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

1…185186188190191…544

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I generally don't have a cell phone with me. We have one but my wife carries it most of the time, it is used pretty rarely. 200-300 Tracfone minutes covers us for a year or more.

    I thought we (my family) were the only one's who didn't talk on cell phones constantly. ;)

    I think the increasing number of gadgets in today's cars (i-pod connections, navigation, phone accessories, etc.) are only providing more distractions for drivers. Car shopping seems to be less about the car, and more about the toys included. All this would be fine with me, if it were not increasing the prices of the cars too. :( Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668

    Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.

    Well stated. I am one of those people, too.
  • bwiabwia Member Posts: 2,913
    Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.

    Well stated. I am one of those people, too.

    I used to feel that way until we bought a Malibu with OnStar navigation and handfree telephone. These toys can be very addictive and not to mention ridiculously expensive.
    Nonetheless, I still don't own a cell phone and probably won't buy one any time soon.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    So I just installed a Britax Boulevard in the back of the '05 Legacy wagon (I know, not a sedan but still midsize) and I can't believe how much space it takes up. Right now it is in the center to protect the lil dude better from side impacts, and there is no way for anyone to sit in the two outboard positions unless they are a contortionist. I am positive they could design a child seat every bit as safe and secure without taking up half of the car.

    The '07 Accord fared better with the infant seat (Graco SnugRide) than the Legacy, which still had a usable back seat, but I think the Britax installed in the Accord would have the same outcome.

    The other issue that most cars I have seen lack the lower tether (it should be on the floor in the back seat) for anchoring a rear-facing child seat, with the Accord and Legacy being no exception. Now that the Accord is losing its main advantage of having a usable back seat with the child seat installed, buyers remorse just grows. Its not that it isn't a great car, its just not the one for me.
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.

    Well stated. I am one of those people, too.

    Like someone else said, I used to be like that myself. I told my wife that I didn't want a cell phone and when I'm out doing things like my favorite pastime bicycling I want to be detached from the rest of the world and not bothered.

    In the car the only time I would ever listen to the radio was for weather updates related to upcoming bike rides or the news.

    Last fall I bought a Sebring with a MyGIG infotainment system. Now I've turned into a gadget junkie. This thing is so cool I call it my playground on wheels. Heck, I even carry a cell phone with me on my bike now.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    A reporter is hoping to talk with consumers who had considered purchasing a Hyundai Sonata and ended up purchasing another vehicle. Please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com before Friday, May 16, 2008 with your daytime contact information and what you ended up purchasing.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Just a little engine comparo here

    Mazda6 2.5L 170hp @ 6000 rpm / 167 lb-ft torque @ 4000 rpm
    Accord LX 177hp @ 6500 rpm / 161 lb-ft torque @ 4300 rpm
    Accord EX 190hp @ 7000 rpm / 162 lb-ft torque @ 4400 rpm

    Mazda6 3.7L 272hp @ 6250 rpm / 269 lb-ft torque @ 4250 rpm
    Accord 3.5L 268hp @ 6200 rpm / 248 lb-ft torque @ 5000 rpm

    I would say that Mazda's 2.5L is on par with Honda's Accord LX. Obviously, the EX has more hp, but, less tq. That's i-VTEC for ya!

    As for the V6's, I would guess that the Mazda will be quicker, especially with the 21 lb-ft torque advantage, however, curb weight and gearing will come into play. Honda is known for great gearing.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I would say that Mazda's 2.5L is on par with Honda's Accord LX. Obviously, the EX has more hp, but, less tq. That's i-VTEC for ya!

    As for the V6's, I would guess that the Mazda will be quicker, especially with the 21 lb-ft torque advantage, however, curb weight and gearing will come into play. Honda is known for great gearing.

    Interesting read, avi. One thing I noticed, that I hadn't before, is that the torque in the Honda 2.4 actually peaks at a higher RPM than my 2006 does (4,000 in my 166hp car). Wrong direction!

    Also, as far as gearing goes, the V6 Accord has relatively short gearing which allows VCM to operate more often. With taller gearing, VCM wouldn't activate as much because the combination of the gearing and the VCM would mean VCM would rarely get used because it didn't provide enough power. So, you may have something there, with gearing, but I suspect Mazda's 6-speed and fatter torque curve will push it to the front if there were a race. The Accord Sedans are noted for having a weaker torque curve than the non-VCM coupes, effectively "missing" some power. There's a reason the Malibu/Aura, with less horses, is faster than the Accord.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    There's a reason the Malibu/Aura, with less horses, is faster than the Accord.

