Well, if I bought a GM in 90s and switched to Honda recently because of reliability issues, why should I consider going back to GM or Ford now? Will GM compensate me for the money that I burned on repairs, and all the inconveniences I have been through?
By the way, I will be driving a rental G6 this thanksgiving. But Accord/ Altima will be on top of my shortlist next summer. No GM will be on that list. GM has screwed me once (sorry for the language), and I don't want to give GM another chance. Why should I?
HP wars are all on paper. The 0-60 times are closer than you think when comparing the 3.0 Fusion to an Accord/Camry or?? Even when MotorTrend reviewed the new Saturn Aurura the 0-60 times were tenths of a second difference. The 6.4 0-60 of the Camry and the 7.2 of the Fusion.. What does this equate to? a fender length? Can you count to tenths of a second? :shades:
"Well, if I bought a GM in 90s and switched to Honda recently because of reliability issues, why should I consider going back to GM or Ford now? Will GM compensate me for the money that I burned on repairs, and all the inconveniences I have been through?
By the way, I will be driving a rental G6 this thanksgiving. But Accord/ Altima will be on top of my shortlist next summer. No GM will be on that list. GM has screwed me once (sorry for the language), and I don't want to give GM another chance. Why should I? "
I guess I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I owned a Honda and won't go back!
We think alike. We are at the same end of the spectrum. We don't want to go back to brands that disappointed us. I don't want more GMs. You don't want more Hondas. Perfect!
And for those who are confident in their own ego and financial status, those intelligent folks have no need for image building vehicles. They only have to impress themselves, not others, and are happy driving many lesser marques than they can actually afford. What an amazing idea - living beneath one's means!
It really would be interesting - perhaps a topic for a Ph.D. thesis - to research how many people are spending tons of money simply trying to impress others, rather than living within their financial or real means. I guess this is what makes the world go 'round, especially in the consumer-based society we live in.
"And for those who are confident in their own ego and financial status, those intelligent folks have no need for image building vehicles. They only have to impress themselves, not others, and are happy driving many lesser marques than they can actually afford. What an amazing idea - living beneath one's means!"
Without going off into a tangent, I couldn't disagree more. The bottom line is, even if you disapprove of other peoples choice in cars, lifestyle, etc, they are going to do it anyway. Most people recognize this as living the life you can, not the life some else thinks you should lead.
Neither have I smarty pants. Yes, I meant the Mazda3 2.3.
I would Imagine the OTD would be a lot less than $21.2K for a comparable Mazda3 2.3. I would think the Mazda would have a higher resale value too. I don't see how this adds up to a $7k difference.
I think a lot of people thing that quality and reliability are the same thing; they aren't necessarily. A family friend has a 2000 model VW New Beetle Turbo. Handles beautifully, accelerates quickly, the interior is incredibly well detailed and put together; a high-quality automobile.
It has also cost $2,200 to get the A/C fixed (twice, second repair they at least covered the cost of the parts), and has had an electrical bug (pardon the New Beetle pun) that has been recurring for years. High quality, low reliability.
You can have a Bic that isn't really well made, is cheap to the touch and writes scratchy, but never leaks throughout its lifespan, while a MontBlanc writes beautifully smooth and fits your hand comfortably, but leaks on you the second week you have it. High-quality, but unreliable.
I would rather have a car that I can appreciate day in and day out than a mundane but more reliable vehicle (it's nice to have both like an Accord though). There's a slightly higher chance the less reliable vehicle may cause you more grief but I know for sure the more elegant vehicle will put a bigger smile on my face.
Well, I kind of looked around and only V6 to be found under 20K(not on sale) seems to be the soon-to-go away(?) Suzuki (GM-DAT) Verona(hopefully ,Suzuki can rework the thing liek they did on SX4 vs Aerio. Major difference).
Anyhow, I ain't impressed with any Midsized sedans. Over 20K? C'Mon! :mad: What a rip!
One day, you'll be paying 20K just for a Accent/Fit/Aveo.
thing is, for the most part, a person doesn't have to give up fun, comfort, or style and get reliability too. you make a good point about being able to choose a car with the characteristics that a customer would like (comfort, style, performance) but still have the confidence that statistically the chances of something going wrong is minimal.
when I first started looking for a car, I started with researching reliability which led me to look at the accord, legacy, and camry. but upon closer inspection, the difference between the car that I really wanted, the mazda 6, was only a few percentage points over several years. so I got the car that handled amazing, looked good, and could put large items in the back.
today, I had to go to home depot and was able to fit some items that would never fit in a sedan. then I found an awesome deal on a really nice but large coffee table on craigslist and again was able to fit it easily in the back of my mazda 6 hatchback. and all this driving was in heavy rain, but the handling was still great. on top of that, I got a couple compliments from strangers about how my car looked! who says you can't have it all :shades:
The Verona's V6 isn't any more powerful (in either torque or horsepower) or smoother than the competition's I4s (actually less in some cases). Really an engine that's way way behind the times.
I think you get a "lot" a car in this segment. Think of it this way, 20 years ago a $20k plus car was consider a luxury car. For example, an Acura Legend was a little over $20K if my memory serves me correctly. But $20k plus Accords, Camrys, Fusions and others are FAR superior to a 86' Legend in every conceivable way. This is not even taking inflation into consideration.
it is not always what you can do but also how you can do it - need to wear a kidney belt to pull that 7 second time out of a Fusion. BTW, if 60mph = 88fps, then a 1 second difference equates to something closer to 50 feet, a few car lengths, but really not the point. The new GM 3.6 likely the best new 'American' V6 in terms of smoothness, refinement etc.. It has not been troublesome TMK in the CTS. Be interested to see how well it does reliability wise over the long term. Really do hope that Ford finally gives that 3.0 a honorable burial - it does deserve at least that. The Fusion needs that 3.5 probably teamed with a CVT (see the new Altima) - hope they do it, more and better choices for the buyer. Historically about 75% of the buyers in this segment do buy the 4 bangers, something that I believe will change as folks begin to understand that the FE differences are getting almost insignificant and that it is possible for the midsize sedan to be something more than an appliance!
The Suzuki Verona was built by Daewoo, and its DOHC Inline 6 had major problems, especially its valve train. The car really looked like a good value initially, but a lot of people took major loses due to its engine problems. The 2006 model year was the last gasp for the Verona.
recent test of the new Altima, it was mentioned that the Altima was now the 4th best selling car at 250,000/year. Camry and Accord both sell better, but what's number 3?
It was current model vs. current model. No fault of Ford's that the Camry was four years old at that time. If Toyota is as far ahead of Ford as people say, then the four-year-old Camry should have had no problem beating the Fusion. After all, the three-year-old Accord beat them both in that comparo.
Anyhow, I ain't impressed with any Midsized sedans. Over 20K? C'Mon! What a rip! ****
As well you should. Yet, lo and behold, you can get a 1-2 year old GM for 20K or less. Or you could get a Crown Vic. Big, huge V8, and maybe $10K two years old. If it's built to handle police chases, it's good enough to get me around town.
A 2 year old Grand Prix or an Aveo... gosh. Really tough choice.
the 76 Accord was $4700, and the average salary for a college graduate at that time was maybe $10k. If you allow for a 5%/year rate of increase in both, that new Accord now should cost slightly over $20k (which it does) - meaning that a new car is not actually costing any more in real dollars (assumming that you also make $25/hour or so)than it did 30 years ago. And it sure is a lot better and more durable car. If $20k for a new car bothers you, then the used market is where you need to be. Sure hope that you never want to buy a house, those prices having gone up by an average factor 10 in many areas in the same time period.
Actually, the 1995-1997 V6 Accords were more expensive ($25,100) than the 1998 model EX V6 Accords (which were $24,550 I think). Don't forget, that 1998 model brought things like Automatic Climate Control and 6CD changers, and homelink garage door openers, things unheard of on the more expensive 1997 models.
Today, the Accord offers Voice Activated Navigaion, heated leather, Stability Control, and a plethora of airbags, once again benchmarking their predecessor.
Accords are getting cheaper and better equipped either way you look at it.
by better, I didn't mean the addition of all this mostly needless technological 'bling' which obviously becomes cheaper all the time - I meant that relative to 30 years ago, cars are a better investment simply because the reasonable expectations of service life has maybe doubled but the cost has not (in '76 dollars).
Not needless to most consumers especially when you get accustomed to these niceties. And the improvements in safety due to technology is far from needless. Anyway you look at it, vehicles today offer better value.
man, I wish I got a 5% increase in salary every year! at least without having to job shop and make hints that I'm about to leave for a higher paying job... and it seems that most people in my income bracket are dealing with shrinking or stagnant incomes which is why I think why the sonata and the fusion are growing in sales #'s because their upfront costs are lower while quality is not sufficiently lower to justify thousands more.
one thing that I wish car makers would do that would reduce the need for bigger and more powerful engines is to reduce the weight of cars. but of course that may lead to higher costs, but in the long term, it could make cars more nimble and efficient. a good example is the mazda 6...although it does have less power than other v-6's, it's able to hit 60 in the mid sixes (with an mtx) while handling and braking are likely improved because of relatively less weight than most of it's peers.
while I'll agree with your weight comments on cars like this, checking out the specs. don't see that the 6 is any lighter than its peers - all between 3300-3400 lbs. with a V6 - 100-200 lbs or so lighter with the 4 bangers. Even using the smaller Mazda6 as a base, these cars as a group are growing (physically) in each iteration, and becoming more power challenged in 4 cylinder form. Think the choice is knock a few hundred pounds off, as you suggest, or get those 4 bangers up to maybe 200hp. Believe the latter will happen before the former. And I'll bite, what is an 'mtx' - a computer chip that probably violates your warranties?
man, I wish I got a 5% increase in salary every year would bet you probably have - over a shorter 10 year period of time, you will need to be making about 70% more money now than you were back then. 5% just barely keeps you ahead of inflation. Most institutional 'cost of living' increases will cover at least most of this.
man, all this hate on the duratec! first off, i'll grant you that it is not the best engine out there, maybe not even in the top 5 in this class. but there are some really good traits to it like a long flat torque curve where 91% of the available torque starts about 2.5k rpm. having torque down low is great for accelerating off corners or going up hills without having to downshift. and because it's a flat curve, driving is linear so you don't have a surge in power at a point where you may not be ready for it like going around a corner on wet pavement or even worse if you happen to be tailgaiting some one. the duratec's flat torque curve is desireable because it's predictable.
another positive aspect of the duratec is it's willingness to rev quickly. even compared to my old accord, this is worlds apart as far as performance and refinement go. although the duratec is not the most advanced in many areas, it is still a great engine that rewards many different types of drivers.
0-60 in 7.5 seconds is the official number from Car and Driver on the Accord EX with a manual transmission (back in 2003 I think). This was before the 10 horsepower bump.
That's not 200 horsepower, or even 180. That was (by new SAE rules) 156 horsepower (160 before SAE revised test procedures).
I have owned two hatchbacks; they are great cars. They have the handling of a sedan and the utility of a station wagon. They are much more popular in Europe than here, but perhaps someday they will be more appreciated here. If AWD were available people might consider a hatchback as a replacement for a gas-sucking SUV.
so looks like the 6 is lighter than most of it's peers...but it is closer than I would have thought based on how it drives. I geuss that old duratec does a good job after all ...
so assuming the accord gets their new diesel in a couple years, that could be interesting: good low end torque with good fuel mileage and low weight while being able to meet emissions laws.
in terms of 200 hp in a 4 banger... most of these engines are very peeky with relatively low torque. so if you're willing to drive with the rpms above 5k to get that hp and torque, be willing to accept the quick shifting, loud engine noise, and power surges that can be destablizing for the car. unless you're talking about a turbo... but I think that's why v-6's have the following that they do; higher low end torque at rpms that are commonly used.
power surges that can be destablizing for the car. unless you're talking about a turbo... but I think that's why v-6's have the following that they do; higher low end torque at rpms that are commonly used.
I don't think enough people have spent time in these I-4s. Power isn't so unlinear that it will be unstablizing, not with completely variable valve timing that many of these offerings have (like my Accord). Now, a turbo engine with 300 horsepower, maybe, but a 170 horsepower car isn't going to overwhelm you with a sudden surge of power. Most of these cars aren't very loud either. Apparently, the I-4s aren't so bad; they make up a majority of sales (at least for Altima, Accord, and Camry, which take about 70% I-4, 30% V6. Not a huge following considering their I-4 counterpart's numbers.
Obviously "most" people are completely satisfied with the I4. My wife would be perfectly content with the 4 cyl. Once I drove the V6 once though, I just couldn't go back. The extra power on the highway (for passing, and merging)) is great. The best thing about this V6 is, it gets better gas mileage than my old 92 Accord I4 did, with 100 more hp.
i'd agree that most 170 hp cars aren't going to be that loud when output is at 140 hp where most of these cars are going to be running most of the time. but take a 2.2 litre engine, take it up to 8k rpms so you can reach 200 hp and 130lb/ft torque and it will be screaming. also, keep in mind, most people get automatics so the typical person who buys a 4 cylinder is looking more for a economy car with more room or creature comforts than an economy car. for the most part, performance in a straight line is likely not a priority. now I'm not saying that this choice is bad; these cars are good choices for those looking for these traits.
the initial point i was trying to make was that weight savings could/should be an alternative to trying to squeeze more horsepower out of engines. i would think that lighter cars would brake, turn, and accelerate better than a car that is heavier. and of course, mileage would be better too. the legacy is a good example of how a lighter weight car can be fun to drive and safe (wish it were more fuel efficient though). it has been reported that subaru went through a pretty focused effort to not just reduce weight, but to distribute weight in the car that makes it handle better. granted cars in this class are getting larger (which I continue to wonder if this is entirely necessary), so something needs to be done to prevent these car from driving like a slug.
several actually, the last ones being a new Camry rental and and older Altima 4 banger on a 1500 mile 2 day trip. What bothered me in both cars was the inability to hold speed, cruise set at 70, on anything but the flattest terrain. 'Power challenged' cars will do that - and really what it is I guess is that I am now spoiled by these V6s, one in an Altima, the other in my Avalon. The 2000 Altima on the long trip a smaller lighter car (4 cyl, of course) made 29 mpg, know that my bigger heavier Avalon would have at least done that FE wise with more than 100 extra HP. The new Camry (for the 150 miles or so I drove it) seemed to have an outrageous '5th' gear (maybe in the interest of FE) and wouldn't hold high gear on even gentle longer inclines - downshifting constantly, negatively effecting highway smoothness and downright annoying. From my experience with my Av this doesn't happen with the V6. And then, IMO, you get into a safety consideration, with these AT equipped 4 bangers - the way most of them are sold. I will grant to you that most of the time that there is enough power, it is those infrequent occasions such as merging into a much faster line of traffic, or even somewhat aggressively accelerating to avoid a problem - that has me wondering why such a preponderance of these kind of cars are sold with the 4s. The FE is not that much different if you are considering one of these new high tech 6s.
for an awd car with 250 hp it is pretty light and I think edmunds puts the curb weight of the gt at 3400+. but take the awd off, and save a couple hundred lbs?
car and driver review of the mazda 6, june of 2004. 6.4 second 0-60
motor trend 6.67 second 0-60
Rememer that the 6 had 220 HP back then. I had one with an MTX and it was pretty darn fast. IIRC Edmunds or R&T did 60 in 6.9 seconds that year too. I'd say the average driver could do 60 in the very low 7s easily with the MTX.
and that's exactly my point - is it really adequate in 3300-3400 lb cars? That new Camry LE 4 cyl, I drove - IMPO underpowered. And that would apply not just to the Camry - the hp/lb numbers are about the same throughout this segment. No argument, of course, about the initial cost premium - but, if it is not costing you a whole lot at the pump (assuming 27mpg overall vs 30mpg, 15k miles, $3/gal - the V6 costs a whole $165/year in extra fuel), and you get at least a good portion of that premium back at trade-in time - why not buy the extra power?
Comments
By the way, I will be driving a rental G6 this thanksgiving. But Accord/ Altima will be on top of my shortlist next summer. No GM will be on that list. GM has screwed me once (sorry for the language), and I don't want to give GM another chance. Why should I?
By the way, I will be driving a rental G6 this thanksgiving. But Accord/ Altima will be on top of my shortlist next summer. No GM will be on that list. GM has screwed me once (sorry for the language), and I don't want to give GM another chance. Why should I? "
I guess I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I owned a Honda and won't go back!
It really would be interesting - perhaps a topic for a Ph.D. thesis - to research how many people are spending tons of money simply trying to impress others, rather than living within their financial or real means. I guess this is what makes the world go 'round, especially in the consumer-based society we live in.
Without going off into a tangent, I couldn't disagree more. The bottom line is, even if you disapprove of other peoples choice in cars, lifestyle, etc, they are going to do it anyway. Most people recognize this as living the life you can, not the life some else thinks you should lead.
Exactly, Honda can keep up with this crowd (segment) with the 3.2 SOHC. No problem.
Neither have I smarty pants. Yes, I meant the Mazda3 2.3.
I would Imagine the OTD would be a lot less than $21.2K for a comparable Mazda3 2.3. I would think the Mazda would have a higher resale value too. I don't see how this adds up to a $7k difference.
It has also cost $2,200 to get the A/C fixed (twice, second repair they at least covered the cost of the parts), and has had an electrical bug (pardon the New Beetle pun) that has been recurring for years. High quality, low reliability.
You can have a Bic that isn't really well made, is cheap to the touch and writes scratchy, but never leaks throughout its lifespan, while a MontBlanc writes beautifully smooth and fits your hand comfortably, but leaks on you the second week you have it. High-quality, but unreliable.
I would rather have a car that I can appreciate day in and day out than a mundane but more reliable vehicle (it's nice to have both like an Accord though). There's a slightly higher chance the less reliable vehicle may cause you more grief but I know for sure the more elegant vehicle will put a bigger smile on my face.
Anyhow, I ain't impressed with any Midsized sedans. Over 20K? C'Mon! :mad:
What a rip!
One day, you'll be paying 20K just for a Accent/Fit/Aveo.
The Verona isn't being sold (new) any more, last I checked.
when I first started looking for a car, I started with researching reliability which led me to look at the accord, legacy, and camry. but upon closer inspection, the difference between the car that I really wanted, the mazda 6, was only a few percentage points over several years. so I got the car that handled amazing, looked good, and could put large items in the back.
today, I had to go to home depot and was able to fit some items that would never fit in a sedan. then I found an awesome deal on a really nice but large coffee table on craigslist and again was able to fit it easily in the back of my mazda 6 hatchback. and all this driving was in heavy rain, but the handling was still great. on top of that, I got a couple compliments from strangers about how my car looked! who says you can't have it all :shades:
I think you get a "lot" a car in this segment. Think of it this way, 20 years ago a $20k plus car was consider a luxury car. For example, an Acura Legend was a little over $20K if my memory serves me correctly. But $20k plus Accords, Camrys, Fusions and others are FAR superior to a 86' Legend in every conceivable way. This is not even taking inflation into consideration.
The new GM 3.6 likely the best new 'American' V6 in terms of smoothness, refinement etc.. It has not been troublesome TMK in the CTS. Be interested to see how well it does reliability wise over the long term.
Really do hope that Ford finally gives that 3.0 a honorable burial - it does deserve at least that. The Fusion needs that 3.5 probably teamed with a CVT (see the new Altima) - hope they do it, more and better choices for the buyer. Historically about 75% of the buyers in this segment do buy the 4 bangers, something that I believe will change as folks begin to understand that the FE differences are getting almost insignificant and that it is possible for the midsize sedan to be something more than an appliance!
2006 Camry is the last gen Camry. The current gen Camry is the 2007 Camry.
What a rip!
****
As well you should. Yet, lo and behold, you can get a 1-2 year old GM for 20K or less. Or you could get a Crown Vic. Big, huge V8, and maybe $10K two years old. If it's built to handle police chases, it's good enough to get me around town.
A 2 year old Grand Prix or an Aveo... gosh. Really tough choice.
If $20k for a new car bothers you, then the used market is where you need to be. Sure hope that you never want to buy a house, those prices having gone up by an average factor 10 in many areas in the same time period.
Like I mentioned before, the current midsize cars are so much better better than cars of the same price 20 years ago.
Today, the Accord offers Voice Activated Navigaion, heated leather, Stability Control, and a plethora of airbags, once again benchmarking their predecessor.
Accords are getting cheaper and better equipped either way you look at it.
one thing that I wish car makers would do that would reduce the need for bigger and more powerful engines is to reduce the weight of cars. but of course that may lead to higher costs, but in the long term, it could make cars more nimble and efficient. a good example is the mazda 6...although it does have less power than other v-6's, it's able to hit 60 in the mid sixes (with an mtx) while handling and braking are likely improved because of relatively less weight than most of it's peers.
And I'll bite, what is an 'mtx' - a computer chip that probably violates your warranties?
Its called a manual transaxle, its that thing with the 3 pedals and the lever between the front seats.
would bet you probably have - over a shorter 10 year period of time, you will need to be making about 70% more money now than you were back then. 5% just barely keeps you ahead of inflation. Most institutional 'cost of living' increases will cover at least most of this.
7 flat, low 7s I'll buy.
another positive aspect of the duratec is it's willingness to rev quickly. even compared to my old accord, this is worlds apart as far as performance and refinement go. although the duratec is not the most advanced in many areas, it is still a great engine that rewards many different types of drivers.
That's not 200 horsepower, or even 180. That was (by new SAE rules) 156 horsepower (160 before SAE revised test procedures).
They aren't as slow as you seem to think.
What was the last I-4 vehicle you drove?
altima 3268
fusion 3280
mazda 6 3320
accord 3371
legacy 3415
sonata 3458
camry 3483
passat 3576
aura 3647\
so looks like the 6 is lighter than most of it's peers...but it is closer than I would have thought based on how it drives. I geuss that old duratec does a good job after all ...
so assuming the accord gets their new diesel in a couple years, that could be interesting: good low end torque with good fuel mileage and low weight while being able to meet emissions laws.
in terms of 200 hp in a 4 banger... most of these engines are very peeky with relatively low torque. so if you're willing to drive with the rpms above 5k to get that hp and torque, be willing to accept the quick shifting, loud engine noise, and power surges that can be destablizing for the car. unless you're talking about a turbo... but I think that's why v-6's have the following that they do; higher low end torque at rpms that are commonly used.
I don't think enough people have spent time in these I-4s. Power isn't so unlinear that it will be unstablizing, not with completely variable valve timing that many of these offerings have (like my Accord). Now, a turbo engine with 300 horsepower, maybe, but a 170 horsepower car isn't going to overwhelm you with a sudden surge of power. Most of these cars aren't very loud either. Apparently, the I-4s aren't so bad; they make up a majority of sales (at least for Altima, Accord, and Camry, which take about 70% I-4, 30% V6. Not a huge following considering their I-4 counterpart's numbers.
7 flat, low 7s I'll buy.
car and driver review of the mazda 6, june of 2004. 6.4 second 0-60
motor trend 6.67 second 0-60
the initial point i was trying to make was that weight savings could/should be an alternative to trying to squeeze more horsepower out of engines. i would think that lighter cars would brake, turn, and accelerate better than a car that is heavier. and of course, mileage would be better too. the legacy is a good example of how a lighter weight car can be fun to drive and safe (wish it were more fuel efficient though). it has been reported that subaru went through a pretty focused effort to not just reduce weight, but to distribute weight in the car that makes it handle better. granted cars in this class are getting larger (which I continue to wonder if this is entirely necessary), so something needs to be done to prevent these car from driving like a slug.
the initial point i was trying to make was that weight savings could/should be an alternative to trying to squeeze more horsepower out of engines.
What bothered me in both cars was the inability to hold speed, cruise set at 70, on anything but the flattest terrain. 'Power challenged' cars will do that - and really what it is I guess is that I am now spoiled by these V6s, one in an Altima, the other in my Avalon. The 2000 Altima on the long trip a smaller lighter car (4 cyl, of course) made 29 mpg, know that my bigger heavier Avalon would have at least done that FE wise with more than 100 extra HP.
The new Camry (for the 150 miles or so I drove it) seemed to have an outrageous '5th' gear (maybe in the interest of FE) and wouldn't hold high gear on even gentle longer inclines - downshifting constantly, negatively effecting highway smoothness and downright annoying. From my experience with my Av this doesn't happen with the V6.
And then, IMO, you get into a safety consideration, with these AT equipped 4 bangers - the way most of them are sold. I will grant to you that most of the time that there is enough power, it is those infrequent occasions such as merging into a much faster line of traffic, or even somewhat aggressively accelerating to avoid a problem - that has me wondering why such a preponderance of these kind of cars are sold with the 4s. The FE is not that much different if you are considering one of these new high tech 6s.
Lighter weight than what? It weighs 3298 pounds.
That's easy if the 4 cylinder is adequate, why pay $1000-2000 more for the V6?
motor trend 6.67 second 0-60
Rememer that the 6 had 220 HP back then. I had one with an MTX and it was pretty darn fast. IIRC Edmunds or R&T did 60 in 6.9 seconds that year too. I'd say the average driver could do 60 in the very low 7s easily with the MTX.