Midsize Sedans 2.0

robertsmx · October 2007

There's something about experience and maturity, I guess. It might take a few a bit longer to learn. Some are born that way.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

There's something about experience and maturity, I guess. It might take a few a bit longer to learn. Some are born that way

Maturity is different then dull and lifeless; its a balance some understand, some just miss out

robertsmx · October 2007

Riding a bullock wagons may be exciting to some, dull to others. Does it not have a place? I think it does. Some just "learn" to find a better balance than others. Dull to you, may be. Don't complain.

zzzoom6 · October 2007

a little sensitive eh? I don't think anyone is being very serious about the dullness of some of these midsizers, just having a bit of fun...

but I do have to ask... what rationale is there to buy a sedan instead of a crossover except for a lower center of gravity and thus better performance? some crossovers have similar gas mileage but benefit from a much larger cargo carrying capacity and often have more comfortable creature comforts for the extra passengers because of a higher roofline. perhaps there is a slight price advantage to a midsize sedan, but not always and it seems the differences are shrinking. for some, sedans are more attractive than crossovers, but the success of the previous gen accord and camry suggests that looks aren't that important. in my view, the main reason to get a midsize sedan is because it handles better than a crossover.

thegraduate · October 2007

May I ask you to show me a 2WD crossover with mileage as good as a sedan counterpart (with the sedan's best engine)? Here's what I'm coming up with...

Saturn Outlook v. Saturn Aura 3.6L
Honda Pilot v. Honda Accord
Ford Edge v. Ford Fusion or 2008 Taurus
Hyundai Veracruz v. Hyundai Sonata or Azera
Toyota Highlander v. Toyota Avalon or Camry

To the best of my ability to tell, these Sedans all get better mileage and are quicker than their larger counterparts.

If you need seating for 5+ and don't mind ignoring the obvious practicality of a minivan (vans these days come with swiveling seats, dual DVD players, laser cruise control, etc... what more creature comforts does a $35k-$40k shopper need?), a Crossover is fine; even practical if you need AWD.

If you are like most people I know with an SUV or Crossover though, a midsize or full size sedan would be more logical (yes, I realize not many people buy things based on logic anymore).

csandste · October 2007

Malibu Maxx, hrmph, hrmph....

I'm still in mourning that my beloved Maxx is no more with the new platform. There's nothing like a midsize hatch. I get well over 32 mpg on the highway.

If I had to replace, I guess it would be a Mazda or the new Hyundai Elantra hatch (09)...

jeffyscott · October 2007

What is the rationale for the "crossover" to even exist? All it is a wagon on stilts...why not just go with the wagon?

Why did I not get a wagon, then? For me it was price, looks, gas mileage, and the fact that I don't really need one.

We have an old minvan and have only used it's hauling capabilities about 2 times per year recently. I figure if the minvan dies it'd be cheaper to rent something, pay for delivery, or pick up a little trailer for those rare occasions. I'm not one of those handyman, do-it-yourselfer types, though.

mickeyrom · October 2007

Jeffy...you sound like me.I have a 97 Chrysler mini-van and it only takes my wife to work,or to Wal-Mart.Less than 200 miles per month.I bought it new,and maintain it well.Should the engine die or something comparable,it will go to the big junkyard in the sky.
BTW..have you checked out the new Chrysler Minis..pretty cool interiors,a much more modern dash than in the previous models.

jeffyscott · October 2007

No, we are out of the minivan stage. We have 2 sedans now.

Our's is a '97 also, a Windstar though. The current user is my 23 year old daughter, who recently graduated. We told her she can use it for as long as she wants for $25 per month (to cover the difference in insurance). If we have a need for it, we will just "borrow" it from her.

thegraduate · October 2007

I would've mentioned it had it not been near-death, with the hatch on the chopping block.

backy · October 2007

Exactly. I have never warmed up to crossover SUVs. I know lots of people like them, but if I'm going to buy a big, boxy, lower-fuel-economy, based-on-a-car-chassis vehicle, I figure I may as well get maximum cargo space and passenger comfort and go with a minivan. I don't have a problem being seen in a minivan, although I know some folks won't be caught dead in one. My MPV has the underpinnings of the 626, so it handles great (for a minivan anyway), but is no longer than a mid-sized sedan yet seats up to seven in reasonable comfort, with tons of cargo space available even with four adults inside.

I think a 5-door hatch is a great compromise: the styling, handling, fuel economy, and price of a sedan, with almost as much versatility as the small-to-medium crossover SUVs. And if you really need AWD, there's the Outback.

zzzoom6 · October 2007

May I ask you to show me a 2WD crossover with mileage as good as a sedan counterpart (with the sedan's best engine)?

My thinking is that if you don't care about performance, why would you go with the most powerful engine? And some of the crossovers on your list seat 7, so I think those are the wrong crossovers to be comparing. Here's a quick list of crossovers I would compare (all are i4's except the hyundai where the sante fe only has a v-6 - perhaps I should've compared their smaller suv...).

accord 21-31 vs crv 20-27
mazda6 21-28 vs mazda5 21-26
camry 21-31 vs rav4 21-27
fusion 20-29 vs escape 22-28
sonata v6 19-28 vs sante fe v6 19-24

At the most, it seems the sedans have maybe a 10% fuel mileage advantage. For some, this 10% may be important, but the extra $150 a year in gas for some crossovers (based on 24mpg avg and $3 gallon gas on 12k miles annually), the extra utility may be worth it. Some have said, just get a wagon... for 08 in this segment, there will be the legacy and vw which isn't a whole lot of choice.

All I'm saying is IF a buyer doesn't care about performance, I would think the extra utility of a crossover would make sense. But for me (and other buyers of cars like the Mazda6), I DO care about performance and this sedan would torch most crossovers on the fun roads. Of course I have the hatchback, so I have many advantages of a crossover with the handling of a sedan... I don't think I could ask for more than what the Mazda6 offers.

robertsmx · October 2007

You misspelled. Its not about sensitivity, it is about sensibility.

Cross overs may have fairly close EPA ratings, and besides the fact that I'm a down to earth guy and prefer to stay farther from the heavens (which does translate to better dynamics of the vehicle), I don't have giants for friends or family. A sedan works just fine. So, I see no reason to compromise dynamics and fuel economy adding to extra ownership costs. And I don't rely on EPA ratings.

You quoted 20/27 mpg for CRV and 21/31 mpg for Accord. Doesn't sound like much difference, right? (unless you look at highway mileage) The CR-V's rating is identical to re-rated fuel economy for my 1998 Accord (which was 23/30 under old standard). But, here is the reality. I average 26 mpg in mixed driving in the Accord. It also gets me 32 mpg with average speed around 75 mph. If CRV could do that, I will be VERY pleasantly surprised, much less be close to the new Accord.

Even 10% can be a big number for some like me. I drive about 2000 miles/month. So, while $30/month may not sound like much, over five years it may add up to an additional $2K. But, comparison to CRV is fictitious since I haven't spent enough time to really know what it delivers. A recent road trip on a rental RAV4 just confirmed why they don't make much sense to me. I averaged 23.8 mpg with 90-95% freeway driving, at about 70 mph. It was AWD/I-4, but it is over 8 mpg worse than my observed mileage in my TL and Accord on the same road trip (but going faster).

Fuel economy is important to me. A reason, I'm seriously contemplating next Fit, even over the Accord. It offers the utility of those cross overs, with an anticipated 40-50% improvement in real world fuel economy as that can be big in the future.

jeffyscott · October 2007

The thing is all your comparisons are off by one size class. For example the CRV is a compact not midsize, it is sized about like a Civic (wagon). It is not Accord size, it is 13 inches shorter and wheelbase is 5 inches less (and I am comparing the 2007 Accord, not the new larger one).

I just had a Mazda 5 as a loaner it is like a Mazda 3 minivan...or more of a microvan.

I did not look up the Rav4, but I am guessing it is Corolla sized. I also am not sure on the Santa Fe.

The Edge is the fusion sized vehicle, not the escape.

Try comparing price and mileage of midsize crossover to midsize sedans.

elroy5 · October 2007

I have wondered if there were drawbacks to keyless entry. From reading this article, there are times when it can be a real problem.
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4025056

jeffyscott · October 2007

That is actually about keyless ignition, not keyless entry. "Keyless entry" means you press button on remote to enter the car, but still stick key in to start it.

Valet Parking :confuse: what's that? At most, I think I've turned my car over to someone to park once in my 30 years of driving.

kdshapiro · October 2007

Keyless ignition for a number of makes is a problem in that it can be hacked in 30 seconds with a laptop and your car gone in 60.

captain2 · October 2007

you know if you take lets say 4 cars, a Mazda6 DT V6, a Camry SE V6, an Accord SE V6, and lastly an Altima SE 3.5 and put all three on a road course (Lime Rock comes to mind) you will have a very hard time finding a course confining enough that the Mazda would'nt lose easily to the other three. Why - simply because it can not pick up enough in the corners to make up for what it loses coming out of them. I guess this is what 'zoom-zoom' is all about, or should I be allowing the Mazda extra points because it 'feels' the best being the slowest (in terms of lap times). Of course, 'any zoom-zoom' quotient is going to have a lot to do with what is under the hood, the reason to lament the loss of the Speed6. Mazda may indeed have some vehicles that they 'zoom-zoom' about - just not the 6, anymore.

moparbad · October 2007

Mazda6

2007 Edmunds Editors Most Wanted Sedan under $25000
quote-
The 2007 Mazda 6 and Mazdaspeed 6 stand as symbols of what a midrange sedan should be, compromising nothing and surpassing expectations on almost every level.
-end

Hmmmm....

kdshapiro · October 2007

Still wouldn't buy it.

robertsmx · October 2007

Edmunds may want it, nobody else seems to care.

backy · October 2007

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean others don't care. I see many Mazda6's driving around my area. I guess those people cared enough to buy one. If I were going to buy a car right now, the Mazda6i Value Edition would be on my short list. For around $16k, it's a fine car and a great value, IMO. Oh, I forgot... I'm "nobody." :P

robertsmx · October 2007

Forget ME, if others cared, wouldn't a "most wanted" mainstream car actually sell better than Mazda6 does? Thru September 2006, Mazda had sold 52.5K units, and this year, the number is at 44K. What makes for a "most wanted" car? Is its "want" being limited by production? Or is it limited by demand? I would love for you to explain that, instead of trying to jump on my throat. Unless, most wanted is from fleet sales perspective (with 42.7% fleet sales based in 2007 mid-year registrations, Mazda6 happens to be one of the leaders).

It doesn't speak for the car itself but that is the reality, not an opinion (for that, see Edmunds, and a bunch of posts here, including yours). So, there is no need to be overly defensive.

zzzoom6 · October 2007

yup, you're sensitive (and no, I didn't mis-spell thankyouverymuch). I don't think backy was being defensive... he was just saying that since you can buy a Mazda6 in some markets for 6k off msrp, it is a really good value especially if the buyer likes a good handling midsize car. And because it is a very good value right now because of soft demand, more people than nobody, as you put it, would be willing to consider the car. It's not his fault you exaggerated a bit in your first post and he called you on it; that's not being defensive. Getting upset because you had to retract your statement is...

Personally, I think the problem of low sales #'s of the mazda6 has to do with bad marketing and not because the car is bad. The average buyer of a midsize sedan is probably older than where mazda's marketing is directed. I understand that mazda wants to target a young demographic (it currently has the second youngest buyer of it's cars compared to other brands - scion is the youngest) but I think a midsize sedan needs to be marketed as much more than zoom-zoom or a company with a successful racing heritage since I think most middle-aged buyers could care less about these things. Yes it's true many car enthusiasts would consider the mazda6 the zoomiest in this segment, but it's also very comfortable, very safe, and extremely practical which is rarely mentioned in mazda6 commercials. I think if Mazda wants it's sales of the 6 to reach it's potential, they really need to reconsider it's emphasis on zoom-zoom at the expense of the Mazda6's other desireable traits.

zzzoom6 · October 2007

you know if you take lets say 4 cars, a Mazda6 DT V6, a Camry SE V6, an Accord SE V6, and lastly an Altima SE 3.5 and put all three on a road course (Lime Rock comes to mind) you will have a very hard time finding a course confining enough that the Mazda would'nt lose easily to the other three. Why - simply because it can not pick up enough in the corners to make up for what it loses coming out of them. I guess this is what 'zoom-zoom' is all about, or should I be allowing the Mazda extra points because it 'feels' the best being the slowest (in terms of lap times).

That may be true, I don't know really since I don't race cars for a living. But I do know that when I test drove these cars on streets, the Mazda6 surpassed the Accord and Altima in cornering grip, stopping power, and steering feel which are all important for maintaining control of your car. It's not the fastest in a straight line (the mazda6 v6 will do mid 6 second 0-60 where the cars you mention will do this in the low 6's) but it feels more connected when driving on the street. I'll leave race car driving to the pro's and when you find out who wins, let me know. You may also want to tell the SCCA Touring Car points leaders (both individual points leaders and manufacturer's points leaders) about your opinions too so that they quit refuting your "racing theories" by winning in their Mazda6's over cars that have more power than them :surprise:

jeffyscott · October 2007

How much power do your really need to drive on the streets (which is where these cars will actually be driven), anyway?

In other markets the mazda6 does not even offer the V6. I just read a review that said of the european base 120bhp, 1.8 L I4... "it's fine for what it has to do". The full quote being:

The petrol engines are revvy and eager, and if the 1.8 feels as if it's been ballasted with concrete after the other two, which feel closer for performance, it's fine for what it has to do.

The "revy and eager" engines referred to are a 147bhp 2.0 and the new four-cylinder 2.5 with 170bhp, replacing the 164bhp 2.3. It's funny that these same engines would be called underpowered, slow, etc. here in the US.

http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=228559

BTW, anyone know what specific elements make the new styling Japanese rather than European?

captain2 · October 2007

understand that in Europe the car buyers expectations and values are different - by necessity. Displacement taxes and petrol prices make the 250hp+ V6 cars we enjoy here in this country impractical (and expensive) to drive. So therefore Mazda not offering a V6 overseas or the predominance of little more fuel efficient 4 bangers in not strange at all, as neither are those standards in relation to Hp which certainly means less and handling/braking which tends to mean more.
The Toyota Avalon is a US market car only made in the US, and is reasonably economical and would handle 130-140 mph autobahns just fine. It is also too large for the roads over there, definitely emphasizes ride over handling (not the European preference) and has a V6 engine that by European definitions is simply too large.

kdshapiro · October 2007

This is not about sensitivity and defensiveness...very good questions are being asked.

If mazda(and Nissan) wants to reach a broader buying community, the advertising compaign should be rethought. They are targeting 18 year olds.

captain2 · October 2007

they really need to reconsider it's emphasis on zoom-zoom at the expense of the Mazda6's other desireable traits.
see we now agree - for those younger demographic folk (the average age of an Accord buyer is supposedly now 50!) that 'zoom-zoom' might appeal to, should be turned off a bit by the 6s lack of straight line capabilities when considering them in relation to all the other cars in this group. Sell price if they must, or sell safety (braking-handling) if true, but not something (zoom) that would have many expecting a car with competitive power to go along with that better handling.

mickeyrom · October 2007

When I was a kid,every car I owned had to be tested in a street drag race.It was a part of being a guy growing up in the '50s.Now that I'm all growed(sic) up,I care about comfort,dependability,economy and efficiency.Frankly,I dont even worry about handling as I dont do any racing of any kind.I feel perfectly safe even driving my lumbering 97 Chrysler mini-van.My new KIA Optima seems nimble,but I dont notice that it "handles" any better than any other car of any size or type.

backy · October 2007

I think another reason that Mazda6 sales are not higher is that the car is at the end of its run. Some people, like robertsmx, might see the car as "ho hum, the same old 6 I've seen for five years." There are many newer models that might be garnering buyer's attention. For example, the Fusion may be taking sales from the Mazda6--it's based on the same platform, but has more interior room, some may prefer the styling, and it's an "American car" (made in Mexico, vs. the Mazda6 that is made in Michigan, but it's perception). And the Fusion starts at around $15k (stripped, but it draws people into the dealerships). That the 'ol Mazda6 cxn still draw critical acclaim attests to its fundamental goodness. Just like the previous-gen Accord, which was still garnering praise at the end of its life, although its sales had to be propped up with huge incentives--just like what is happening now with the Mazda6. Let's see whether sales pick up when the all-new Mazda6 debuts next year.

robertsmx · October 2007

anyone know what specific elements make the new styling Japanese rather than European?

Interesting question, but I will use one of my friends take on it (he wouldnt drive anything but a BMW 3-series, until now).

Japanese designs tend to have more curves and lines, sometimes letting the feel of bigger vehicles than they actually are.

European designs (specifically German) tend to be tighter, cleaner, generally designed to reduce perception of size. The sheet metal is generally flat for most part, complemented by just a few lines.

For that reason, my friend thinks the new Accord looks more German than the new 3-series which he says looks more Japanese.

aviboy97 · October 2007

Let's see whether sales pick up when the all-new Mazda6 debuts next year.

I agree. Let's see how the up comming Mazda6 does in performance and sales figures compared to the out going Mazda6, and others in it's class. It is no secret that the current Mazda6 is outdated. If performance and sales increase, then it is a success. But, right now, comparing a 5 year old, almost 6 year old design to the new Accord/Camry/Altima is just worthless.

aviboy97 · October 2007

my friend thinks the new Accord looks more German than the new 3-series which he says looks more Japanese.

I would disagree with the Accord statement, especialy with the giant face of the Accord, and huge head lamps. However, from a side profile, I can see it, except for the little wheels.

I think the new 3 series does look like a Japanese car. Front end looks a lot like a Mazda3. The 3 coupe looks very German, though.

thegraduate · October 2007

Not necessarily. The 5-year-old Accord was still winning comparisons against new-for-2006 or 2007 competitors from Chrysler, Saturn, Kia, Nissan, and Toyota.

Age wasn't a handicap in that case apparently. We HAVE to compare the 6 to these new designs because at the moment, it is all Mazda has to offer. They really don't have a choice.

thegraduate · October 2007

However, from a side profile, I can see it, except for the little wheels.

I never thought I'd see the day when 17" wheels were "little." :P

captain2 · October 2007

I think another reason that Mazda6 sales are not higher is that the car is at the end of its run.
perhaps, but may also be because Mazda doesn't enjoy that same "Japanese car" image that some others do? Camcordimas sell at a rate of 1 million vehicles per year. The buyer of 'family sedans' is older than who Mazda seems to want to sell to - as kdshapiro points out - there are only a limited number of 18 year olds that can buy any car, never mind a new one.

joe97 · October 2007

Mazda probably will never come close to the Accord/Camry territory, but that doesn't mean it's not a good car, even as the current generation comes to a close. Different strokes for different folks, but to say no ones cares is a bit ignorant.

robertsmx · October 2007

It might sell better initially, but better designs are expected to hold well over time. Mazda6 hasn't sold well, at least not over last 2-3 years, and this despite of being a high volume fleet sales car.

As an observer (thats about as far as I will go, given the choices around), Mazda6 is probably underappreciated in the market, but its orientation is more as an alternative to other lifestyle vehicles like Passat than truly be seen as a competitor to established midsizers like Accord, Altima and Camry.

robertsmx · October 2007

but to say no ones cares is a bit ignorant.

Stop taking words literally. I posted sales numbers, didn't I? If people were rushing to buy Mazda6, wouldn't it actually do better?

robertsmx · October 2007

Tiny wheels? And in another board, I've been complaining about Honda's new found tendency to go overboard with wheel size. If P225/50/R17 (25.86") is "tiny", then P235/45/R18 (26.3") wheels on Accord coupe must be about average. :surprise:

Perhaps some will want to upgrade to ~~19"~~20" rims. Thats the way to go, right?

Even Civic now has BMW 328i sized rims (and I'm not talking Civic Si). And we wonder why cars keep gaining weight... 40-50 lb right there.

As for headlamps, Accord has always had the shape, and it seems proportionate to the size of the car (compared to the past). Don't think it is any bigger than my 1998 (perhaps more perception because of the way it tapers). Honda could have done away with the bulge though (and has in the coupe). Right there is some Japanese influence.

joe97 · October 2007

No one said people were rushing to buy the 6, but that doesn't mean it's not a good car. If everyone went by sales figures for their purchase criterion, then we might well just have one car only for everyone. Like I said, different strokes for different people. FWIW, the demographic of the segement generally has a perference for ride over handling. Also, a lot of people doesn't even know the Mazda brand if you had asked them, depsite the popularity of the MX-5 and 3.

robertsmx · October 2007

No one said people were rushing to buy the 6, but that doesn't mean it's not a good car.

Did I say that it wasn't? Just that it wasn't "most wanted", because if it were, it would sell. Why is it that a "most wanted" car, which is well within price range and not limited by production, struggles to sell?

joe97 · October 2007

Editors' Most Wanted Vehicles for 2007

Every year, the Edmunds.com editors gather to ponder that eternal question, "What cars or trucks would we most want to park in our garage?" For the 2007 model year our editors have once again scoured the entire automotive spectrum looking for their favorite vehicles. What they've came up with are the Edmunds.com Editors' Most Wanted cars and trucks for 2007.

Reading comprehension > you

robertsmx · October 2007

Can't speak for the editors at Edmunds, but reading comprehension would be an issue if I actually read the article (and I tend to skip virtually all that Edmunds' has to say). I went by the title of the thread in discussion "most wanted".

backy · October 2007

You are forgetting that the Mazda6 is the "most wanted car" by the editors of Edmunds.com--not the general public. The editors probably have different criteria than that of the general public, e.g. maybe the editors appreciate crisp handling, while the average family-car buyer would rather buy an "appliance" car like the Camry, the #1 seller in this class, which is more boring to drive but has (or used to have?) rock-solid dependability.

To someone's comment that the 6 is targeted at 18-year-olds... or maybe at 50-year-olds who think young?

captain2 · October 2007

as kdshapiro noted Nissan's marketing and product bias is somewhat similar to Mazda's but it works for them (perhaps being a little more mainstream) to the tune of 200-300,000 Altimas a year - imagine a Mazda6 with a 270hp Nissan VQ engine - now that truly would be 'zoom-zoom' - or maybe they already tried that with the MS6 and it didn't work?

robertsmx · October 2007

maybe at 50-year-olds who think young?

They are buying BMW 3-series.

robertsmx · October 2007

Count number of V6 powered Altima on the road. You will be surprised. They aren't as rare as V6 powered Camrys but I don't see many of them on the road.

Focus should not be placed on low volume offering. Refining the seller would be the key, and that means, four cylinder engine.

captain2 · October 2007

down here in Texas the Altima actually outsells the Accord (but not the Camry) and according to my dealer (and judging by his inventory) 3 out of every 4 are 4 bangers - a ratio I suggest you'll generally find in Camcords. In things like Fulans/6s/Sonatas would guess that a far greater percentage are V6s (50-50+?)if for no other reason than price. The Altima has generally been offered with the most powerful engines in this class since 2002 - 4 and 6 cylinder. Part of the reason for the younger buyer, I guess.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles