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

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1…186187189191192…544

Comments

  • Options
    auld_dawgauld_dawg Member Posts: 40
    Speaking of the early SHO's, I still have mine, '93 instead of '89 though.......

    I think if you look, you'll find the rated torque of the 3L Yamaha was actually 190 or 195 lbs/ft. The reason given for going to 3.2L for the ATX's was more torque, as the 3.2 was rated the same horsepower, 220hp, with 210lbs of torque.

    If you look at the way the '93 ATX SHO spec'd out, it doesn't take much stretch to see it being the prototype of the modern V6 midsize sedan. A 3350lb sedan, with a 220 horsepower 24 valve engine. The main difference, in retrospect, is that the '93 was considered "high performance" back then, the V6 sedans today, mainstream.

    I was a bit surprised in the fall of '05 reading a Motor Trend article on four midsize sedans, and realizing that three of the four had motors with higher horsepower ratings {Sonata 233hp, Accord 244hp, Fusion 221hp}.

    The SHO is a bit dated compared to the current generation, but in good shape, still "competive" in many ways. Because of the way the transmission is programmed, in the winter it gets rated mpg, ie, 16/ 26. But in the summer, when the torque converter locks up earlier, it gets 19.5mpg city, and 32 on freeway trips between here and Portland Ore {here being Kent, WA}.

    The SHO split daily driving chores for me with a '93 Sable. The Sable finally decided to massively give up the ghost, which put me in the position of either relying solely on the SHO, or replacing the Sable. Since parts availability is real difficult on the Yamaha engine, it was a no brainer to start looking for a replacement for the Sable.....

    I wound up with an '08 Sonata GLS V6. In many ways it specs out similar to the Merc it replaced, but even though still breaking in, it is better on the mpg front. 20.3 city vs 17.5. 30+ on the freeway vs 29..........However, accelerating onto the freeway definitely favors the Sonata.........

    The biggest differences between the Sonata and the SHO is the fun factor. The SHO is tremendously more "responsive", it feels like it wants to run. The engine rumbles authoritively, while the engine of the Sonata is refined in the Asian V6 way {sounds very similar to the V6 I had in a '92 Pathfinder}.

    One interesting side note though is that "off the line", the Sonata accelerates so hard that the SHO would have to reel it in from behind should the two meet at SIR {or whatever its called today}. The SHO burns rubber at full throttle off the line, such that the only way to effectively get off the line is at part throttle for a good 20 feet or more......

    Today, I kind of intend to keep both. The Sonata, daily driver, the SHO part time driver and restoration project.

    Which modern midsize sedan is the best? My answer is I don't really care, for me, its what my frame of reference is about. The Sonata is a definite upgrade from the Sable, and is an interesting contrast to the SHO.........

    Another side note........ the cost to insure the Sonata was a shock in a good way..... more savings because of all of the "safety" things built in, like all of the airbags......
  • Options
    2002slt2002slt Member Posts: 228
    Another side note........ the cost to insure the Sonata was a shock in a good way..... more savings because of all of the "safety" things built in, like all of the airbags......

    Off Topic:

    I wish that was true for the 2009 Sonata. There is no safety data yet, so it costs me more than my old Trailblazer SS ($19/yr more). The SS had 400hp and cost almost twice as much. :confuse:
  • Options
    bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    It is probably the physical damage coverage (comprehensive & collision) that is more expensive on a new car than the Trailblazer. What model year Trailblazer is/was it?
  • Options
    2002slt2002slt Member Posts: 228
    It was a 2006. The premium was basically unchanged since I bought it new. The agent told me it had a 30% safety discount. She said the Sonata didn't have any data.
  • Options
    texasestexases Member Posts: 10,710
    Why no safety data on the Sonata? The 2009 is just a minor refresh, right?
  • Options
    bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    I'm an insurance agent also.

    Take a look at your policy and compare the cost of various coverages comparing both vehicles. I'd make a friendly bet that the physical damage on an '09 Sonata is more than on an '06 Trailblazer.

    Normally safety ratings are carried over from one model year to the next unless 1) there is a re-do of the car (like the '06 and newer Sonatas compared to the '05s and prior) or 2) experience shows a change is necessary.
  • Options
    thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I went to "build my own" Sonata GLS 4-cyl AT. In the first portion of the build-your-own section, the transmission indicated is a 5-speed Automatic. Later, in the options section, the transmission is listed as a 4-speed Automatic.

    The transmissions on all Sonata I4 Automatics are 5-speed, right guys?
  • Options
    maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    Right thegraduate. It's a 5spd automatic.
  • Options
    moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Hey same thing happened to me! It wasn't a huge increase, but my premium shot up about $80 due to picking up the 2009 Sonata. Sad because it certainly has way better safety features than my old car.
  • Options
    backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    How much was your old car worth? How many airbags did it have? Airbags are great for safety, but expensive to replace.
  • Options
    elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The insurance on a car with a lot of airbags will probably not be cheaper. Unless the airbags prevent serious injuries to the occupants (serious accident) the airbags will cost the insurance company, instead of saving them money. A neighbor down the block's daughter had a Pontiac Sunfire. The car was in a front end collision, and the damage looked pretty minor to me. But the cost of fixing the car's body, added to the cost of replacing the airbags, put the cost of repair over the top, and the car was totalled by the insurance company. Airbags may save your life, but they will probably not save you money.
  • Options
    thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Airbags may save your life, but they will probably not save you money.

    A compromise most people are willing to take. :)
  • Options
    moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Here Here! And don't forget having ABS/Brake Assist/Traction control too. ^^ I definitely think the safety of a car is damn high priority. Money isn't worth life.
  • Options
    elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Many consumers buy a new car with 8 or more airbags, and think hey this car is so safe, it should cost less to insure. Quite the opposite is true.

    In my opinion, the money spent on airbags, and their technology, would be better spent making stronger cars. The problem is stronger cars will only prevent injuries, if the passengers are wearing adequate restraints. Since restraints are not what they should be, and some people don't even wear them, we get balloons to bounce off of. Do race cars have airbags? No, because if you stay in your seat (in a crash), airbags are useless.
  • Options
    lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    In my opinion, the money spent on airbags, and their technology, would be better spent making stronger cars. The problem is stronger cars will only prevent injuries, if the passengers are wearing adequate restraints. Since restraints are not what they should be, and some people don't even wear them, we get balloons to bounce off of. Do race cars have airbags? No, because if you stay in your seat (in a crash), airbags are useless.

    I agree. I would also say having a decent suspension and tires would help a great deal. You can have DSC/RSC/ABS/ASD/BFD and it all comes down to 4 little patches and how well they hold on to terra firma. People whine about having to pay for a performance tire replacement, but don't seem to mind when they have a successful panic stop or swerve from a near collision. The price difference from zippy the pin head retreads to state of the art performance tires is less than your insurance deductible.
  • Options
    karsickkarsick Member Posts: 312
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    I'm happy to settle for good visibility, low CG, nimble suspension and good-quality all-season tires (at least in my Seattle-area neck of the woods, where we deal with a wide variety of weather conditions).
  • Options
    elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    I agree. It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement. When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem. I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.
  • Options
    backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Since restraints are not what they should be,..

    In order for restraints to "be what they should be" and not require a supplemental restraint system i.e. airbags, to protect against injury, every passenger would need to be in a harness like NASCAR drivers wear (and don't forget the helmets), not a simple lap/shoulder belt. I don't think many drivers and passengers would sit still for that... literally.
  • Options
    texasestexases Member Posts: 10,710
    Yes, side airbags seem to make a big improvement in crash survivability. Seatbelts just won't handle those side loads, regardless of the body's strength.
  • Options
    lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    ... except, of course, that the same tire that'll help avoid a crash on dry pavement will be the absolute worst choice for rain or snow or ice.

    Actually, that is only partially true. Summer tires are better performing in dry and wet. It is when you introduce colder temps like snow and ice that it becomes an issue.

    It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement.

