-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Comments
That's the beauty of the current "horsepower war" - everything is faster, even the 4 bangers. My last sedan was a Mazda 626 with a V6 generating 170 HP and 165 TQ. It would go 0-60 in 7.2 seconds when equipped with a manual. The 4-banger in the Accord has become just as powerful and very nearly as fast as most V6s of 5-10 years ago, especially when you consider the new revised power ratings.
Normally I'd agree with you about the C&D testing procedures and a car being faster in their hands than in the hands of the average driver, but I don't think that applies to the Accord.
Here's why: the average car is considerably slower in the more conservative 5-60 test than in the all-out 0-60 run, but the difference is only 0.4 seconds for the Accord. The Accord's 5-60 time of 7.9 seconds is on par with cars that go faster 0-60. Additionally, most cars that match its 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds have a slower 5-60 time.
Bottom line? Just as some cars feel slower than their specs on paper suggest, in my opinion the Accord drives faster than its spec sheet suggests.
Ford - they build their manuals like GM does - something to make the car go for the ultra-cheap model. And it plainly shows.
Have a sneaking suspicion that some test driver for a C&D road test is revving the heck out of that Accord and then, popping the clutch in a trial/error process attempting to squeeze a few tenths here and there. My point was, that this is not likely something you would do to your own car and a degree of abuse that the vast majority of drivers never do - therefore, you 'real' 0-60 should be slower - as would it be for all cars.
It's difficult to believe one could get 9.5 sec by just flooring an automatic, but only improve that to 9.2 driving the manual in an abusive manner.
That's where the 5-60 test comes in. There's no revving and popping the clutch in a 5-60 test, it's already in gear with the clutch out, and rolling 5mph. The only variable there would be how much throttle to give (and resulting wheelspin if any). Accord is only 4 tenths slower to 60 in that test than the standard 0-60, whereas most other cars (like the Fusion) have a larger 0-60/5-60 difference.
Car and Driver test results:
Accord I4 5M
0-60 mph 7.5
Street start, 5-60 mph 7.9
Fusion I4 5M
0-60 mph 8.1
Street start, 5-60 mph 9.0
Difference:
0-60 0.6
5-60 1.1
See my point? If you look at the C&D 0-60 test as a high-revving, clutch-popping, tire-smoking drag strip launch, and the 5-60 test as more of a "real world" run, you can see what I mean about the Accord feeling faster than similiar cars under any (but particularly those) circumstances. There's not much difference between the two driving styles in the Accord.
OK, have to agree with that, but you do have to wonder how far past redline they run the things (the Honda engine maybe a little more willing and able to do that) and possibly even 'slam shifting' sans the clutch.
Other PC makers, not as well know as the IBM name, were offering similar computers for far less money.
That was my point in comparing computers to cars.
That was my point in comparing computers to cars.
That is a valid point, but there is a warning in that market as well. Companies like eMachines build dispoable computers that are designed for maintenance, they are designed to be tossed if an component fails, since they are integrated into the mobo.
I got the 4-cylinder. Acceleration wasn't tops on my list, but when I could get good the best fuel economy from a car that was also quicker than many (all at the time, actually)of its competing 4-cylinders, I knew I had found my car.
I guess I'm not "most" though.
Referencing post 480, the Aura has to be the best offering from GM in the midsize arena in a dozen years. GM should've imported Opels all-along, they have to be better than things like the late '90s Lumina.
I'm glad to see GM finally having some products it can be proud of other than trucks. As I see it, Ford should be proud of its Fusion, but perfuming the pig on the Focus and Escape? Shame on you Ford. You succeeded with an all-new Fusion and it receives great reviews, can't you give us a new Escape and Focus in less than 8 years? Or will the Fusion be around, with nothing new but a fascia, in 8 years? I certainly hope not. The bar is moving way too fast for that.
You don't think 1.1 seconds 5-60 mph is considerably faster? Or that most people wouldn't feel the difference? Well, lets look at some examples.
A 1.1 second faster 5-60 time than the Accord 2.4L 5M would be 6.8 seconds. That would be just AHEAD of a 2007 Ford Mustang 4.0L V6 manual, which finished 1st place in the C&D "Quickest Cars under $20,000" article (in which the Accord 2.4L 5M finished 6th). Think you could feel that difference?
One more 1.1 second increment? Now you are just 0.1 second behind the 2007 Ford Mustang GT 4.6L V8 manual in a 5-60 run. How about that difference?
The difference between the Accord and the Fusion in a realistic "real world, street start" 5-60 mph run is nearly the same as the difference between a Mustang V6 and a Mustang GT in the same test... That is something anybody is definately gonna feel. I would know, I've driven all of those cars recently!
grad - they kinda have - remember the Cimarron that I think went off the market back in the late 80s, and there also is a lot of 'Opel' in the CTS as well. Agree about GM finally getting its act together though (and Ford's inability to keep up) - it will interesting to see if a 'good' Malibu can 'sell' without the now traditional GM discount structures as this would obviously be good for GM as well. Folks that go out and shop Camcords expect to negotitate from window sticker, those that shop the US brands expect something much more. It would seem that if the Aura is going to be sold the way they are ('no nonsense' pricing) that the consumer is going to expect the new Malibu with a good size discount, meaning that GM would have to artificially inflate the sticker to accomodate the discounts - like what they do with Buicks.
van :confuse:
So what's up with all this banter about 0-60, 5-60 etc?
The cars are all about MPG, not acceleration.
I don't drive a lot of miles and preferred acceleration and comfort so I opted for the Aura XR. Choices based on needs, so what if your car is a second slower than the other guys?
van
I was able to feel a difference in how they responded to throttle inputs without even driving the cars fast. I'd bet that the average driver would notice as well.
I know we aren't talking about Mustangs here, but the difference between the 5-60 times of the two Mustangs is nearly identical to the difference between the Fusion/Mazda6 4-cylinder and the Accord.
I hate to be second, it's just another word for looser.
I used to drive a car with a 2.5L turbo and 5 speed. It was a few tenths quicker than the Mustang 5.0 to 60 and in the 1/4. It got the same MPG as the Mustang too, which proves it takes X amount of Gasoline to make Y amount of power and propel Z weight to V velocity in a specified T time.
Physics?
I am considering ONLY THE FEELING, and determining from that.
van
I doubt you would, not in the 0-60 times. Your talking about standing on the gas and running 2nd gear out to almost (if not) 60 mph. either car, or the altima, fussion, camry, accord for that matter, is going to feel like its going extremly fast. I can't see noticing a second difference.
And thats what separates a v6 mustang from a GT. you don't have to push it so hard to get those kind of results. You'll notice the difference in normal driving far more than when your pushing the car as hard as you can. In fact, the thing you'll notice most about the GT is how easily the thing will take off, without having to give it a lot of gas.
Glad to hear it. I too think I got performance and economy. I guess those two terms are relative. I think for a performance car it should be able to do ov er 95 in a 1/4 mile, do it in under 15 seconds. 0-60 should be as close to 6 seconds as you can get, quicker if you can afford it. Top speed isn't real important because I hardly ever want to go over 100 anyway.
On the economy side I like 30 MPG but had to give up 2 for the performance I wanted.
So, for about $26K I get 0-60 in 5.9, 1/4 mile in 14.7 @97MPH and fantastic ride, handling and comfort. But I only get 28MPG highway and 22 in the city.
Relatively speaking, good enough for me.
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Cimarron
Perhaps captain2 was thinking of the more recent Cadillac Catera, which was a rebadged Opel Omega - see the link below for this info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Catera
Again, I had a Mazda6 V6 with manual trans and now have a Mustang GT with manual trans. The Mazda was rated by C&D at somewhere around 6.5 seconds to 60, the Mustang's best I've ever seen was 4.9 seconds. I'll be perfectly honest, I just can't shift that fast nor do I abuse my cars like they do to get those times. However, I can say that jd10013 makes a good point.
There are times that I look down at the speedo of the Mustang, after taking off from a stop hard and fast on my way home from work, and see that I'm doing 80 or 90 MPH. I'm still used to seeing 60 MPH at those same points in the road which is how fast I'd have been going in the 6 at that point. I then realize how much faster the Mustang is but up until I look down it just feels like I'm going really fast regardless of which car I was in.
So the feeling is the same in a hard launch IMO. You fell like you're going really fast. How fast you are really going isn't realized until you look at the gauges. That's when the "I'm going to pee my pants" feeling kicks in.
perhaps I was, sorry. Opel has been a long time subsidiary of GM and first imported some rather nasty tin cans in the 50s and 60s. Circa the early 70s a midsize sedan (at that time) the Opel Manta 1900 was a really well designed car, so much so that it became an autocross favorite. Think the exchange rate got it though, because I believe it later became a Japanese Isuzu by by mid 70s, marketed as always by Buick.
That's right on. High torque at low engine speeds really feels great. Always has. Always will.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Downside, driving the car as if it had two speeds, on or off, gas mileage suffers. The equation f=ma still holds true. Without a big heavy V8 in the nose, lightweight high-output cars feel much more balanced.
It is quite a rush! Of course I lose a good bit of convenience havint two small children when compared to the cars compared in this thread. So far I have no problem with that though.
Why during rush hour in L.A.? Because you have to go that fast to keep up? I always thought rush hour in L.A. was bumper to bumper? :confuse:
(busy counting the days until I can leave L.A.)
Why during rush hour in L.A.? Because you have to go that fast to keep up? I always thought rush hour in L.A. was bumper to bumper?
My point was obvious to me when I wrote it. Rush Hour in LA is stop and go, speeding along at 0-10MPH. That's when the wimpy econo boxes and (many) of the Hybrids can get up to a safe merge speed. Said with tong-in-cheek humor inflection I grew up and learned to drive in LA. I would go stark raving nuts if I had to drive it every day now.
