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
I'm quite partial to the 4 myself.
Volvo City Safety
However, if you really want VSA, you are going to have to get the V6. If you don't drive high mileage and don't do much city driving, you won't spend that much more in gas.
If you get a really great discounted price on a 2007 LX V6, you might be able to get one for around the same as street prices on a new 4 cylinder 2008 Accord (which likely will have VSA available on 4 cylinder models).
I drove the I4 a number of times and it always had adequate power for me. I see no reason to pay $2500 extra for a V6 and another $1400 in gas (at $2.5 per gallon) over 100,000 miles to have the excess and unneeded (IMO) power of a V6. I'd rather spend that $3900 on something else.
My wife has had a Jetta, which is about the same weight as the 6, with 150 HP engine for a couple years. This has had enough power for us even when loaded with people and cargo.
The acceleration times of the Jetta are comparable to the I4 Mazda6. Also other vehicles we have (manual trans I4 Contour, V6 Windstar) have similar accelleration numbers. These vehicles have always been fast enough for us, so I knew the I4 Mazda6 also would be.
I am more interested in good handling than straight line accelertion, I think adding 200 pounds (added weight of V6) to the front end of the Mazda6 would adversly affect the handling.
We were quite pleasantly surprised at the power in the I4 of the Accord. We got the 5 speed (such a sweet combo with this engine), so we get a bit better performance, but I think the Auto is no slouch either. Actually, since my wife hurt her ankle, I've been driving it recently, so I have gained an appreciation for it.
Having said that, if I had to actually buy a car that was going to be "mine", I would have probably gotten the V6. Sometimes, I just have that "need for speed", and while the I4 is fun, the V6 has gotta be way more fun, especially if you're going to get the slush-box.
The mileage that Consumer Reports got for the two were very close to each other. I think combined mileage for the I4 was 25, while the six was 23. Pretty good for a 244 horsepower car.
One other thing to consider as well. Even though the initial cost of the six is probably about 2K more than the I4, I would imagine that you would probably get the majority of that back at resale time.
Only you can determine if the extra fun factor of the V6 (not to mention safety of the VSC - I'm still PO'ed that I couldn't get that in the I4) is worth the price of a TV or computer. That's something I can't do for you.
Either way, enjoy.
I'm partial to V6/I6 engines myself now, even over turbo 4s. The Honda J30A5 is one super smooth engine and from what I've heard, its noticeably quieter and smoother than even the Honda K24A8. Since you're unsure, I would just go test drive both the I4 and V6 and see which one you prefer.
I would say the V6 is a better car for highway cruising... when you need to go 60-80 quickly, the V6 vs. I4 should make the difference.
One note - the V6 does use a timing belt that will require changing around 105k miles, the I4 has a timing chain.
Check insurance rates also. Initial purchase price, gas and timing belt changes may not be the only extra costs of the V6.
Having driven both models extensively, and owning a V6, I can agree with this statement. In about 95% of my normal driving, it's not noticeable, but on an autocross track, or in tight maneuvers, you can feel it. The V6 suffers from more understeer, but it's not out-of-control, and easily manageable.
Oddly enough, I found a bigger difference in handling with the Mazdaspeed 6. The power is great, and the suspension is much tighter, but the AWD components do make it feel heavier in some maneuvers. Again, not a big deal, especially with high-performance summer tires that are standard on the Mazdaspeed 6.
Me? I liked the added punch the V6 gave me. The MS6 wasn't out at the time, so I grabbed the V6. In terms of fuel economy, I average the same mileage that I did with my old '99 Grand Am (a 4-cyl with automatic), with more power, flexibility, better handling, and more smiles-per mile.
I hope they change this to a chain for the next-gen engine. My Mazda (or Ford "duratec", however you look at it) V6 has a chain, and I believe the majority of OHC engines have chains now.
you sure about that?
That's my outlook on the issue, but I'm typically not a left lane runner.
The V6 would have been even faster with it's extra power, but the I4 was quite quick.
Obviously people get onto the freeway everyday from the shortest onramps with cars much slower than the even the "slowest" Accord model.
That was my thinking. Ten years ago, an engine making the same horsepower as the I-4 Accord was the TOP engine in the Accord lineup (the 2.7L V6). I figured I could handle that. Like jaxs1 said, people merge in cars that are ten and fifteen years old all the time, and are much slower than today's ECONOMY cars!
of course they do - and less safely than some others.
I'm afraid too many people purchase more engine than they need (although some purchase as a WANT for more fun, but thats two different types of shoppers IMO) because they are afraid to use all of the power their car produces. I know my great aunt, for one, always drives big-engined cars, but never really uses what she buys, She could get similar results for her driving style out of a Civic that she could an Odyssey, but she'd need to rev the Civic to 4k RPM occasionally, something she never does in her Odyssey (that she loves because of the power). I know that's a poor example, but maybe y'all understand what I'm trying to say? I wouldn't drive differently with a V6, I'd just rev lower. I use more of the powerband of my I4 than I would a V6.
However, I think we are getting into diminishing returns as we get cars that are more powerful and more powerful. If 8.1 seconds to hit 60 MPH isn't fast enough (the last Accord SE I-4 Auto ran that in the Car and Driver comparo from Feb) to travel safely, then I think some lawmakers should be stepping in, because that particular on-ramp isn't a proper accleration lane.
I HAVE wished for more power in my 130 hp 1996 Accord, but never in my 2006.
Your results may obviously vary.
Best,
TheGrad
As a civil engineer, I can assure you that 99% of acceleration lanes used for highways are very safe, and plenty long enough to get adequate acceleration to merge. You have to remember that the majority of the highway system was designed in the '50's and '60's, when cars weren't nearly as quick to get to highway speeds, and were downright terrible in handling, steering, and braking compared to the modern cars of today. In most cases, the onramps are not to blame.
Who is to blame? Other drivers, plain and simple. Ones that are doing 25+MPH over the highway speed limit and refuse to even think about changing lanes to make room for an accelerating vehicle (Yes, I know the highway driver has the right-of-way, but a little common courtesy would be nice.) Conversely, drivers that merge onto a highway and shoot over to the left lane ASAP when they've hardly gotten past 35 MPH.
I deal with those and many others on a daily basis in my commute, and having a V6 for highway acceleration (whether it's merging or passing) is a nice thing to have. Coupling this with a manual transmission is even better IMO.
You're right, having a V6 may not be necessary, but it's nice to have.
It would be nice to have even more power or to have 600HP Viper so you can keep passing 18 wheeler trucks for fun on dangerous mountain roads with split seconds to spare, but the current Accord I4 still is not a slow car at all.
Although there are some onramps that are from one highway to another highway that I've driven in an old Corolla that has 115hp (20.1 lb/hp) that was downright scary to me... especially when you've got traffic in the slow lane that's coming at you at like 75-80 mph. And if you stop on the onramp you'll risk someone rear-ending you instead. It became a daily commute and the Corolla was sold within 3 months.
I agree the I4 Accord is not slow, but the V6 is a better choice for fast moving highways. Good vs. better.
I have driven the Accord and you can accelerate quite well onto any highway.
So Camry V6 drivers are going to say 244HP isn't enough and you need the Toyota 269HP to safely enter the freeway. Then 300C drivers are going to say you need 300HP minimum to pass a truck on a 2 lane highway.
The newer V6s get you to a power range where you have most of the available power today at your tap. Its not purely more, but a comfort range... 18 wheelers can be pretty quick even, so cars of a certain power level are definitely going to be far more comfortable to drive on fast moving highways.
You also have to factor in other things like crosswinds... the heavier V6 with its wider tires will be more stable than a lighter car with smaller tires when subjected to strong crosswinds.
didn't say it was, this all started with you assertions that there were NO conditions that you could ever need the extra 80 hp of the V6.
I have a 95 Accord I4 manual 5 speed and an 06 Accord I4 manual 5 speed so I've been at this for awhile. Rarely do I ever need extra power and the 4 is plenty quick. The extra savings in fuel and the cost of the car were the biggest factors in my decision to stick with the 4. I found a big difference in the manual vs the stick so my interpretation of "quick" may be different than someone with an auto trans.
Unlike thegrad, I have had to floor my cars on occasion. Never in normal traffic or getting onto a highway/freeway, however. To get from western Washington to eastern Washington, one has to travel over a mountain pass and (very rarely) I've had to floor it to pass a car quickly on one very steep stretch.
I understand the fun factor so I appreciate having the choice for those of us who want to save money. I also understand those who need a more powerful engine if they are gong up steep hills on a regular basis or if they have a short on ramp they use regularly.
The best advice here is to drive them both and weigh all the factors mentioned previously.
I think you have that exactly right. People buy a V6 and then never rev it over about 3000 rpm. No matter how slow a car I am driving I am still usually the fastest accelerating car at traffic lights, etc. I once stayed with the traffic a few times to see how slowly the typical driver accelerates...I can't remember whether I came up with getting to 60 mph in 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile.
Folks, if you want to buy a V6, that is just fine, but please stop trying to make the case that it is a need and not a want or that it is safer. If you really think you need to go 0-60 in 7 seconds instead of 9 or 45-65 in 4 seconds instead of 6 in order to drive "safely", I'd have to say that you are not a safe driver.
in fact it probably is - both cars having about the same power/weight ratio, meaningful acceleration times should be about the same, other things like tranny type being equal. And sure there gets to be a point at which time that this argument becomes even more pointless - like someone that can look you in the eye and tell you that he/she has to have 500hp in his Vette or Viper to be 'safe'.
no, actually, a 'safe driver' even thru your eyes, hopes that he/she never has to use it.
P.S. Must consider the transmission was not as good at getting the Corolla moving along. I think I will just go with the 0-60 times.
Yes, but remember, I'm in an LX Accord from 1996 (closer to 2900 lbs) and only 130 horsepower. This equals well over 22 lbs/horsepower - similar to the Honda Fit, except the Fit has a Five-Speed Auto.
The 5-speed autos of today's Accord make much better use of the available power than the 4-speeds of ten to fifteen years ago.
I think this is the most simple and best way of saying it. Nice work.
The V6 is just better in some situations. And worse when it comes to fuel economy certainly. The I4 is certainly more than adequate most times I'm sure too - but some of us prefer to travel with more finesse and less brute... revving an engine up to the redline can get a slower car going up to speed faster, but its far less relaxing than using less of a car's powerband and getting the same net result from a V6.
And yes - you pay the price at the gas pump for the V6. Its not a big deal for some of us, but it does make a difference if one is really trying to save. The I4 Accord is an excellent choice for the frugal.
P/S - And I guarantee you the Corolla is slower than the Accord I4.
It is a matter of preference like you say, for sure. For me, I don't mind using all that my engine offers to perform certain tasks (passing 18-wheelers uphill at 75 MPH with a carfull of people - sure, I rev 'er up!). To me, I feel that since I am able to perform the task, even with working the engine harder, I have bought an engine that I can use fully to fulfill my needs. A V6 would've been overkill for what I want.
For you, you don't like having to work an engine (Which is understandable, I guess...
I see no flaw in your thinking; I just don't follow the same logic. Two different sets of ideas
And, having driven my ex-gf's Corolla many times, I can tell you that the Automatic Corolla (circa 2004) was definitely fine around town, but pathetic on the highway. It has a tall overdrive gear, which made for great mileage (it revved at 3,000 RPM at 80 MPH - low for an economy car) but it was gutless when it came time to pass. A drop of the foot was always necessary, kicking it down to 3rd gear to speed up much at all, and that was a boomy-sounding experience! The Accord I4 accelerates effortlessly by comparison.
If you often travel with a full car load of people and luggage, having some extra power would be nice, but none of these cars is slow enough to be dangerous in 4cyl guise (having spent time with a VW Vanagon and MBZ 240D, I am qualified to speak on slow).
Yep, if you regularly drive like that then the V6 may be the way to go.
OTOH, if that is more like something that happens once or twice during the time you own the car, then renting a larger, more powerful vehicle for those one or two occasions you actually have a need for it might be more cost effective...not to mention you might rent something that is more comfortable for 5, than a mid-size sedan is.
Reminds me of a guy I know who bought a Sequoia because he was going to be making many trips to FL with a fairly full load of passengers. I think he has gone maybe twice in the last 5 years, the rest of the time the monstrosity mostly carries his wife about 3 miles each way to work and back.
However, I would actually be more likely to buy the V6 if I drove 3 miles each way to work. Then the extra gas cost would be next to nothing on a 30 mile per week commute.
Personally, I like the V6 and cannot live w/o it. I drive 250 miles/week to go to work and it’s a lot easier to merge into a lane, pass or cut in front of people. I hate when those slow cars that make other drivers to slow down cuz they cannot merge into the lane fast enough, thus causing the entire backup.