Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
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.