Out here in the So.Cal desert, you better be up to 75MPH, or more, at the end of the onramp or a Tractor-Trailer might just run over you. :shades:
well maybe, if you are willing to put up with the 'old' pushrod 3.5 and the even older 4 spped tranny. That would be the XE not the 3.6 XR which will 'run' with about any of the 'better' cars in this class. The Malibu so equipped may well make an impact, the versions of the last several years dull at best. Don't know if GM is going to be able to sell it at much of a profit however - if the autobuyer is going to spend something north of $25k for a car, they are not likely to want it to have a Chevy nameplate on it in this class. Same problem that I see the Sonata having.
exactly why a good V6 is preferable in a 3300 lb.+ car - and the FE tradeoff is getting to the point that even that is relatively minor, (70 gallons of gas or so PER YEAR assuming a 3 mpg difference). And yes the Altima, Camry, the Sonata, the Saturn XR, and the Accord V6 will all get well into the 6s and run 15s (or less) 90+ mph quarters. So is it worth not sweating that tractor-trailer, buyer's choice - you pay a whole coupla hundred bucks a year for the 'privilege'.
exactly why a good V6 is preferable in a 3300 lb.+ car - and the FE tradeoff is getting to the point that even that is relatively minor, (70 gallons of gas or so PER YEAR assuming a 3 mpg difference). And yes the Altima, Camry, the Sonata, the Saturn XR, and the Accord V6 will all get well into the 6s and run 15s (or less) 90+ mph quarters. So is it worth not sweating that tractor-trailer, buyer's choice - you pay a whole coupla hundred bucks a year for the 'privilege'.
The thing is, where I live and where my parents live (two large but not GIANT cities - Birmingham, AL, and Oklahoma CIty) there isn't one place where my 4-cylinder Accord ever has close calls due to lacking power. When my 4-cylinder Accord can out-accelerate the massive number of Tahoes and Expeditions on the road, I don't feel that extra power is a need. It is a want, and that's ok, but it isn't one of My needs. The mixed city average of 29 MPG with upper 30s to 40 MPG highway money in this college student's pocket, too!
I say all this to say: I understand exactly where you're coming from.
To my friend I graduated high school with, my cars are "slow, and slower." Of course, his FIRST car was an Acura 2.5TL with 175 hp, and his current car is a 3.2CL with 225 hp. To ME however, my cars are "adequate, and quick."
It is all relative.
My previous Accord was 140hp, and I was happy with it for a long time. If I would have test driven only a 4cyl.(and not the V6) when I was shopping, I probably would have bought one, and been satisfied with it. I tried the V6 out, and that was it, I couldn't go back. Did you try the V6 out, when you were shopping?
I liven in Colorado where Subaru's with Turbos rule the mountain roads. Just a few miles away, in Kansas, any 4 banger will do because the altitude is low (lots of air) and the highest hill is 2 feet hi.
In California, I need and want HP with moderate MPG.
Thank a soldier for helping you have a choice.
Only if you don't know how to pass correctly. :P
The 45-65 passing acceleration time differs by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 seconds between these 4 and 6 cylinders. I think this means you'd need maybe 40-80 feet extra acceleration space for the 4 cyl.
All this means is that you would have to back off that little bit further behind, so that you can accelerate in your own lane and then execute the passing maneuver while spending the same amount of time in the other lane as you would with the V6.
Got it now. I figured you were making a joke but I just wasn't getting it at the time. :shades:
Which is exactly what I had to do with my old 140hp Accord. And it still took longer to get around. Not to mention you don't always have the time for such advanced timing maneuvers. Then sometimes I would accelerate hard, get right up to the rear of the car in front of me, then realize it was too close a call to go for it. Then have to hit the brakes, and maybe try again later. With the V6, I don't spend extra time in preparing to pass. I just hit it, and go. Much easier. I have to admit the 4cyl was a challenge, and actually fun sometimes, when the maneuver worked.
That may not hold true in everyone's opinion, and that's ok. I don't have to agree with everyone all the time
The 92 Accord was much smaller, and lighter, and tossability (the word seems to fit, real or not) was it's game. That car was made specifically for a 4cyl engine. A V6 would have never fit under that hood (without a gigantic shoehorn). I feel the current Accord is much more suited for the V6 engine, and not as tossable as the 92, with either engine.
I hear ya, I just felt like the 4-cylinder was lighter on its feet, although lacking the muscle under the hood that the V6 posseses.
Knowing how my 1996 was also a handler in its day makes me want to pony up some $ and replace the shocks and struts. The ones I have are the original stock ones (172k mostly hwy miles). The car handles nicely and predictably, but I can't help but feel it is nowhere as sharp as it once was.
The ride on bumpy interstates sure is nice though; much softer than my 06!