    I noticed that too.

    Would you say that the VCM Accord is a bit "lost" in terms of what Honda was trying to do? The have gobs of power, but, it's not used to its potential? The Accord should be quicker then it is. I understand the fuel savings with the VCM, however, I have noticed an abundance of VCM Accord owners not getting the fuel savings they were expecting. What do you think? You know Honda better then I do.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Honestly, I read about the economy of the VCMers, and it actually seems pretty good. Probably as good as I was reading last year with the 3.0L models. The only thing is that with no noticeable gain in economy or performance, the 3.5L is now hauling around more weight and girth. The 4-cylinder model seems to have lost a lot of economy, however, based on the MPG forum. I don't hear people beating EPA numbers, the NEW ONES! I average close to 30 MPG and drive in the city plenty (I go to school in Birmingham and work nearby in an office park). These days people are struggling to get their Accord to 30 MPG on the highway, and this is the 2.4L model.

    It does seem that Honda tried to go three different directions with the V6 model(upscale, towards the Avalon; fast, towards the Camry; efficient towards its own 4-cylinder) and ended up getting nowhere but bigger and more expensive, with nothing groundbreaking besides VCM, which has turned out to only be ground-shaking for those with VCM surging and vibration issues.

    I will say this (and its a shame to say it): if something happened to my 2006 Accord that caused me to have to shop for a new car, the 2008 Accord would not be on my list. The Altima 2.5 would likely be close to the top, the Nissan Versa would be there too, actually.
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    will say this (and its a shame to say it): if something happened to my 2006 Accord that caused me to have to shop for a new car, the 2008 Accord would not be on my list. The Altima 2.5 would likely be close to the top, the Nissan Versa would be there too, actually.

    I only hope someone from Honda is reading that because it speaks volumes. I'm betting you are not alone either grad.

    At least Honda tried to make the Accord look more sporty by tacking on some Acura-like flared exhaust tips. Personally I think they look stupid wrapped around a tiny exhaust pipe but I can see how many could be fooled by them seeing how shiny they are and all. :P
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Having seen pics of the new Mazda 6, it is on my "watch list" now too. I want to see economy numbers on it though.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    At least Honda tried to make the Accord look more sporty by tacking on some Acura-like flared exhaust tips. Personally I think they look stupid wrapped around a tiny exhaust pipe but I can see how many could be fooled by them seeing how shiny they are and all

    I read over on the Accord forums that these exhaust tips are being ripped off to the point that dealers are having trouble keeping them in stock....so I guess somebody likes them.

    I like the numbers for the new 6 engines. More torgue at lower rpms is what I like. Gets one up and moving without having to push it hard. I too am really curious about the MPG numbers.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    It's amazing to me that we're all talking about engines that are now pushing close to 4 Liters in size for "midsize" cars. I remember thinking the Accord was amazing for having crossed the 200hp barrier in the fall of 1997.

    At least MPGs have gone up. I can't help but think if we couldn't have more efficient engines if we had a cap on horsepower, say 200. I don't think anyone would complain that the Passat is underpowered, with the 2.0t. If we could have sedans with most having 130-170hp engines making 30/40 numbers, it'd be great.

    Oh wait, we have those - they're diesels!
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Diesels and Hybrids too! Can't wait for diesel to finally make it here. They're imho, the real savior for the next 10 years or so until we get better tech. I'd love to see most compact/midsize sedans with a clean diesel available. I figure we could finally live in the 30/40 era then.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I think the increase in power has somewhat mirrored the increase in weight. All the safety equipment etc. If there wasn't a corresponding increase in hp I think we would be disappointed in performance. I'm talking 4 cyl here mostly.

    However, that doesn't explain the 6cyl hp numbers. I totally agree that anything over 210-220 is way overkill. But when you can have a Sonata Limited with only a 1mpg hwy difference between the I4 and V6, I can see why the 6cyl is popular.

    IMHO, the 09 Sonata Limited I4 is a great combo of decent power, luxury appointments, good MPG, good warranty, etc. It's on my list but I have to wait until I get more info on the new Mazda6 before I pull any triggers!
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    It's actually a bigger difference between I4 and V6 now. 22/32 vs 19/29. That 3mpg can matter depending on your needs :) I found the 170ish hp from the I4 is plenty for my needs, especially since I was coming from a 135hp compact before.

    The Mazda6 definitely looks interesting. Only minus is the gas mileage doesn't look very good. 17/25 V6 with ridiculous 272 hp and 21/29 I4 with 170hp. Not much better than the V6 Sonata. I figure it'll definitely have more torque with the bigger engines than most other midsize cars.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Its all relative, as you allude to. I have a 1996 Accord w/130 hp (old SAE net, under new procedures, it'd likely be 125 or so) at 2900lbs. In comparison with my 2006 Accord w/166hp and 3200 lbs, my newer Accord feels downright "fast", and not at all like the "slow version" of the Accord; something that I sure can't say about the 1996, which is adequate, if not quick.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    I am not sure Diesel is the answer, especially us in the US. Diesel is almost a buck a gallon more these days, and I think if more americans chose to drive diesels, the demand would go way up and further increase the price.

    My answer is smaller, more fuel efficient engines - with lighter cars. Today's midsizers as so heavy; we may soon have the compact class cars going to midsize.

    If I had to buy today, I would look at a Civic or 3, though with the 3 you want to get the 2.3 and that hurts economy. But both would be on my shortlist.

    Is the civic more spacious than the 3 (sedan) in practical terms, or are they similar?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'd wager to say the Mazda 3 is the more spacious car. I'm 6'5" and have been in both. I'd rather be in the 3 when judging purely on space.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    I've been in both cars as well. However I'm not sure I can make a full comparison as it's the 3 Sedan vs Civic Coupe. The 3 does seem a bit bigger from my experience though. And yes smaller efficient engines are good...but just imagine smaller, efficient diesels then ;) We'd be looking at 35/45 or even better. And I think the reason diesel prices are so ridiculous is just because of price gouging. It's not popular enough to be on par with standard gas.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    It's actually a bigger difference between I4 and V6 now. 22/32 vs 19/29. That 3mpg can matter depending on your needs

    You're comparing the manual I4 mpg to the auto 6cyl mpg. I was apples to apples with the auto comparison. Used Edmunds comparsion tool so it's their numbers. I assume they are accurate.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    2.4L Automatic - 22/32
    2.4L Manual - 21/32
    3.3L Automatic - 19/29

    * From www.fueleconomy.gov
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Ya I was gonna say, the manual has slightly worse fuel economy in testing. 5 and 6 speed autos are nice :)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the same efficiencies that allow for the 250 hp+ in some of these larger engines are also responsible for that increase in FE. The Toy 2GR V6 probably the best example of that, but I don't believe a 2GR 'detuned' to your 200hp is necessarily going to be any more fuel effiicient or that a 4 banger tuned up to 200hp is necessarily going to be less.
    There are 4 bangers and then there are 4 bangers, despite what aviboy's spec sheet analysis might tell us. It is engines like the Honda 4 (followed by those efforts by Toyota and Nissan) that easily lead the pack - refinement wise. This is the same situation that we find in the V6s as well - only in a slightly different order. Recently shopped some small S/CUVs - there is no way, for example, that even the 'blown' 240hp Mazda engine (CX7) approaches what's in a CRV/RAV/Rogue for example - 'zoom-zoom' for sure but irritating to say the least. and I would add to that 'comes up short' list those efforts by GM, Hyundai, Chrysler as well. In my shopping I was most surprised (and unimpressed) by the Hyundai version of its 'world' engine (rough in a Tucson), and the Mazda turbo 2.3 in the CX (rough, turbo lag and bad FE). Right number of cylinders but NOT the same engines, and the differences are more than simply HP/torque.....
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    the same efficiencies that allow for the 250 hp+ in some of these larger engines are also responsible for that increase in FE. The Toy 2GR V6 probably the best example of that, but I don't believe a 2GR 'detuned' to your 200hp is necessarily going to be any more fuel effiicient

    I understand what you are saying, its logical, and I appreciate your responses.