    I understand. That is merely and education issue though to understand the differences in tread compounds and frictional characteristics of different tires when optimized for a given purpose.

    . When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem.

    It depends why the road is slippery. A wet road offers almost as much traction as a dry road. A wet road with standing water increases the likelihood of hydroplaning, which is why a tire (like just about any "summer" tire that isn't an R-compound) is great for that, the tread is designed to pump water out from under the tire, letting the rubber do its job.

    If the road is slick because of snow or ice, then if one truely cared about a tire "performing at their best, when conditions are at their worst," it would be better to switch to a dedicated snow tire. At that point, you can go for a more traditional Q-rated tire for heavy snow, or one of the more modern H+ rated tire, which is designed for comfortable and quiet highway travel.

    The right tool for the right job is remarkably helpful.

    I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.

    And you wound up with a compromise that excels in no area relative to having condition appropriate tires.
  • Options
    bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Safety features apply to that portion of your premium that applies to occupants of your car (medical payments or no fault for those states still having no fault) OR a minimal reduction to the liability portion of the premium based upon possible avoidance.

    Almost any new car costs more to insure than an older car (unless down grading from a "luxury" vehicle) based upon the value of the vehicles.
  • Options
    moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Totally agree backy, we don't get into a heavily protected driver pit like professionals do. If we did, sure we wouldn't probably need all the airbags and whatnot. Also airbags are HUGE for side collisions. There's very little space between the car hitting your side and YOU. Airbags help cushion that area to avoid you being hit hard. It doesn't matter how strong the car's side pillars are when there's 4000 lbs running straight at you. Now of course, the design majorly affects things, but airbags do help a lot.
  • Options
    jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yes, I don't think those NASCAR drivers have to worry about getting t-boned by an SUV.
  • Options
    targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    As many here know we rent a lot and a week ago I rented a 2008 Accord for a week. The car was brand new showing 76 miles when I picked it up. I wanted to post some impressions before the details got hazy. It was the base model, the EX I believe and had the 177 hp 4 cylinder 5 speed automatic combination. I drove mostly on interstates starting with a drive to BWI ariport via I-70, and the washington beltway and ending with the same drive 900 miles and a week later. OK initially two thinks struck me immediately, well three...quiet interior at speed, very smooth and unobtrusive automatic transmission, and the Honda hallmark a quiet and smooth 4 cylinder engine. Then I started to miss some of the small things that were standard on the last Sonata I rented (a 2007)...XM radio, foglights (it has rained incessantly here in Pa for a month) and heated outside mirrors which were covered in dew every morning, not major things. To be truthful this Accord had traction control/stability control, power seats and was fine except for the noted small things. Acceleration was adequate and with the great transmission seemed faster than it probably was. I didn't get in anybodys way on the Beltway put it that way. If there was an area other than exterior stying that disappointed me (and the design sort of grew on me after a week) it was fuel economy. There I was observing the speed limits and even going much slower at times due to the torrential downpours on I-70..the Beltway...and the Pa Turnpike for probably 95% of its stay during the week and fuel economy was while not bad wasn't what I thought I'd get. To be fair the car was new and much of the time had either 2-3-4 or 5 passengers and some light luggage. The second fill up had me believing fuel economy might be stellar based on the number of miles (nearing 500..maybe 476 or so) driven but it turns out the tank is fairly large (it took $64.00 to refill it) and the car delivered either 28.5 or 28.6 miles per gallon (can't recall exactly). So there you have it, a nice car overall and aside from some features missing as standard, features that may be optional or on a more expensive model, and middling fuel economy I liked it well enough. BUT, I'll still buy a 2009 Sonata limited.
  • Options
    imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,154
    Thanks for a carefully thought out and written review without bias.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • Options
    akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Yes, I don't think those NASCAR drivers have to worry about getting t-boned by an SUV.

    And when they do get T-boned by another car, they have a welded steel tube system to protect them, not a stamped steel working door.

    Did you know front airbags were invented precisely because people were not wearing seatbelts? That's why they had to inflate so quickly and violently - they had to inflate before the unbelted idiot hit the steering wheel or dash.

    Driver and side airbags make a lot of sense, but I don't see the need for a passenger airbag given the distance from the seat to the dash. In a survivable crash I don't see a belted passenger getting anywhere near the dash.
  • Options
    thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If it had the plastic hubcaps, you were driving the LX. If it had alloys and no moonroof, you were driving the LX-P. Both LX and LX-P have the 177hp engine, while the EX (EX models have a moonroof) has the 190hp engine.
  • Options
    jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Driver and side airbags make a lot of sense, but I don't see the need for a passenger airbag given the distance from the seat to the dash.

    Agree...I think the passenger side frontal air bag is about marketing, more than safety.
  • Options
    targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Based on that it was the LX-P because it did have alloys but not a moonroof. It was a nice charcoal gray exterior with black cloth interior. I think this design may look its best in a dark exterior color.
  • Options
    2002slt2002slt Member Posts: 228
    Did you know front airbags were invented precisely because people were not wearing seatbelts? That's why they had to inflate so quickly and violently - they had to inflate before the unbelted idiot hit the steering wheel or dash.

    That's odd... The current airbags in GM trucks DON'T deploy if the driver isn't wearing his/her seatbelt. I believe this was due to lawsuits claiming the airbag was causing injuries. Seems dumb, but you know lawyers.
  • Options
    akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The current airbags in GM trucks DON'T deploy if the driver isn't wearing his/her seatbelt.

    That is strange - I would think they'd be more open to lawsuits if they did not deploy.

    Do you have a link for that?
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    and the car delivered either 28.5 or 28.6 miles per gallon (can't recall exactly).
    bro-in-law completed a long trip and his Honda 4 delivered 38 mpg average for the trip. He was happy.
  • Options
    aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    38 mpg's average on a car that is rated at 31 mpg's highway and 25 mpg's average.? Was he going 45 mph in 5th gear on flat land the whole way with the cruise control on, on a 72 degree sunny day???
  • Options
    2002slt2002slt Member Posts: 228
    I was going off of reports from a few other forums I was on.

    Several people had frontal crashes and a few complained of no airbag deployment. I know speed and several other things are taken into account, but the only ones complaining admitted to not wearing their seatbelts. A GM engineer came in and explained some of the reasoning behind it (lawsuits and such). I found this here on Edmonds that talks a little about what has changed. However, it doesn't flat out state they don't deploy if seatbelts are not worn.

    Since this is the internet, you can't believe everything you read. Especially on forums from people claiming to be GM engineers. ;)
  • Options
    targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    I report 'em as I compute 'em. Miles accumulated per "trip A " trip odometer zeroed after fill up and auto shut rounded to next even cent amount after fill up equals MPG. As to 38 mpg? based on what I found...no way! I drove very conservatively and mostly all interstate or turnpike so as the other poster stated unless he was driving insanely slow on flat as a pancake terrain with no air and cruise locked in 5th I'd say not. In fairness the car was new with around 900 miles at turn in and 76 miles when picked up so it (mileage) may improve somewhat with miles but 38 mpg is 1 mpg MORE than my best with our 06 Civic. Seems too good to be true.
  • Options
    backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Which "Honda 4" was this? Model and year please?
  • Options
    podpod Member Posts: 176
    Ford has loudly announced that they intend to completely revamp the taurus/sable line for 2010, new platform, new engine, new sheet metal. The models they have shown are quite more stylish and modern than the present cars to be sure. The intention is to make it a driver's car as opposed to the "Homer Simpson" (Ford's own words) appearance and modest (though sufficient to my needs) power of the present models.
    The latest 2008 taurus is built on a volvo platform (I think) and isn't a bad car at all. The cost for a full featured taurus/sable (excepting AWD) is somewhere in the $25K range after rebates and etc.
    I am wondering whether these 2008 and 2009 models (because they are doomed officially) will experience a significant price drop as the 2010 model gets more press and approaches launch. Perhaps they will discontinue production early enough to prevent a glut but perhaps not. In any case I intend to wait and see if these very serviceable cars (2008s) will become a bargain as we approach 2009. I do not believe they are selling like hotcakes at present and hope that bargains loom in the future.
  • Options
    akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    The 2010 Taurus will use an upgraded version of the current platform (as will the MKS). Base engines remain the same but they'll add the Ecoboost 3.5L @340 hp to both platforms.

    New sheetmetal, new interior but same (upgraded) platform and base engines.
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Okay, then. I guess there is no more talking about it since you yourself didn't see it first hand.
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    My 330i averaged 34 mpg at a steady 65-70 over a longish trip. Didn't have a tailwind, going downhill with the engine off.
  • Options
    moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    There's a ton of irony regarding airbags invented for non-seatbelt wearers. Because every single piece of documentation I've read says that airbags only work right IF you wear the seatbelt. And they will most likely cause you problems if you don't wear it. I do agree about the passenger part, in most accidents the passenger should never move forward enough to hit anything.
  • Options
    targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    What I DID see first hand is the 28+ mpg I reported and no amount of speculation about what "somebody" "somewhere" achieved is going to make me believe those numbers..in fact even if I had never driven the Accord for a week I wouldn't believe them. I doubt if someone can drive much more conservatively than I did during much of the week so I am being realistic with my report. Hell, anybody can say anything here but since it is so contrary to my experience (not even close) I don't believe it. OK I'll grant that since the car was so new that it might gain a few mpg with a few more miles and probably could do so easily enough. I could see 31 as a possibility but 38? These fuel economy discussions always seem to quickly go off the deep end with someone reporting 35% better mileage than I personally observed so it is no wonder I don't believe "unless I see it with my own eyes" ...
  • Options
    akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    CURRENT airbags are designed to work with the seatbelts. But when Joan Claybrook took over at the NHTSA in 1977 the view was that seatbelt use could not be mandated and therefore passive restraints like airbags were necessary to protect unbelted passengers. The NHTSA not only overstated the effectiveness of airbags, they knowingly understated the risk to children and small unbelted passengers.

    There is a lot of material on this - just search for Joan Claybrook, airbags, NHTSA.
  • Options
    vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    The smart keys are horrible. We rented an 09 Altima and almost locked our "smart key" in the car a couple of times. It's all pointless, keys work just fine.

    I wouldn't buy an Altima if it had this period. That said, I wasn't all that impressed with the car. It had over sensitive brakes which drove me bananas.
  • Options
    aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    And what does that have to do with your brother in laws "Honda-4"? BTW, what "Honda-4" is it?
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    What I DID see first hand is the 28+ mpg I reported and no amount of speculation about what "somebody" "somewhere" achieved is going to make me believe those numbers..

    You don't have to believe them. There are a lot of things in this world I don't believe either, doesn't mean they are not true. I guess we can go off on a tangent of: "Do I believe those numbers" :confuse
  • Options
    kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    It doesn't, but I was wondering if there was a: "I don't believe those numbers either" factor, because I didn't see them with my own eyes.
  • Options
    moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Well there is wayne gerdes and the other hypermilers who get 50+ mpg in an accord and 100+ in a hybrid. Those guys are insane though and don't drive anywhere near "safe". I think they probably break a number of traffic laws with their driving style too. I do follow some of the basic mileage rules because some are perfectly safe to implement, such as letting your engine brake going toward a red light. Also imho, it's no fun to basically have to watch and control every aspect of your drive in order to maximum efficiency. Life's too busy for that.
  • Options
    maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    image
    image

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    1)Aura 2)Malibu 3)Accord 4)Altima/Passat 5)Sonata/Camry 6)Mazda6 7)Fusion
  • Options
    texasestexases Member Posts: 10,710
    External styling ONLY, no consideration for anything else
    1)Mazda6 (but I worry about back seat room)
    2)Sonata
    3)Malibu
    4)Aura
    5)Altima
    6)Fusion
    7)Accord
    8)Passat
    9)Camry
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles