Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
What is that real-world selling price then for the Accord with the 17" alloys?
What is the point of 17" alloys? I thought you didn't care for style. In your words: "Who said style was truly important? You did, not I"
Accord LX-P probably can be had for about $20K (which would be close to its invoice), no less. But Accord LX-S (the base coupe) likely won't be available to even touch for a while much less haggle on it. But that speaks about demand and supply more than anything.
If Mazda could find 50 year olds who want to feel young, I doubt you would be seeing $5K off MSRP (which I see you're).
You are not going to hear me disagree with that...
Frankly, I could do w/o the underbody kit and rear spoiler on the Mazda6i VE, but they're there, so I'd take them.
Handling is largely a function of tires and chassis set up, and you can see this today between Acura TL and Acura TL Type-S. They both wear identically sized P235/45/R17 rubber. OTOH, Accord Coupe now gets P235/45/R18, but I will be surprised if it can out-handle TL-S.
A down side to larger rims is added weight (assuming similar manufacturing process). In fact, going from P215/50/R17 (17x7) wheels in 2007 Accord to P225/50/R17 (17x7.5) wheels, about 30 lb of unsprung weight got added to 2008 Accord (some of that compromise may be to increase the profile a bit to improve ride quality with a little more rubber, about 0.2" worth).
In fact, it might also explain relatively large weight difference between Accord LX-P and Accord EX, which is 119 lb. I would guess about half it is due to larger 17" alloys on the EX compared to 16" alloys on LX-P because it is hard for me to fathom more than 60 lb or so added from additional features.
IMO, power and handling benefits show exponential improvement (or degradation). At some point, any additional "improvement" becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, that point doesn't garner much attention. People, and magazines are always thrilled to have/print bigger numbers. Whether they can put it to use, or not, is a whole another issue.
Interestingly enough, when NSX first arrived, it had P205/50/R15 (front) and P225/50/R16 rims. Even as it departed, the rim size never grew past 17".
I agree. But I am not clear what your point is. Are you saying, for example, that if two cars have identical chassis, but one has 16" high-profile tires and one has 17" lower-profile tires, there won't be much if any difference in handling between the two cars? Therefore I can just buy an Accord LX and get the same handling I'd get in a $30,000 EX V6?
The advantage of the lower profile tires would probably be offset by the added weight of the EX V6. Of course the EX V6 would probably have thicker sway bars, different struts, and some other changes that could also make a difference.
Tire/rim choices aside, being lighter and slightly better "weight balanced", Accord LX is actually better start for good handling. But there are differences in chassis tuning between LX and EXV6 (or EX or or EX-L or EXLV6). The higher trims use thicker rear stabilizer bars and have front shock tower bar that LX/LX-P don't. So, there are more more differences than just tire/rim choices. For that matter, Honda generally tunes Coupe more aggressively than Sedan.
As my comparison between TL and TL Type-S proves, there isn't a need for larger rim to improve handling. Both TL and TL Type-S have identical tire/rim size. It is the rest of the chassis tuning that makes the difference.
Although the last German car I owned was a 71 Beetle, I think you could say that historically German cars were all about comprehensive styling, the overall layout. IMHO the best of the lot were the late nineties (or so) BMW's which were beautifully understated. I can't understand the new BMW complexity, Audi gaping grills, etc.
Calling the new Accord Germanic is interesting. I don't see it, but then again, I didn't look closely at it with that in mind.
There's a lot more to it than that. The overall diameter of the tire, the profile of the tire, the width of the tire (and wheel) all contribute to handling, and ride quality.
I am an anti-wingite, also. Spoiler is not standard on the Sedan VE, only the hatch. My VE Sedan is wingless .
I thought the same about the "underbody kit" (which is just side sill extensions). I initially thought I'd just as soon not have that, too. But after seeing the car without, I decided I much prefered the looks with it. Of course, even better would be to have the sheet metal shaped to eliminate the "need" for the add-on sill extensions.