    My question lies in that, for example, if we had a 2GR scaled down to 3.0L, could we not have a 230 hp car that got better mileage than the current 2GR? Obviously the engine would still have nearly the weight of the 3.5L model to pull around, but it seems like if it operated as efficiently as the 3.5L does, it would get better mileage, especially in town. I know it can't be nearly so simple, which is why I'm asking and not doing the telling! :)
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    One correction. Tuscon uses the old Beta-II engine, not the world engine. If you'd like to test the world engine, try a 4 banger sonata out. It's far smoother than the old 4 bangers hyundai used to make. Also the Lancer is another good option for a similar world engine version.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    And I think the reason diesel prices are so ridiculous is just because of price gouging. It's not popular enough to be on par with standard gas.

    From a refining standpoint, Europe is a net exporter of gasoline and a net importer of diesel, since it is so popular there. The USA is exactly the opposite. Diesel prices are high because of the high demand for diesel in Europe.

    While there may be some gouging going on, its primarily supply and demand...
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Hmm, excluding biodiesels and other alternative forms, isn't diesel just another type of refinement of crude oil? I'd figure it's all really tied to crude oil and refinement costs in the end.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    2.4L Automatic - 22/32
    2.4L Manual - 21/32
    3.3L Automatic - 19/29

    I think someone here was comparing the 2009 Mazda6 FE to the Sonata, so, here we go!

    Mazda66 2.5L 170hp / 167 lb-ft torque
    2.5L 5-speed automatic- 22/30
    2.5L 6-speed manual- 21/29

    Sonata 2.4L 175hp / 168 lb-ft torque
    2.4L 5-speed automatic- 22/32
    2.4L 5-speed manual- 21/32

    Mazda6 3.7L V6 272hp / 269 lb-ft torque
    6-speed automatic 17/25

    Sonata 3.3L V6 249hp / 229 lb-ft torque
    5-speed automatic 19/29

    From looking at those numbers, I would say that the Sonata must have a taller 5th gear in all tranny types. That is why the highway FE is better. Around town, that is not the story. Look at the V6 city FE, almost the same and the Mazda6 has a serious power advantage. It is quite apparent that the gearing is the difference here.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The Mazda 6 gets the same numbers as the non-VCM Honda Accord 6MT coupe; just interesting to note. Fuel economy won't be a big push for Mazda on the V6 I can see! ;)

    The 4-cylinder looks fairly competitive, but its apparent the usual Mazda short-gearing hurts highway mileage.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Today's midsizers as so heavy; we may soon have the compact class cars going to midsize.

    That's already started to happen. For example, the Elantra, Prius, and Sentra are all compact sized outside but mid-sized inside. The Versa is a sub-compact outside, but also mid-sized inside. Toyota didn't upsize the new Corolla's interior to mid-sized class for 2009, but I would not be surprised to see Honda do that with the next-gen Civic, now that the Accord is full-sized and the Fit is growing larger later this year.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    could we not have a 230 hp car that got better mileage than the current 2GR
    since that time honored tradition of increasing displacement to get HP has generally worked it would seem logical that the reverse should as well BUT the earlier (admittedly 'lower tech') Toyota engines, for example, came in 200+ hp versions in 3 and 3.3 liters with worse FE though.
    But I think you hit a key element to this seemingly endless HP war - size and weight. These are not midsize sedans anymore. Larger engines = more torque especially valuable as these cars get bigger and heavier. It will be interesting to see who the first manufacturer is to actually downsize in this class - somebody will. Turbocharged (and diesel) engines may have their own drivability problems but also create more relative torque, would seem to be a natural solution if it's done right.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Whoa this is the first time I've seen the Mazda I4 torque numbers. For having a .1L bigger engine, I was expecting at least a 5-10 lb advantage in torque. Hmm, I'm guessing at least the power curve should be better in the Mazda. I'd figure the slightly larger engine doesn't help either for fuel economy. This is most noticeable in that 3.7L. I know if I were buying a Mazda6, there's no way I'd touch the V6.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The 4-cylinder looks fairly competitive, but its apparent the usual Mazda short-gearing hurts highway mileage

    Bingo! The FE on the Mazda6 compared to the others in this class ( 4-cyl) is definitely competitive. I consider any engine with in 2-3 mpg's fairly equal.

    Mazda is know for short gearing, hence why my Mazda6 2.3L does not get as good highway FE as it could (I get 30-32 depending on how I drive). Mazda would rather have the car in the middle of the power band for that extra push at higher speeds.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Hmm, excluding biodiesels and other alternative forms, isn't diesel just another type of refinement of crude oil? I'd figure it's all really tied to crude oil and refinement costs in the end.

    Yes, and no...

    Petroleum is distilled somewhat like milk...There is only so much fat in a gallon.

    The refiner can't decide how much diesel he wants from a barrel of oil...its already pre-determined from the quality of the crude oil. The same with gasoline and other distillates. So, if one can only get 10 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil, and they need 20 gallons of gas, they need 2 barrels. They take the other by-products at the same time, and refine them into suitable distillates...and sell them wherever the demand is greatest and the price highest.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,314
    1989 taurus sho 3.0 liters, 200 hp, 7200 rpm red line. :surprise:
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    You were right with the 3mpg difference. I assumed Edmunds numbers in their comparison tool were correct. Now I'll have to double check everything I see in that tool. What a drag.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    True, but different refining techniques produce different percentages of diesel. In the U.S. I think it's 15% but in Europe it's closer to 25%. Also, some by-products (like heating oil) can be converted into diesel.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Agreed. However, the point I was attempting to make was that the refiner simply can't decide what to make out of a barrel of crude....that's all.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    It would be interesting to find out what the per capita amount of diesel use is in different countries. I would think that with the US trucking industry and the amount of fuel oil for heating the US does vs Europe with a lot more coal/nuclear/electric use for heating homes and a lot shorter transportation distances coupled with the train usage.

    I know that the ratio of cars using diesel in Europe is astronomical compared to the US but I just wonder if the items I cited above don't equal things out a bit.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    I don't think it's really edmund's fault. The 2009 models are screwing up everything with comparisons right now. A lot of auto websites don't fully update until most 2009's are in. Heck, even hyundai's website cannot compare the 2009 model at all.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Yeah, guess you're right. I just thought since the cars are out and the specs with them, why would Edmunds even include it in their data if they can't get the info right. Isn't it a matter of someone inputting the data from the manufacturer or is this data downloaded or something from the manufacturer.

    I like Edmunds but they are not a public service....they are a for profit company. If I did my job that sloppily someone would be screamin!
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I will say this (and its a shame to say it): if something happened to my 2006 Accord that caused me to have to shop for a new car, the 2008 Accord would not be on my list. The Altima 2.5 would likely be close to the top, the Nissan Versa would be there too, actually.

    Why is it a shame? The V6 08 Accord is not the car for everyone. I don't think single 20-somethings are really the target consumers for this car. The Accord is appealing to a different crowd, but it's only the wrong crowd if it doesn't sell. From what I've seen, it's doing well in sales.
    For someone looking to trade in his gas guzzling SUV for something more fuel efficient, the 08 V6 Accord could be just big and powerful enough to satisfy. Someone who has large passengers riding in the back, and wants them to be as comfortable as he is, would appreciate the 08 more than the 06.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    "But I think you hit a key element to this seemingly endless HP war - size and weight"

    The last go-round of downsizing found benefits when all the systems were reduced - you'd have to think a car built to handle the power of these 3.5 l engines could have some weight reduction if designed to handle only a 3.0 l. Just reducing the engine size will only result in limited savings.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,708
    Another thing driving up diesel demand (and therefore cost) in the US is the need to truck all the ethanol around to meet the government requirements. Just another bad effect...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    It was also not a mainstream model; by the time I was old enough to know what displacement was, the Taurus SHO had a V8 engine and a 4-speed automatic only.

    In 1989, I was 2. So, to be fair, I don't exactly remember its debut. ;)
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Member Posts: 214
    The 1989 Taurus SHO engine was a 3.0 liter Yamaha unit with 220 advertised hp and 200 foot pounds of torque. The engine was independently tested to actually produce 225-230 hp. The engine was rev limited to 7200 rpm but had been operated at up to 9000 rpm; trouble was that above 7200 rpm the accessory belts started to come apart.
    That was a GREAT engine. I drove mine in Germany on the autobahn routinely at speeds up to 135 mph got between 22-29 mpg and kept the car for 157,000 miles.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Hope you'll help out by reporting any errors you find. There is a Contact Us link at the bottom of the page you can use for this.

    Thanks!!
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    The 1989 Taurus SHO engine was a 3.0 liter Yamaha unit

    It was also a pretty cool looking unit IIRC. The intake plenum looked like a bunch of aluminum snakes wrapping around the top of the engine.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles