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

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

11920222425235

Comments

  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Member Posts: 3,802
    The Accords that were sold had no rebates and far from spectacular interest rates from Honda.
  • blnewtblnewt Member Posts: 27
    Good point, IMO just test drive all the models in your price range and needs, and buy the one that fits the bill :)
    BTW, The SOnata fit ours, lol :)
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    Does the fact that the car is unattractive have anything to do with it? The older Sonata look was 'Russian taxi cab' and it didn't sell well. The Sonata took Accord's old look and ran with it to a good seller. Accord's going the opposite direction. It needs a restyle similar to Camry's.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    A Russian taxi cab? That't pretty funny! Personally I thought the previous-gen Sonata was quite attractive, in a retro/Jaguar-esqe kind of way. As for the current Sonata stealing from the Accord, if you mean it has horizontally-oriented tail lamps like the '03-'05 Accord, that is true, but I see no resemblence to the Accord elsewhere. The front ends are totally different, the side profiles are totally different (Hyundai blatantly and admittedly copied from Audi there), and the rears are totally different (save the fact both have tail lamps that run East-West). Other than that, the Sonata is an exact copy of the Accord, style-wise. ;)
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    The rate at which the Sonata is picking up sales; it can easily overtake the Altima in yearly sales next year.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Can anyone explain why the 6's sales numbers are so low, especially considering the huge discounts that are being offered? I think that Mazda's emphasis on "zoom-zoom" makes many more conservative buyers (i don't mean politically) think that the 6 doens't fit them who I would have to guess just want a reliable car that holds value well.

    Really the 6 does have a lot of things that they could be emphasizing in their marketing besides having more "zoom" than their peers. Things like having 3 body styles to choose from, awesome brakes, and having a six speed automatic transmission available for better fuel economy are other features that better targets the average buyer of this category of car. An ad with someone pulling out a lawn mower (or something else that would never fit in a sedan)from their great looking hatchback would attract people who value practicality more than handling dynamics.
    Having driven an Accord (and being a certified honda-holic), Altima, and Legacy before buying the 6, it's disappointing that Mazda's marketing limits potential buyers even though it is a very capable car in many more ways than just "zoom". But then again, if people did know, I would have ended up paying a much higher price for my car because of higher demand.... :blush:

    I vote the 6 as this comparos best kept secret.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The 6's sales numbers are so low because most people looking to buy a mid-sized sedan do not have canyon-carving as a primary requirement. They want a comfortable, reliable, economical, safe family hauler. Look at the 6 in that light, and you will understand why it does not sell well: firm suspension (I'm sure many consider it too harsh, compared to the likes of the Camry, Sonata, and Fusion); tight rear seat; below-average predicted reliability (per CR, which many buyers in this market look at); low fuel economy compared to cars like the Accord and Camry; poorer resale value compared to Accord and Camry; poorer crash test results compared to most other mid-sized cars. To top it off, other cars such as the Accord and Sonata surpass the 6 (except Mazdaspeed) in V6 power.

    In other words, the 6 really needs a redesign, quick.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Most of what you say is true...to a degree. In regards to the suggestion that the ride is too harsh, perhaps this is true compared to the camry, but compared to the accord or legacy, it's a short step away from the 6. If the general market is for hauling around the family, backseat space (which isn't that tight: a friend of mine who is 6'2 fits fine back there), kids would generally be sitting back there and they don't need as much space as big adults. One other thing to keep in mind is that the side crash results that you refer to were done without side airbags. front and offset results were pretty good and above average for the segment. couple that with great brakes that help avoid accidents to begin with and standard traction control, an argument for the six being a safe car is not hard to make. in terms of fuel economy, compare the 6 to the legacy, ford fusion or chrysler products, and the 6 does fairly well. granted the accord and camry do better, but not by a lot (around 10% better). The strongest argument you make against the 6 is reliability. When the 6 dropped off the consumer reports recommended list because of below average reliability, that really had an impact. in terms of power output, when you can get a mazda 6 cylinder for about the same price as a four cylinder legacy or within a thousand of a comparably equipped accord or camry, that argument falls short. but someone pointed out the following about relative reliability:

    "In their survey on initial quality for the 2005 model year, JD Powers shows Mazda at 148 prpblems per 100 vehicles. That's an average of 1.48 problems per vehicle. Toyota is at 105/100 (1.05 problems per vehicle) and Honda is at 112/100 (1.12 problems per vehicle)

    The best is a lexus at 81/100 (0.81 problems per vehicle.)

