Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1153154156158159544

Comments

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Differences in perception. One mans' palace is another mans' sardine can. So it goes with the RX-8, which has less room the 350 and makes a sardine can look roomy.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Member Posts: 531
    Differences in perception. One mans' palace is another mans' sardine can. So it goes with the RX-8, which has less room the 350 and makes a sardine can look roomy.

    Well when a short guy with short legs like me sits in the back seat of a car he shouldn't be cramped if the car is roomy enough and I can fit comfortably in many small cars. The RX8 wasn't one of them although it is a great looking car and what a super sounding engine that loves to rev!
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Well when a short guy with short legs like me sits in the back seat of a car he shouldn't be cramped if the car is roomy enough and I can fit comfortably in many small cars. The RX8 wasn't one of them although it is a great looking car and what a super sounding engine that loves to rev!

    Its funny I think we are about the same height. I can actually fit back there but my top half is longer than my bottom half, so leg room isn't a big issue.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    from now on looking at your'all's posts. I usually italicize the other person's comments but the bold face texting actually looks a tad clearer to me.

    tiff c, otherwise we might think that the person's quote are your words...and, as was already mentioned by somebody else, that starts getting corn-fusing.

    Ya know what I mean, Vern?

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • tiff_ctiff_c Member Posts: 531
    Its funny I think we are about the same height. I can actually fit back there but my top half is longer than my bottom half, so leg room isn't a big issue.

    Well I have a 29" inseam so that defines me as having short legs. ;)
    I still found the RX8 to not have enough legroom for me. Why does such a great car have to have such horrible fuel economy? :sick:
  • tiff_ctiff_c Member Posts: 531
    tiff c, otherwise we might think that the person's quote are your words...and, as was already mentioned by somebody else, that starts getting corn-fusing.

    Ya know what I mean, Vern?


    IIRC Vern was the smart one. :P
    Jim Varney/Ernest was always the one getting in a mess, a real Drongo ! :D
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Thanks for changing your posting style...makes it much easier to read. Your personal opinions are what is important.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I hear a lot of complaints from past Accord fans and auto writers about the Accord growing "too big" but it's that extra space that made it a slam dunk for us.

    Well comparing dimensions the Accord is about 1/2 way between a Ford Taurus and a Mazda6. It's wheelbase is much closer to the Taurus than it is to the 6.

    That was our biggest complaint about our Mazda6, just not as much people space as we wanted, barely more then the compact Protege5 we were replacing.

    That is one of the things I like about it...for me, it is not too big and not to small. It is one of the few cars that are about the size of the old contour I had. When I bought the the contour it was partly because it just had a little more substantial feel to it than the smaller compacts such as Protege, Sentra, Focus, Civic.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    It's wheelbase is much closer to the Taurus than it is to the 6.

    The 2006+ Civic has almost the same wheelbase as 1998-2002 Accord. It doesn't figure into size of the car. Most FF cars have tougher time extending wheelbase since it often requires longer overall length. Longer wheelbase helps improve ride compliance/stability (reduced pitch), besides helping improve interior accomodation.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I still found the RX8 to not have enough legroom for me. Why does such a great car have to have such horrible fuel economy?

    That's because it's a rotary! For whatever reason, a rotary engine is not as economical as an Otto cycle engine ( 4 stroke). Why? It has to do with design. I can't really explain it, though . However, a Wankle Rotary can produce more HP at a lower displacement. The RX-8 has a displacement of 1.3L, and produces 232hp. Mazda is the only mfgr to mass produce the rotary today, and they only use it for their performance vehicles (RX-8 and formula). Their 3 and 4 rotor engines produce crazy power, and can be revved like a motor cycle engine. The 787B rotary that Mazda used to win LeMans produced around 950 HP at 10,500 rpm's. The rotary has proven to be reliable as well, for it has only 3 moving parts. Turbo charging them is not a great idea. The seem to eat up the apex seals that way.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Edmunds has compared the Accord EX-L, Altima SE, Malibu LTZ, and Camry XLE V6ers, link on the home page. That was the finishing order.

    It's curious that Edmunds didn't demand a Camry SE for the test, since they must know the SE out-handles the XLE and handling was important in the comparo. The SE did well in MT's recent comparo, for example. The comments on the Camry's (lack of) interior quality were consistent with other reviews. That raises the question, when you take Toyota's traditionally high quality, reliability (note problems with the tranny in the V6), and fit-and-finish away what do you have left? It appears you have an overpriced sedan that takes last place against its main competitors.

