...next few days I need to fill up.