    Is 0.43 problems per vehicle really that much worse?

    And in the Vehicle Dependability Study, which looks at 3 years worth of problems, Mazda is at 252 problems per 100 vehicles (2.52 problems per vehicle), Toyota is at 194/100 (1.94 problems per vehicle) and Honda is at 201/100 (2.01 problems per vehicle.)

    Once again, Lexus was at the top with 139/100 (1.39 problems per vehicle.)

    For 2004 the IQS numbers were worse for Mazda, but better for Toyota and Honda. So Mazda is improving initial quality and they are getting worse. All three were better on dependability numbers.

    Overall, I don't see the quality being different enough - either initial or long term - to worry about!"

    now i'm not suggesting that the 6 has the same universal appeal as the accord or camry. both these cars have a much wider target market and a heritage to match. but given it's strengths, the mazda 6 deserves to have sales #'s that at least keep the altima in sight. again, i would suggest that the reason the 6 has lame sales #'s is more to do with how the car is marketed rather than how the car compares to it's peers. because when you take a look at the whole package (price, performance, and quality) the mazda 6 is worthy of consideration and better sales #'s.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You can try to argue away all the points you want. Facts are facts.

    Rear seat room: many families have teenagers, co-workers, parents... all of whom would like more vs. less leg room. Go down and compare the rear leg room of the Camry, Sonata, and Fusion/Milan to that of the Mazda6. Big difference.

    Crash tests: Unfortunately, the test results with side airbags aren't published for the Mazda6, so we really don't know how well it would perform with those bags, do we? When buyers look up the test results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list. That can't help bolster their opinion of the car.

    Standard traction control: So what? The Sonata has standard traction control and ESC, plus standard side bags and curtains and active head restraints, for less money than the Mazda6. Maybe that is one reason sales of the Sonata are soaring and those of the Mazda6 are lagging.

    Fuel economy: Less is less. How many buyers of mid-sized family cars do you know who say, "I don't care about fuel economy"?

    Price: You can get a Mazda6 V6 for the same price as a Legacy 4-cylinder. So what? I can buy a Sonata V6, with more power (and safety and fuel economy and room and warranty...) than the Mazda6 V6, for less money than the Mazda6i.

    Quality/reliablity: Maybe you don't see anything to worry about. But when people are looking where to put their hard-earned money and they see that the 6 is Not Recommended by CR due to below-average reliability, and they look at the lists from JD Power and they see Mazda far down the list, and they see much better scores for cars like the Accord, Camry, and even the Sonata, what might they conclude? "I'm going to buy the lower-reliability car, because it costs more, has poorer crash tests results, fewer safety features, lower fuel economy, less passenger room, and less power than other cars I can buy!" Somehow I don't think so.

    Mazda has a marketing approach, "zoom zoom", that appeals to only a small segment of the population. And so does the Mazda6. Does that mean it's a bad car? No. It just doesn't have the broad appeal of other mid-sized cars, and that translates into lower sales. And let's face it, when the 2007 Camry and Altima arrive, the 6 will be the oldest mid-sized family car design save for the sorry DC mid-sizers.
  • jrock65jrock65 Member Posts: 1,371
    I4: 158 hp, 24/34
    V6: 268 hp, 22/31
    Hybrid: 192 hp, 43/37

    I like the fact that the bread and butter LE has a power driver seat. That makes things much easier for multiple drivers.

    I hate that the CD changer is only 4 disc with the Nav. What up with that? It has alll that new technology, blahblahblah, but they couldn't figure out how to fit a 6 cd changer with the Nav?

    Exterior wise, it's okay. Better than the Accord, but I prefer Sonata and Fusion styling.

    Interior wise, it's a close second to the Accord. In the XLE, they should have made the wood cover the center console compartment door like they did with the Japanese version. It looks a bit too cold in there with all that fake aluminum in the center and the steering wheel. The shifter area is definitely better than the Accord though.

    Hm... no HID option (Altima has those). I was hoping that the XLE would carry them.

    http://pressroom.toyota.com/Release...YT2006010675087
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    http://pressroom.toyota.com/Images/View?id=TYT2006010681970

    Something about this pic says last gen Monte Carlo to me.

    I think the car as a whole looks like Dr. Frankenstein had a hand in the design. Some Mazda, some Hyundai, some Honda, but no Toyota original except for the interior. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see it in person.

    No AWD?
  • jrock65jrock65 Member Posts: 1,371
    Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn Unveils All-New 2007 Sentra at NAIAS [Jan. 9, 06]

    "In North America in the near future, all of Nissan’s front engine/front-wheel drive vehicles except for Quest and some Versa models will come equipped with CVTs – including 100% of Sentras, Altimas, Maximas and Muranos sold with automatic transmissions."
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I think the consumer ratings at the top of this forum say a lot. Of all the cars in this discussion, the Passat is the most appreciated by it's owners, and that's with the 2nd highest number of reviews, 79.
    The Milan is also highly rated, but only with 9 reviews.
    Drive a Passat, and you will see why they're so appreciated. It does everything exceptionally well.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    You could probably buy 2 Sonatas for the price of one Passat.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    Depends on equipment. You can get an 06' Passat for $22k. Even the $36k range Passat can be bought for $32k or less.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I can get the V6 Sonata for $16k in my town. So I guess that would be two V6 Sonatas to one V6 Passat. :)
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Blog with us about the new Camry and Camry hybrid here: 2007 Toyota Camry and Camry Hybrid!
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    The $16K Sonata is half the car the Passat is.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I agree ;) You get what you pay for.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Drive a Passat, and you will see why they are so appreciated. It does everything exceptionally well.

    The above statement is pure opinion.

    backy knows I don't always agree with him as far as Hyundai's go, but, given Volkswagen's new "Corolla" designs would keep me away in a heartbeat, not to mention the bloated sticker and underwhelming dealer attention/service. I'll take the Sonata over the Jetta anyday (since they are much closer in terms of price, though as far as car for the money, the Jetta is blown out of the water by our Korean friends).

    Who gets to drive their VW? Most I know of live in the repair shop! Maybe it's VW owners' way of telling themselves their overpriced, underengineered (JUST LOOK AT RELIABILIY, I mean, Hyundai has them beat by a mile IMO) car wasn't a mistake to buy.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    Sorry, my Passat has been in the shop for 2 days out of the 3-1/2 years I've owned it, and it is one of my favorite cars of the 30+ cars that I've owned. Under-engineered?? What do you think Hyundai uses for a benchmark? They reverse engineer the Passat and the Accord.
    Oh, and the 06'Jetta just beat out all the competition in the February Car & Driver comparo.The Passat is even better. That's not just "pure opinion" from me, a lot of others agree. Drive one and then let me know what you think.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Don't say you are sorry that your car hasn't spent time in the shop, that's a good thing, and I am truly glad about it. It means that some owners are having better experiences than those around me. 2 days in the shop isn''t bad. My 1996 Accord has never spent any time (except for maintenence and one fan motor being replaced ($200 and 2 hours) in the repair shop after 10 years and 156,000 miles. I'm sorry, but I've got you beat in that dept.