Just the better looks (due to alloys, side sills, smoked headlights,dark tail lights, and sport grill) of the VE made it well worth the $500 or so extra over the base version. Then getting the bonuses of 6 CD and power driver's seat made me wonder how they sold any base models at all...I suppose they were mostly sold as loss-leaders.
And, yes, the 17 inch alloys look very nice...much better than the standard steel wheels with fake alloy-look wheel covers. 16 inch alloys would have been fine with me, though. I can even live with steel wheels, but just hate the fake alloy wheel covers...wheel covers should just cover the wheel, like these do:
That is all relative to what tire and what kind of rim. It has been proven that a larger wheel and lower profile tire can improve handling, as long as the tire diameter does not change. With a lower profile tire, there is less yaw in lateral motion = better grip.
"Needs", perhaps not...one could maybe argue for some small marginal safety improvement due to greater ability to avoid crashes, all else being equal.
I want good handling for everything from changing lanes to going around corners and curves, just because I find it more pleasnt to drive such cars. For the many people, who don't care about these things and would rather float down the highway in a vague handling car...well, I guess the Camry works for many of them. Many GM products also seem to be known for soft rides and vague steering.
The same reason someone needs 280hp in a family car. Also, not every city street is a straight line, nor is every American highway straight and flat. If you live in Kansas, I could see your point but in California (and even in the midwest) there are hills, valleys, mountains (well, not in the midwest so much) and curves.
It is also easier to avoid a collision in a vehicle that can corner and provide feedback to the driver.
If you are going to spend $20k on a car, can't it be fun too?
Accident Avoidance.
A crisp handling car can maneuver away from trouble easier than a flabby-handling car can, maybe even avoiding causing a wreck yourself when you swerve/maneuver away from trouble.
Well, not all city streets and American highways are straight. I live in New England, and no highways are straight, and everyone drives quite fast. When I go into NYC, I get passed when I'm driving 80, and some very narrow highways. Accident avoidance is a big thing, too.
I would say in my neck of the woods, I find it a necessity.
Wants and needs are totally separate emotions.
Not sure how much time you spend in your ride, but considering I spend more time in mine than my living room, I want the upper end of amenities in my car.
You don't really need cushions on your couch, do you?
I'm with you. The "handling" aspect of a mid-size sedan is a greatly overstated positive aspect that has very little practical application in everyday driving.
Brakes, suspension, and steering responsiveness all contribute to great accident avoidance. Mazda calls ABS, Able to Brake and Steer. The Mazda6 is one of the best at accident avoidance, and handling because of the total package of all three systems.
To me, just like everything else, there is a balance to be found, a sweet spot. Going overboard has never been my way. Give me 16" alloys on my family sedan, and I'm okay, as long as the chassis is tuned right. Besides, I don't mind being (at least) $150 richer every time I replace the tires.
The superior handling characteristics of our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion were an added bonus, to be sure, but, yes, I would prefer a bit softer ride. The 17- by 7.5-inch alloy wheels and 225/50/17R Michelin tires are a bit much in my book.
Ten years ago when I was shopping for my first new car, Passat and Accord were the finalists. Both offered things most others didn’t, and that was good communication with good ride quality. The Passat did it slightly better than Accord, but I was wary of longevity with the VW and its turbo engine, premium fuel and fuel economy. So Accord was it. Power wasn't the top priority, as both cars were rated at 150 HP, which was actually the lowest of the bunch I test drove.
I had test driven the two a few times, and during one of the drives in an Accord, the sales person took the car to an empty two-lane back road with curves. The speed limit was 30 mph. He warned me to hold tight, accelerated to 40-45 mph and at a point right after a curve, braked hard while steering the car to the inside lane. He asked me to take note of everything the car did. I was impressed, and more so, after he had me try the same.
Of course, I didn’t buy my Accord from him since I didn’t want a unit that was abused like that. :P (but there was actually another reason to it, a competing dealer offered better price). At that point I thought it was a good thing to have something I might never use, a car that stopped flat while affording excellent steering ability and ABS worked impressively.
A few months later, I ended up in a situation that required a maneuver like that, and this was on a freeway, going around 65 mph in traffic (going far enough in history, you may find my post on Edmunds on this incident). One of several cars in front had hit something in the middle lane that sent a Jeep off the highway (and I was surprised it didn’t flip over) and panic struck. I had little place to maneuver with cars all over. When we all stopped, there was a Volvo to my left, the (original culprit) Crown Victoria to the right in the middle lane and I was between them. Not even a scratch. The driver to my left and I looked at each other and smiled, and went about our business. I haven’t had to use it again, but that only increased respect for the car I was driving.
Besides handling as it is understood in the traditional way, there is another important aspect of it that is not talked about as much. And that is in how chassis settles after going over bumps at high speeds (or even low). If you take an Accord over a bump at high speed, the chassis will only bounce once. It will settle immediately after. Another car will bounce and re-bounce, and sometimes the wheel angle will unsettle that there is some loss in control (and worse, many of these cars isolate the driver so much that they may not know what is happening). You can actually observe this while following different cars and how they respond. The less the rebound, the more control the driver has.
Yet another example would be from my experience from a few years ago at a slow exit ramp. I prefer not to slow down too much when getting off freeway to allow the rest of the traffic to continue instead of having to brake behind me. Depending on the ramp, I will brake a bit or let the car roll to a reasonable speed thru it.
My rental Avalon was doing its job until the entry at which point it started to understeer. To correct, I applied the trick that works in my Accord, brake slightly and steer inwards. The Accord’s rear suspension would rise to the occasion providing a gradual passive rear wheel steering to rotate the car and the steering provides enough feedback. But in the Avalon, the understeer changed to snap oversteer and I almost lost control. There was absolutely no feedback from the steering either (which was overboosted to begin with). The suspension wasn’t firm on the ground but doing cha-cha.
The interesting thing about all this is that nobody would confuse an (American) Accord for a sport sedan. But, its chassis tuning does those little things very well. It will understeer, but it will get out of a situation like that even with throttle applied, rotating the car. And another area where it excels would be cross winds.
Take a Camry and an Accord on an open stretch with plenty of cross winds, and you just might see how much difference chassis can make. Backy doesn’t like it, and has heard me say this a few times, but I have an unforgettable memory of being overtaken in a Sonata by a minivan while carving the canyons over a freeway in Oregon. This is another story that might still be around in Edmunds from my postings in 2002. Speed limit was 70, and I had the throttle all the way down. I felt like going 70-75 mph only to realize moments later that cars and minivans were overtaking me (I’m not a slow driver). I looked at the speedometer and it was showing 65 mph. There were two problems. One, the engine didn’t offer much (which was a disappointment since it was a 2.7/V6), but more importantly, the car felt faster than it was traveling and that goes down to the car’s handling aspect.
A good chassis can provide a hunkered down drivability with good maneuverability. I couldn’t care less for more, because I also care for good ride quality. So, handling and strong chassis are always a good starting point, but not the end.
Yes, I recall your talking before about this experience in a car that hasn't been sold in the U.S. for 2-1/2 years and was designed in the mid-'90s. But I'm still not clear on its relevance to this discussion. :confuse: If you want, I could wax poetic about my experiences driving underpowered cars--including Toyotas and Hondas. But since that was years ago, I won't bother you with them.
Superior to what? There are cars in this class I'd call preferable to the others but none of them start with the letter F. Even then I wouldn't use the term superior in describing their attributes.
We all have our own opinions, however, the Ford Fusion does have far better handling to that of Camry, 2003-2007 Accord ann 2002-2007 Altima. I am not sure about the new Accord or Altima. Plus, the Fusion is offered in AWD. There have been numerous comparo's done to prove this. C&D's sticks out in my memory.
While you may not like Ford as a whole, the Fusion is a huge step in the right direction. SO I ask, "Have you driven a Ford lately??"
If you haven't looked at Ford lately, look again!
Funny though how you bring up the Hyundai powertrain warranty now. I didn't think you thought much of it.
Actually yes. And not just "driven" one - I bought one. A F150 for my business. On labor day weekend.
Its a fine truck, but I wouldn't call it superior to the competition, as the guy with the Fusion says of his vs. whatever he's comparing it to.
I test drove the Fusion - twice - in 4 cyl and 6 cyl form, and found it less desireable than the 06 Accord or Altima I also tested.
I didn't weave it thru a slalom but after driving for 30+ years, I think I have a good feel for "superior" handling in a vehicle.
PS. The original intent was to illustrate the point of handling performance. When something feels faster than it is, then there is a problem.
Uh...
I am currently driving a Fusion SE rental car right now for 2 weeks since an 80-year-old decided I have to sideline my car for a while. Anyway, the fusion's handling is nothing to write home about. It is marginally better than my mom's 1999 Camry but worse than the 2007 Camry SE I had on my last trip and much worse than my old 1997 Honda Accord.
I am not trying to knock on the Fusion, which is a quantum leap compare to the old Taurus. However, comparing to the 10-year-old Honda Accord, asides for a few modern gadgets that it has the '97 Accord is a much better car IMO.
I would also pick the Camry SE over the Fusion. For all those people knocking on how bad the Camry handles, go try the SE version and it'll surprise you dearly.
According to many authors, they feel the Fusion SEL AWD handles better. Like I said, C&D's artice trally sticks out in my mind.
I have driven a Fusion, and it does handle nicely. Last time I drove a Camry, MY 2002-2006, it felt like a grandma mobile. Very comfortable, but, not meant to hit the corners. I used to own a 1991 Accord, and it handled nicely as well, but, it was smaller then the current Civic! My father owns a 2004 Accord coupe, and it has nice power, but, I never really tried to hit any corners with it. The 2006 Accord LX sedan I have on my lot is really nothing to write home about. Very basic. Not great in the corners.
Too many unanswered questions.
Fusion is a decent effort from Ford but close, no cigar yet.
Last time I drove a Camry, MY 2002-2006, it felt like a grandma mobile.
Didn't you read my post before replying? I did say that the Fusion handles better than my mom's old Camry but the one I said that's better is the 2007 Camry SE.
I have the Michelin 50 series tires that came with the appearance group. The dealer was all out of 60 series tires and gave me an excellent deal.
I think the handling is definitely better but the comfort certainly isn't. I find my 05 Malibu Maxx with 60 series tires to be more comfortable. Plus, replacement costs will be a lot higher on the Optima.
Then again, I'm not 25 years old and I'm not Car and Driver.
My favorite quote:
The biggest compliment we can pay the car is that it's totally consistent. Whatever you do with the accelerator or steering won't upset it.
With taut body control, strong, progressive brakes, minimal tendency to run wide in hard cornering and even the ability to tuck tighter into bends if you ease off the throttle, it's predictable, but enjoyable to drive.
Japanese style with European dynamics? It works.
2009 Mazda6 preview
I have. A 2007, to be exact. Handling is good, and leagues better than the regular Camry.
Better than the Fusion? Not really IMO. Both the Milan and Fusion have very good handling, and the SE feels about the same, with a slightly softer ride.
Most impressive in terms of handling was the Altima and the Aura. The Altima has always handled well, but the '07-up is more refined. The Aura was a BIG surprise, taking corners with great confidence and a smooth ride.
Its more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, given that it would be basically the same speed.
Yeeeees. I was adding my own .02 Am I allowed to do that?
This was one of the reasons I went with the EX vs the VP, as the VP lacks the rear sway bar, which adds stability in crosswinds. It also has a slightly larger footprint as each tire is 10mm wider (of course the size and style of tire kind of neuters the car, but thats neither here nor there). My Accord has gone back once to have the suspension checked because I couldn't believe the amount of body roll, I thought a sway bar end link had been damaged or not connected or something.
In hindsight, I could've gotten the VP and added a suspension kit and aftermarket tires and wheels and still come out ahead, but bygones.