    Another interesting point: Edmunds named the Mazda6 its Most Wanted sedan in this class, and also named the Azera the Most Wanted sedan under $30k (all but the Malibu were priced over $30k in this test), yet neither was invited to the party here. So I guess they are "most wanted", just not cars that Edmunds deems worthy of comparing to the likes of the Accord et. al. in their reviews. :confuse:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    For whatever reason, a rotary engine is not as economical as an Otto cycle engine ( 4 stroke). Why? It has to do with design. I can't really explain it, though.

    For the same reason that 2-stroke engines can produce twice the power for a given displacement as a 4-stroke engine. It also explains why rotary engines have poor fuel economy. As with 2-stroke engines, rotary designs are compact and produce good power, but they also share the drawbacks (fuel economy, oil consumption and emissions).
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    They probably want to wait for the redesigned 6 before they pit it in; all the cars in the comparo are a generation ahead. Not to justify anything; sometimes its difficult to understand based on what they pick particular cars for each comparo - maybe logistics based.

    Also, Edmunds says the Accord is now the best selling car in the US; how come? Any idea?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Maybe based on purchases by individuals only, or based on November sales?

    Maybe they'll redo the comparo late next year with the new Mazda6, Accord, and the revamped Sonata. Based on how well they like the current Mazda6, that could be quite a battle.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Based on the very first paragraph, it seems they were looking for high volume family sedans (Accord, Altima and Camry fit the bill), and Malibu has been there and should do better. Azera and Mazda6 don't even come close in that regard. Fusion might have made for a logical inclusion to include something from Ford, but again, it isn't selling in stratospheric numbers either.

    As for the article itself, I don't think handling was a big player. Price had the biggest weightage (but went against features as well). Handling would make for a small part of performance measurement (which including 0-60, quarter mile, braking). And while Camry SE handles better than XLE, I'm not sold on it the way MT is. It finds itself lost between being trying to be a Camry and a sport sedan.

    With Altima, however, I think they should have opted for/provided with 3.5SL trim, to keep things even.
  • SporinSporin Member Posts: 1,066
    Toyota's nosedive in quality is becoming very well documented and no vehicle in their range is immune. i'm very involved with the Toyota Truck community and there are a LOT of guys very disappointed in their new Tacomas.

    Question is, how long can Toyota grow and prosper on reputation alone? How long before the masses notice the change?

    Honda has had it's own issues the last 5 year as well but the quality drop off is not as large as with Toyota. Hopefully Honda can learn from Toyota's mistakes and pick up their end of the bargain before a it gains any steam.

    Congrats to GM. 2 years ago the Malibu wasn't even in the same league, now it's not only competing, it's winning by some people's opinions.

    They are all good cars now, the one that gets your dollars will come down to personal preference, brand loyalty, or "the little things."
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I have never liked Camry since the mid-90s (a reason I moved to Hondadom) and when the 2007 arrived, while I saw a little light in the tunnel, it happened to be a firefly. And the dash treatment was something that struck me as a major weakness. It was trying to be contemporary but using design elements (silvery plastic combination with green-blue faceplate) from the late 90s audio systems found on Walmart shelf.

    A few months later, I got a bright red Camry from Hertz to drive for about 2800 miles. My complaints were no longer limited to aesthetics and ergonomics, but the plastics (and especially the assembly) was not something I expected. While I have never liked Toyota's interior design, they rarely lack fit and finish issues much less trying too hard to look different.

    And after 2-3 months in a new RAV4, I have noticed similar issues. Not only do I hate the dash controls which require more time off the road to operate, couple of days ago I noticed that the lower left side of the dash had a bigger gap against the center stack than the other side. I had not seen it earlier, but when I pressed it slightly, I knew why. The plastic is now loose.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    So with the onset of cold and gloom that will be around for the next few months, we also get this other prize - winter gas. So far, the Legacy went from 28 mpg to 24, and the Accord slid from 32-33 to 27.
    If they want to do something with the EPA ratings, they should have used winter gas for their testing.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    EPA ratings are overly pessimistic already. And I think the new ratings are making more fuel efficient vehicles less effective than they are (compared to those that had bad fuel economy). Want to make it worse?

    It seems, both of your cars are doing better than the EPA rating, even with winter fuel.
  • SporinSporin Member Posts: 1,066
    Winter blend gas, low temps, more defroster use (which on most cars engages the AC compressor) and chunky snow tires with higher rolling resistance... they all contribute to poorer MPG numbers for us northerners. I consistently get 2 MPG± more in the summer over the winter and that includes a lot of summer AC use even.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Still, the RX-8 costs a good $10,000 less than a G35(350 has no back seats) or a BMW.

    That buys a quite a lot of fuel. Well over 300,000 miles to make up the 4-5MPG difference, even at $3 a gallon.

    As for the back seat, let's face it - we have passengers exactly HOW often that aren't kids? The BMW's rear seats aren't large, either.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Question is, how long can Toyota grow and prosper on reputation alone? How long before the masses notice the change?

    Try "now." A cousin of mine is going to buy a mid-sized sedan before the end of the year. He didn't even consider the Camry seriously based on what he's heard about quality and how it drives. He's narrowed it down to the Accord LX and Sonata GLS or SE (I4 with stick). He said he's decided on the Sonata, as he doesn't think the Accord is worth the extra money, although he likes both of them.

    The masses are beginning to notice the change, but it will take a little while to show up in a big way in sales figures. But I predict it will happen, and probably in 2008. I think we'll see the Camry lose its sales crown for this class, with the Accord taking #1 again and others including the Altima, Malibra, Fulan, refreshed Sonata, and new-for-2009 Mazda6 picking up the slack. Maybe even the Optima will pick up some individual sales--Kia is certainly trying hard to push it, I'm seeing ads for it everywhere.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    EPA ratings are overly pessimistic already.

    Don't you mean optimistic?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Only for you Boz! ;) :mad:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Nope. Both of my cars met or beat the old ratings (despite of my driving style). The new ratings are lower, and as a result, extremely pessimistic. Unless I were driving my cars for no more than 2 miles in uptown area with four traffic lights within a quarter mile and speed not exceeding 30 mph, I simply don't see them getting as poor fuel economy as EPA ratings suggest.

    With the new ratings, I'm simply having to add 10-15% to come up with my expectations. So, if EPA says 18 mpg, it will be a surprise to me if I didn't get (at least) ~21 mpg.

    To add to it, EPA actually doesn't use AC/climate control in most of its cycles, whereas I rarely shut them down.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Still, the RX-8 costs a good $10,000 less than a G35(350 has no back seats) or a BMW.

    Does the RX 8 cost 25k (g35 is around 35k well loaded)? In any case, most testers have reported around 13mpg for the RX8

    "As for the back seat, let's face it - we have passengers exactly HOW often that aren't kids? The BMW's rear seats aren't large, either."

    The BMW 3er has a pretty decent back seat compared to an RX8, and the G35 even better. In addition, the ingress/egress to the RX 8's back seat is not at easy as say, a G35 or a 3er, and this becomes more problematic if you have small children that need to be strapped to chiled seats/boosters.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I would be surprised if the accord has better Nov sales than the Camry; that thing is selling boatloads.

    When I rented one; I specifically noticed the poor fit of dashboard components, in fact some areas were so misaligned, I thought it had to be an anamoly. Guess not.

    I would expect a comparo sometime later next year, with a Mazda6, Accord, Camry, Malibu, Sonata (updated), Altima, Optima (they have been getting rave reviews) and Fusion (if updated) sometimg late next year. If the size is a problem, than most publications will pick the newer redesigns along with best sellers (IMO)
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    Why am I not surprised your cousin is picking the Sonata :)

    With Backy in the vicinity, I would think it must be hard to pick something else (Just kidding, bud!)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    the RX-8 costs a good $10,000 less than a G35(350 has no back seats) or a BMW.


    If you get an RX-8 GT, which is comparable to a G35, you are looking at $31,705 with no extras. Yes, that is MSRP, and there is negotiation involved, but, to save $10,000 on a new RX-8 is not possible. Inventory is slim to begin with, you are not really going to find a dealer to beg you to take one. There is such a power advantage in the G35 as well, but, the Rex handles much much better.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually, he asked me about it only after he had his sights set on the Sonata. I asked him why not the Accord, and he told me he didn't think it was worth the extra bucks. I suggested he check out the Mazda6 (he has a 626 now), Fulan, and Optima before he buys. (He wants a stick so the Malibu and Aura are no-ops. He'd already eliminated the Camry and Altima.) I also suggested he take a peek at the Elantra SE, but he said his wife wanted more interior room. Maybe that's why he focused on the Accord and Sonata, they are class-leading in interior room.

    So, sorry to disappoint you. Someone made up his own mind about picking the Sonata over the Accord. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Personally, I'm glad for everyone who picks SOMETHING OTHER than a car like mine! It's hard to be "exclusive" in an Accord. :)
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Personally, I'm glad for everyone who picks SOMETHING OTHER than a car like mine! It's hard to be "exclusive" in an Accord.

    The nice thing about it is how easy it is to find parts. There are 4 or 5 sets of Accord wheels on craigslist at any given time, while I am having a heck of a time finding used wheels for snows for the Legacy. You would think with the popularity of the WRX with tuners, it would be easy to pick up a set of stock 16s. I might end up putting the snows on the stock wheels and getting 17x7 Rotas for spring and summer.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Couldn't you use 16s from an Accord on Legacy? Does Legacy use an unconventional size?
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Couldn't you use 16s from an Accord on Legacy? Does Legacy use an unconventional size?

    That would seem easy, no? Apparently Subarus have a huge hub and they have a huge offset as well (+52 or 55 or something like that). The bolt pattern is the same (5x100) but apparently the issue is clearance around the brake caliper and hub spindle.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    If you get an RX-8 GT, which is comparable to a G35, you are looking at $31,705 with no extras.

    Huh?

    The only thing the GT package gets you is leather seats and a sunroof, which is so far back that it's only useable for the back seat(true with a lot of smaller cars lately - basic design flaw and why I won't buy a modern car with a sunroof).

    2008 RX-8 with the sport package and MP3/CD player, manual transmission.
    CarsDirect Price: $26,861 including delivery.
    2007 models have $3500 in rebates.
    16/22mpg

    The BMW comes with leatherette upholstery, which is "pleather". Ick. It's not real leather in any case, so claiming it has "leather" is a moot point.
    CarsDirect Price: $34,380 including delivery(xenon headlights and sport package)
    There are no rebates on 2007 models. Typical BMW.
    17/27mpg

    The Infiniti(350Z has no rear seat so it's not valid here) G35:
    CarsDirect Price: $30,916 (sport edition) fake leather as well - pretty standard, even Mercedes doesn't give you real leather until you move up to the E class now)
    Infiniti has no rebates either on 2007 models.
    17/25mpg

    Okay - not $10K, but $4K and nearly $7.5K more expensive.
    RX-8 16/22
    328i 17/27($7500 more)($10K if the RX-8 is a 2007, hence my "$10K" claim)
    G35 17/25($4000 more)($7500 if a 2007 RX-8)

    It's a VERY small MPG difference between the three. It will take a LONG time to make it up on fuel savings, plus let's not forget the more expensive car has higher insurance, registration, taxes, interest on the money you're loaning(small but it adds up)...
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    Only for you Boz!

    So it seems. :)
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Yeah, previously the EPA ratings (before 2007) were a joke...OPTIMISTIC to the max. People en mass complained that..."I can't get the advertised fuel economy on my Do-hickey X89900" So what happens? The EPA gets realistic in their ratings and now they are "pessimistic"?. Can't please all the people can we? In my specific case our 2006 Civic was rated @ 30/40 mpg. We got 24-25 mpg in our small city and mid to upper 30's highway,,,,say 36 to 37mpg (driving in a responsible fashion). The EPA now rates (for 2008) our same engine/transmission combination @ 25 city/36 highway/29 combined. Guess what? this is almost exactly what "real world" fuel economy is for us. Is this an accident? Did the EPA tailor the ratings to almost exactly what we get (no, they didn't call us to ask)? So if you ask me they are now realistic and yes there will always be the "robertsmax's" in the world who say they can easily outdo even the old EPA ratings even though most couldn't for whatever reason. Three cheers for the "new" improved EPA ratings!! Now there is less room to complain about fuel economy not meeting the "advertised" rating.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The EPA ratings are for comparison purposes anyway. They show what one car gets in standardized testing over another, and will never be a terribly accurate guide for a majority of drivers.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Having a base RX-8 compared to a BMW with leather, Xenons and such is not a direct comparison. The RX-8 GT has leather, moon roof, Bose Audio, xenon lights, DSC, limited slip. That is comparable to the BMW, in terms of equipment. The moon roof is not far back. I dunno where you get that. Plus, there are hardly any 2007's left. There are no rebates on 2008's.

    Comparing an RX-8 Sport to a BMW or G35 is like comparing a Honda Civic DX to a Mazdaspeed3. Common...
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    The EPA ratings are for comparison purposes anyway. They show what one car gets in standardized testing over another, and will never be a terribly accurate guide for a majority of drivers.

    A very valid and insightful point. You get awarded a brownie. Its just a data point.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yes, if you get different mileage from EPA test it is mostly because you drive differently than their test is designed to simulate. Each car is likely to differ fairly similarly from the EPA figures.

    I did notice that the revised EPA guess for my wife's car appears to have been off by more than most. She has a 2005 Jetta 2.5 that had 22/30 and 25 mpg combined on the sticker. EPA then predicted the new test would result in 19/28 and 22 combined. The actual result for the 2008 model of same car with same engine came in at 21/29 and 24 combined...so the old sticker was actually closer to the new figures than the EPA predicted values were.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    To expand on that point:

    My dad is a very aggressive driver. He doesn't worry about gas mileage, he just wants to get from A to B as quickly as can be done safely as possible.

    In his 4-cyl Accord, his commute (which was almost identical to mine since we lived at the same place and both drove to downtown Birmingham) gave him 22-24 MPG most of the time. In the same commute, I get 28-29MPG in the same kind of car (2.4L 5AT Accord).

    Therefore, in his Civic 5AT he has now (2007), he should expect 28-30MPG, whereas I'd expect 33-36 MPG or so in the same car. Before my folks moved, dad was getting 30 MPG in his Civic.

    Comparison purposes only. If more people thought about it this way, they'd be more pleased.

    Urnews only got 21 MPG or so in his Focus, so 15 MPG in his V6 Fusion AWD isn't bad at all. Both are a good 2-4 MPG below the city estimate. It's just because his style/commute is different.
  • tiff_ctiff_c Member Posts: 531
    That's because it's a rotary! For whatever reason, a rotary engine is not as economical as an Otto cycle engine ( 4 stroke). Why? It has to do with design. I can't really explain it, though . However, a Wankle Rotary can produce more HP at a lower displacement. The RX-8 has a displacement of 1.3L,

    What's shame is I don't care about displacement like they would in Europe where you are taxed on engine displacement as well as your insurance.
    Too bad about the dismal fuel economy but not much I can do about that. The car is great fun but the lack of good fuel economy and lack of rear seat legroom puts the cars solidly off my list. Love the ways it screams so easily to redline. :D
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    So if you ask me they are now realistic and yes there will always be the "robertsmax's" in the world who say they can easily outdo even the old EPA ratings even though most couldn't for whatever reason.

    You must mean those who made the most noise. You have no clue how I drive. And believe me, you will be amazed even more if you see me drive and the fuel economy I get, than I am at folks who believe that the new ratings are closer reality.

    Here is the reality. This is one of my cars, previously rated 23/30 mpg. Has never done worse than 23 mpg (which happened when I lived 2 miles from work) in mixed driving, and an easy car to get 32+ mpg on highway at 75-80 mph. With 184.5K miles, it still gets me 25-26 mpg on a consistent basis in mixed driving (50-50). THAT used to be EPA's combined rating for the car. I could do (and have done) better than that by avoiding aggressive driving.

    Shouldn't folks be getting about 22 mpg? If you think EPA's tests are perfectly designed, more power to you!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    the old sticker was actually closer to the new figures than the EPA predicted values were

    Exactly. I'm fairly sure revision to EPA rating was primarily driven by the mockery of the system around hybrids. They added greater variance to their old standardized tests, and as a result they ensured that those who complained would shut up. Folks who met or beat the old ratings (given the numbers, sounds like a larger part of the populace), aren't going to complain about it. So, EPA's solution was to make the noisy folks shut up.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    The EPA ratings are for comparison purposes anyway.

    Agreed, but it also leads to misleading comparisons. The biggest problem with this government run agency is that it is a happy camper in a dark well. Few seem to realize this but their "scientific" methods have left a lot to be desired. It was, perhaps, by accident that the older ratings were truer for most part.

    They also leave a bigger loophole for automakers to fiddle with. Fuel economy ratings aren't merely for comparison only. They are becoming a selling/marketing point. The rate of acceleration, non-use of AC etc, provide for easy ways to bloat numbers in some cases. And these might be the cars that folks generally complain about not being able to meet EPA ratings.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    Urnews only got 21 MPG or so in his Focus, so 15 MPG in his V6 Fusion AWD isn't bad at all. Both are a good 2-4 MPG below the city estimate. It's just because his style/commute is different.

    You have a good memory, Graduate. We still have the 2000 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder, Zetec Focus station wagon (about 21 mpg all-city driving) and a 1997 3.8-liter, V6 Ford Thunderbird (about 13-15 mpg all-city driving) in addition to the 2007 3.0-liter V6 SEL AWD Ford Fusion (15 mpg all-city driving).

    Before I die I hope to have a car, any car, that will deliver 30 mpg in all-city driving. The last one that I had that did that, religiously, was a 1958 VW Beetle, which didn't even have a gas gauge, just a 10-gallon tank with a 1-gallon reserve activated by flipping a level to lower the intake nozzle. (Ah, those were the days!)

    Except for the gas mileage, my wife and I have zero real complaints about the Fusion after one year's ownership and almost 6,000 miles. It is a fine automobile that handles and rides superbly, looks sharp and has its fair share of bells and whistles. It should for a $27,105 MSRP. That's almost $10,000 more than the $17,995 starting price for an S model with a 2.3-liter I-4 and 5-speed manual with 16-inch wheels.

    I think FoMoCo really produced a winner in its 3-car mid-size trio, Fusion, Milan, MKZ. According to what I've read on the Internet, there are now about a quarter-million Fusions on the road now and they continue to do very well in the reliability department.

    I still believe the Camrys and Accords are the benchmarks in this class, but our Fusion is definitely a top-notch contender, one that has exceeded expectations.

    Anybody know why (hosts are you reading?) the Chevy Malibu is not represented in the reviews at the right side of this page? Shouldn't it be included? I would like to read owners' reviews of this car.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Anybody know why (hosts are you reading?) the Chevy Malibu is not represented in the reviews at the right side of this page? Shouldn't it be included? I would like to read owners' reviews of this car.

    IIRC, the max number of cars allowed in a comparison on the side of the page is 9. Before now, the Chevy wasn't worth talking about much.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Having a base RX-8 compared to a BMW with leather, Xenons and such is not a direct comparison. The RX-8 GT has leather, moon roof, Bose Audio, xenon lights, DSC, limited slip. That is comparable to the BMW, in terms of equipment. The moon roof is not far back. I dunno where you get that. Plus, there are hardly any 2007's left. There are no rebates on 2008's.
    ***

    The Base with the sport package has limited slip, xenon lights, traction control, and so on. The ONLY thing you don't get is fake leather and a sunroof. Oh, and the Bose audio, which a good set of four Kenwood speakers will obliterate for $160 at Best Buy. BT,DT - there is no bigger ripoff than factory sound in cars.

    In both cars, the sunroof is useless bling to break and does nothing for the performance of the car, which was the original poster's question - what car gets the most performance for the dollar.

    Vinyl formed to look and feel like leather isn't leather. So it's a total waste of money on all of these cars. Or if you're lucky, it's leather powder and epoxy that's sprayed onto a backing and a pattern is applied. I'm not paying $2000 for that junk.

    So saying a car doesn't have "leather" isn't a valid comparison IMO. Fake is fake.

    There are tons of RX-8s left. I used Cars Direct because you can buy a 2007 from them today for that price.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I used to have a car that did that. It delivered 31 mpg with very little highway driving... 2000 Civic EX. I never got to see its all-highway potential since the 98 Accord got picked everytime. Interestingly enough, the supposedly "more realistic" new EPA ratings applied to the 2000 Civic is only 24/32 mpg. :sick: (IIRC, the original rating was 28/35).

    Since you get only 15 mpg in a Fusion, it might be quite a challenge for you to get 30 mpg in any car. Perhaps something like Accord Diesel will get you closer to that target. I won't rule out hybrids either (Civic, Prius, Camry, and Altima). And there is another on the horizon that should do really well in that regard... the expected sub-20K hybrid from Honda (likely based off Fit).

    I just read about a 2003 Civic Hybrid which has 595K miles on it, while getting 48 mpg. The owner works as a courier in Phoenix (which would indicate plenty of stop and go driving). He drives 10K miles/month. At least that is something you may not have to worry about. IIRC, you drive only 5K miles/year.
Sign In or Register to comment.