    I've driven several VWs. The last one I drove had less than 40,000 miles on it (2000 model New Beetle), and had cost the owner (a friend of the family) $2,200 in repair bills for her Electrical system and A/C. She was currently trying to have the lemon :lemon: law invoked. I have no doubt that the germans engineer the best steering in the business, I'll give ya that. It drove beautifully. But as far as a car lasting a long time, many (Consumer Reports for one) show that they don't match up to today's reliability standards, and that's not just opinion, lots of others agree.

    Perhaps at your age you can afford to spend money maintaining a German car, but I can't.

    BTW, the Jetta you mention did beat the Accord in that test, because it was based on handling and such. I concede that the Jetta is the better handler, and at THAT PRICE, with that little amount of room, and the looks of my girlfriend's 2004 Corolla, (i'm 6'5" and find room VERY important), it should be. I'm outta here for a little while. Have fun chatting!

    the grad
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I haven't spent any money maintaining my Passat, except for the scheduled mainainance. The rest was under warranty, and only involved two days, no money. I guess that's the price of admission for driving a great car! It would be a plus if my Passat was as reliable as my last Infiniti, but the enjoyment of driving the Passat offsets the minor irritations. I smile every time I drive the car.

    The new Jetta is about the same size as the last generation Passat, which is not small.

    Are you saying you like the design of your girlfriend's Corolla?
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,382
    I looked at the Jetta 2.0T before I bought my Accord. I found it to be plenty roomy, although less leg room than the Accord in the rear, but still enough for norma use and kid transporting. Comfy up front.

    I liked the jetta quite a bit (I don't really care for the passat that much, but also never drove one). I ended up with the Honda for a few reasons, one being money, and another concern over LT reliability, although I wasn't that worried.

    It did drive real nice though, just not particularly cheap at 25ish (discounted from the 26K sticker). I would have been much more likely to lease one of these to "try it out", but the deal wasn't anything special.

    I also have to teach my son to drive next year, so an Accord should be a safer (and cheaper) bet for that!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I haven't spent any money maintaining my Passat, except for the scheduled mainainance. The rest was under warranty, and only involved two days, no money. I guess that's the price of admission for driving a great car! It would be a plus if my Passat was as reliable as my last Infiniti, but the enjoyment of driving the Passat offsets the minor irritations. I smile every time I drive the car.

    The new Jetta is about the same size as the last generation Passat, which is not small.

    Are you saying you like the design of your girlfriend's Corolla?


    The new Jetta has three less inches of legroom than the Accord does, pretty small considering the current Accord is about the smallest in its segment.

    No, I don't like the design of my girlfriend's Corolla, it is dated looking outside and in.

    May I ask how much an oil change costs at your local VW dealer? How often is the scheduled maintenence?
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    The Passat doesn't compete for the same buyer as an 'appliance like' car, like the Sonata, does.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    I use Mobil 1 5W-50 for my oil changes. The last one was fairly inexpensive, I bought a case of oil for half price at a K-Mart going out of business, and a filter at VW for $7.00. I brought the oil and filter to my local Chrysler dealer, who charges $10.00 for an oil change. They only charged me $5.00 because I supplied my own oil and filter, so the total cost was about $30.00 with tax.
    I use synthetic oil in all my cars, and change every 5000 miles. I just think it's good insurance.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    True, most car buyers in this market want something trouble free, with as much car as you can get for the money. This was true of me, since I want this car to last at least ten years like my other car a 1996 Accord with 156,000 miles. Since the old Accord isn't costing me money, I drive it about half the time, and keep the miles off of the new one. If I can go ten years in my 06 Accord and not spend over $200 in repairs, I'm in good shape. And it is fun to drive, to boot! By then, I'll have around 275,000 miles on the 20 year old car! :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    How about if you don't supply your own parts, as I imagine most people don't? I was referring to the VW dealer charges. The vast majority of purchasers want to do all their business at the same place they bought the new car, as many people assume that their dealer will do a better job (we know this isn't necessarily the case, but a surprising number of folks feel that way). I take my car to the dealer (Neil Bonnett Honda), have my car in thirty minutes, and have just spent $21.95 (w/o coupon) for my last 5,000 miles, without the hassle of shopping for parts and oil myself.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    one thing to keep in mind is that the sonata, passat, and camry are all brand new models which consumer reports have found that first year models tend to have more problems. one notable exception, i think, is the honda ridgeline which despite being a new truck got the most reliable rating according to CR.

    besides looking at short term reliability, one should also consider how a car has held up over time. my 2 accords both got more than 200k without significant probs outside of wear and tear issues. cars like the passat and hyundie have yet to earn my trust. perhaps in time they will (the sonata has two solid years to build on), but for now, i would not want to make a multi-thousand dollar gamble.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I think you are right, a better comparison to the V6 Passat would be the Azera. I saw that in MT's COTY testing, the Azera took 2nd place out of all the cars tested and the editors were very impressed. The new Passat didn't make the top ten.
  • bjbird2bjbird2 Member Posts: 647
    There are, today, two VW's, the Passat and Jetta that are "silver" rated as being crash worthy in the Insurance Institute's top 10 safest cars.
    -- as I recall, there aren't any other cars in this forum that made the cut.

    Not even a Volvo made it to the list this time around. . . .

    THE WINNERS
    TOP SAFETY PICKS 2006
    CARS & MINIVANS
    Large
    Ford Five Hundred
    and twin Mercury Montego
    with optional side airbags

    Audi A6

    Midsize
    Saab 9-3

    Subaru Legacy

    Audi A3

    Audi A4

    Chevrolet Malibu
    with optional side airbags

    Volkswagen Jetta

    Volkswagen Passat

    Small

    Honda Civic

    Minivans

    no winners
  • cironciron Member Posts: 4
    I bought an 06 Mazda 6 GS V6 sedan. I love it to death. When I test drove the Sonata I didn't feel any connection in driving it. The ride was rough over bumps, the rear suspension sounded cheap and clunky. This was the V6 LX, Fully loaded. The damn seat belt warning kept going off when you took off your belt. The interior was just too cheap for me.

    That is what I love about my 6. The gauges, bose 6-disc, and sirius sat. Something you can't get in the Sonata. I'm not trying to bash the Sonata, I'm sure it is a good car and cheaper than the competition, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

    Dealership here has been sitting on about 20 Sonata's since Thanksgiving. So I know they aren't selling here anyway. The Sonata by the way has a combined total cash back of $3000 dollars. Kind of high for an 06 sedan already. I know the Mazda 6 06 has about $2000 in incentives, too. Its all about selling cars.
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    Yea you can easily get 10 years out of an 06 Accord. But why did you buy it if you're not driving all the time? I couldn't see having a new car in the garage but choosing to drive the old one parked on the street.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Yea you can easily get 10 years out of an 06 Accord. But why did you buy it if you're not driving all the time? I couldn't see having a new car in the garage but choosing to drive the old one parked on the street.

    Here's the situation in my household. It may not make sense to everyone, but I'll try to be clear.

    Before the purchase of my 06 Accord, we had a 2000 Honda Odyssey (mom's car), a 2005 Accord (dad's car), and the 96 Accord. My parents work at the same office and ride together in my dad's car daily (it made more sense than driving the Ody, that drinks more gas, and premium, to boot!). So, as of September, I am driving about 1,500 miles a month in my 1996 Accord (at that time, about 152,000 miles). I am in school in downtown Birminham, Ala (UAB), so driving and parking an old car makes more sense than driving a new one there to get beat up, right? That was our thinking...

    The reason for the new purchase...

    Our Odyssey was never getting driven. We had no real use for such a large vehicle anymore, and even though it was paid for, it was sitting in the garage losing value (traded it for $13,000 b/c it had only 39,000 miles on it). My parents are frequently at their condo in Gulf Shores, AL (beach) in the 2005 (dad's car)which used to leave me driving my old car everywhere, with noone to come pick me up if (God Forbid) the 96 broke down. My parents decided that since I had gotten a full scholarship to college, they were going to buy me a new car sometime in the future (as my reward for saving them 25 grand!). Well, dad got promoted to Vice Pres. at work (with a raise) the van was worth a lot (considering its age), and I was putting more and more miles on the old car with noone around, so having a car payment wasn't necessarily a problem.

    Long story short, they figured we ought to have a new car that would actually get driven versus the excellent Odyssey that noone drove.

    Now the 1996 goes to school to park downtown, and has Lowe's and Wal-Mart (horrible parking lots for dings and such) duty, while my new car is driven otherwise. I have put 3,100 miles on the 2006 since getting it in mid-November. I have also put 2,000 miles or so on the 1996 since then too.

    I know it's complicated, but there is my reason.

    *Also, trading in or selling the old one wouldn't get us that much money ($4,000 or so if we sell it), and we need a third car for those times when we all drive at different times, so we kept the 1996 as the third car because it is not costing us any money in repairs (knock on wood), or showing any signs of breaking down.

    thegrad

    PS: Thanks for not treating me like a kid on these forums, on some others, people think that because I haven't been driving that long (4 years or so) I don't know anything about cars. What most don't know is that I have had car magazine subscriptions since I was in elementary school.

    Thanks again!
  • ontopontop Member Posts: 279
    The Sonata is a decent package. It does many things well, but I don't think it does many things in the superior realm. The interior is average, seats are below par, the dash is a bore, interior noise is a bit high, and the styling is just plain jane. Of course - just my opinion - but not my cup of tea.

    Now for my daughter, yea. The price is right!
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Some personally directed posts and replies to same have been removed. Please just email me if you feel like someone is out of line instead of taking it upon yourself to attack said person - that in and of itself is a membership violation no matter what prompted it.

    Let me ask everyone to keep your comments focused on the vehicles - if you feel you must "reprimand" another member, that's the time to drop me an email instead. ;)

    Thanks!
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    And the boring Camry has $750 off and there are few to be found.. for a lame duck version model.. weird. With all this world class competition the market is saying something.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I've driven the Mazda6 several times, up to a week at a time, and I've always enjoyed driving it. Those didn't have Bose system or Sirius, but I like the dash and the handling is great for a mid-sized family car. I don't have anything against the 6. I looked at the 5-door very closely when I was new-car shopping in the spring of 2004. But I was able to get a loaded Elantra GT for $8-9000 less than the comparably-equipped 6i 5-door, so I went with the Elantra because the 6i, while really a fine car, wasn't worth the difference to me. Of course, the 6 5-door was brand-new then, and there wasn't much in the way of rebates available. Now, it's a different story.

    I still like the Mazda6 for what it offers, but I just don't think it hits enough buttons of the majority of buyers in this market to be a big seller. But driving something different than most people drive isn't a bad thing, either!

    Re the 20 Sonatas "sitting" on your dealer's lot since Thanksgiving... are you sure those are the same 20 Sonatas that have been there for the past six weeks? The dealer should have received more shipments since then. If the dealer hasn't sold any Sonatas for six weeks, with all the rebates available, the other thing I'd wonder is if they are asking unrealistic prices for them. One person reported in the Sonata discussion that his dealer wanted $24k for a Sonata LX. I can understand they would not move at that price. Now at under $20k for a loaded LX, with rebates, then they should move. And they are moving in at least some parts of the country, or Hyundai would not have set an all-time record for Sonata sales in December.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Backy says, "When buyers look up the test
    results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list."

    Actually, you misrepresent the facts. mazda's frontal and frontal offset ratings from both the insurance institute and the nhtsa are excellent. Now, I'm not positive as to why you would say this, but it's not sticking to the facts like you suggested.

    Backy says: "Unfortunately, the test results with side airbags aren't published for the Mazda6, so we really don't know how well it would perform with those bags, do we?"
    As far as side impacts are concerned, again you say something that you have not looked into. Europe and Australia receive the same mazda as the US does (except for the rear bumpers, tires, and engine which would not affect side crash results) and they have done side impacts with curtain airbags. The european test has an impact from the side at 30mph (exactly the same speed as the US insurance institute test) and the results were 4 out of 5 stars. in fact, they found that the side crash results were better than the frontal crash results which have been found to be excellent.

    The original point that i was making is that the mazda is not just for those who want a canyon carving sports sedan. Many people have pets or on occasion need to haul things around so having an option that a hatchback or wagon provides is very practical (I just found out that the hatchback has only 2 cubic feet less storage space than the wagon!!!). Characteristics like excellent brakes (which stop from 70mph 20 feet sooner than the sonata; enough to leave someone crashing into the car in front of them), quick and responsive handling to respond safely to hazards while driving, a nicely styled exterior that is unique and attractive, and comfortable seats that make driving enjoyable (which compared to the slippery leather seats in the sonata which have left many magazine reviewers uncomfortable). So to those who have not considered the 6 as a decent option, I would suggest that it is worthy, especially at the prices it is selling for (I bought my v-6, moonroof, bose soundsystem, auto climate control, side curtain airbags, in hatchback body style for less than 20K - that's more than 7k off msrp).

    Normally i'm a huge honda and subaru fan, so buying a mazda was a surprise even to me. If the accord coupe had better visiblity when driving and was 5k less, or if the legacy gt was around 23k, I probably would not be driving the 6. but after reading all the reviews and doing a lot of research, coupled with the incentives I was able to get, i'm more than comfortable with the purchase i made.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Mazda6 is ranked 15th out of 17 cars on the IIHS' ratings of midsized moderately priced cars. Here is the link if you wish to check it out for yourself:

    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30

    That is why I said buyers see the Mazda6 "far down the list" when they look up crash test results.

    As for side impact tests w/o side bags, I was referring to the NHTSA and IIHS tests. The NHTSA and IIHS tests were done without side bags/curtains. The IIHS side impact test is different from those in other countries, and in fact is different from the NHTSA's test. One major difference is the size of the sled used by the IIHS. It is much bigger, for example, than the sled used by the NHTSA. This difference makes the IIHS test more severe than the NHTSA test. Many cars that do well on the NHTSA side crash test do poorly on the IIHS test. That is why I said that we don't really know how the Mazda6 will perform on side impact crash tests--and to be perfectly clear I should have said the IIHS crash test, which is the one I am most interested in--with side bags. Unless you know for a fact that the side crash tests in Australia and Europe are identical to the IIHS crash test?

    I am glad you enjoy your Mazda6. I have found it an enjoyable car to drive and even considered buying one, a 5-door, about 2 years ago.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Backy says, "When buyers look up the test
    results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list."

    Actually, you misrepresent the facts. mazda's frontal and frontal offset ratings from both the insurance institute and the nhtsa are excellent. Now, I'm not positive as to why you would say this, but it's not sticking to the facts like you suggested.

    This whole issue of safety ratings is a fast-moving target, as it should be, benefitting us as consumers. The frontal offset sests of the IIHS are old news from the late 90's to 2003. The IIHS now admits that all vehicles are good picks. It's rare in todays world of lightning fast technology for one maker to be more than a year behind another. Citing frontal tests is not useful.. all newly designed vehicles are good essentially.

    Even the side impact tests are old news. The IIHS had done an excellent job for us in showing the benefits of SaC/AB. The NHTSA is so far out of line in it's tests that on their site they admit that they have to change it. But again this is old news. The target has moved again.

    Now former top picks like the Accord and Camry are 2nd rate and nothing has changed - except that the IIHS had added 'whiplash minimzation' into the equation. Most vehicles fail this criteria so they are relagated to 2nd class, 3rd class and Failure status.

    Add 'accident avoidance' technology to the equation and most autos will fall into 'hish-risk status'.

    However to be fair it doesnt mean that certain vehicles are deathtraps like the late 90's Cavaliers/Sunbeams it just means that relatively speaking some, for legitimate reasons like model changeover, are falling behind the others.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Wow, didn't your tune change, suddenly crash tests that the Mazda do below average in are "old news" according to you. Interesting watching this little debate play out from the outside looking in.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,204
    it is a tough situation. some say how come my 15 year old xyz could get xx mpg? now the same vehicle is safer, but only gets lower mileage. all that safety equipment puts on weight.
    i would prefer safety in design as to opposed to a bunch of add-on's and software, which may or may not work when you need them, years down the road. jmo.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • calidavecalidave Member Posts: 156
    Has any vehicle lost mpg without gaining significant HP?

    I don't think the mpg losses are due to safety gains.

    of course, the Civic of twnety years ago probably weighed 60% of today's civic. It also was smaller and less comfortable. So, yes, the Civic is safer and weightier today, but it's not really the same car. It is a bigger car. Comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Civic is about as valuable as comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Corolla.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    Actually, the 06 (outgoing) Camry gets better fuel economy, according to the EPA by 1 MPG and 4 MPG on the highway than its 1991 counterpart, rated at 23/30. (06 is rated at 24/34). This while offering 6 airbags, and about 40 additional horsepower.

    ~alpha
  • jrock65jrock65 Member Posts: 1,371
    Specs are available.

    4 cylinder auto: 24/33.

    So the Camry 4 cyl. 5 speed auto has the exact same mpg as the Sonata 4 cyl. 4 speed auto (which incidentally has slightly more hp and torque). So what's supposed to be the advantage of the 5 speed auto?

    Kinda disappointed that the trunk room (14.5 cu./ft.) has gone down more than 2 cu./ft. from the 2006 Camry (16.7 cu./ft.).

    http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2007toyotakit/2007Camry_s.pdf
  • giantkillergiantkiller Member Posts: 273
    Is the Sonata's HP and torque figures SAE compliant?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The benefit of a 5-speed is readily apparent in such things as passing acceleration...

    The car can put the transmission closer to the power peak with more gears to choose from. Example:

    My 1996 4-speed Auto will downshift to third when floored at 75 mph (say, when needing to pass a dump truck). This puts the rpms at about 4000-4500 rpms, which is about 1000 rpm short of the horsepower peak. If it went to second, the engine would redline, therefore, third, and 4500 rpm is the best I can do.

    My 2006 5-speed Auto will downshift twice to third. Since the fourth gear allows a less drastic downshift at 75 mph (to about 3500rpm), the third gear shift is able to put the car dead on the peak horsepower (about 5500 rpm), making passing much easier.

    You may be surprised at the difference this makes. The 5-speed 2003 Accord is actually quicker than the 4-speed 2003 Altima, even though the Altima has a horsepower advantage. The secret weapon is the extra gear ratio, allowing the car to stay closer to its horsepower peak when under full acceleration.

    Also, for those times you need some power, but flooring it isn't necessary, a 4-speed is likely to downshift to 3rd, revving the engine past what is necessary to complete the maneuver called for by the driver. A 5-speed gives the driver the option of just going down to 4th gear, keeping the engine quieter and less stressed, while delivering a more optimum level of power.

    I hope this makes sense to those who asked. Have a good one!

    thegrad
  • victord1victord1 Member Posts: 94
    Well, that's probably true. But in my case, it's not.

    I have a '03 TL-S w/5-speed auto and '03 Maxima SE w/4-speed auto. I feel that the trani on the Maxi is a lot smoother to downshift and upshift making passing a lot less drama than the TL-S's which is jerky in comparison. The TL-S revs a lot quicker, but doesn't produce that much forward movement in return. Maybe it's due to the 3.5L engine on the Maxi and 3.2L on the TL-S. And maybe, someone can dig up the passing stats (30-60mph) on both cars and compare.

    At 60mph the Maxi rev ~2200rpm and the TL-S is at ~2000rpm, but by 90mph both are ~3000rpm. The TL-S might get more miles per gallon at high speed (I haven't taken it on a long trip yet), but around town they get the same mileage. :confuse:
This discussion has been closed.