Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread

1385386387389391

Comments

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    I think he was referring to BMW's :P

    Rocky
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    These are numbers for 2006 and 2007, so what does a change that affects 2008 models have to do with it?
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    Well next year IMHO, the Malibu will set the bar for the midsize sedan segment with it's very broad configuration, quality, price, and new design. The 08' Malibu, should at least be crossed shop by the camcord crowd because it will make dollars and sense. :)

    Rocky
  • lilengineerboy, what car did you have a 2.5 Duratec in? I have always wondered about the similarities between that engine and the 2.5L V6 I had in my 1998 Mazda 626 ES (leather, bose, alloys, moonroof).

    That was a fun car, mostly because it didn't redline until 7,000 RPM, weighed only about 2,700 pounds and the 5-speed manual was geared very, very low (5th gear was 4,000 RPM at 80mph). I think it was rated for 170hp and 160lb-ft. It didn't have variable valve timing, but it did have some sort of variable intake manifold. It would run to 60 in about 7.2 seconds.

    My new Accord I4 5-speed drives almost exactly the same way, except for just slightly less low end torque and a little more top end with the VTEC. Maybe slightly slower to 60, I'm thinking 7.5 secs as an Automatic 4-cyl Accord has been clocked at 8.1? Probably the same quarter mile.

    I never modded my 2.5 V6, but I kinda wish I had. I know it would have sounded better than the new 2.4 4-cyl would if I were to put a coffee can on it (definately not) :D
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    If you really care about resale than you need to get a German car.
    while it is certainly true that a 5 year old 530, for example, will fetch a lot more dollars than a 5 year old Accord - the fact is that in terms of gross dollars spent (a TCO type number) the BMW is much much more expensive to own (as it should be). TCO of that $50k 530 (according to Edmunds) for 5 years is $65 grand (with 29k depreciation) the Accord is $35k (with $12k depreciation). So yes the resale value is high mostly becuase the 530 costs so much new, but so is the gross dollar hit in resale value.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    devil's advocate here - why should the Malibu 'set the bar' when the Aura, as good as it may be, hasn't.
  • Bender,
    I had a '96 Contour SE V6/MTX with 170hp/165 lb ft torque and 2900 lbs or so. It did 0-60 in about 7.5 or so. The car was actually geared pretty tall in 4th and 5th, and I usually got 28 or 29 mpg. The motor seems similar, no VVT but it did have the dual intake runner thing (which was one of two repairs the car needed while I had it). The car was loaded (lthr, roof, alloys, htd mirrors, etc) and it had the greatest, most comfortable supportive bolstered seats...they de-contented those seats in '98. The 95-97 SEs actually had more aggressive suspension tuning than the later SVTs. That car was 155k of smiles and chuckles. :)

    I had a KKM intake and a Borla exhaust and it sounded beautiful (although it probably wasn't any more powerful), and the only other "modification" was Brembo rotors and KVR brake pads, which I need for the track events as R-compound tires are very hard on brakes (moves the weakest link upwards in the system).
    I still miss it. :cry:
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    Malibu, will be able to conquest Accord buyers something the Aura, isn't designed for. The Aura, is more of a Camry fighter. ;)

    Rocky
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    so you are assumming the Malibu will be a little 'tighter' and the Aura, I guess, must already be, a little 'softer'? A good portion of Toyota's success has always been based on correctly understanding that we Americans prefer 'soft' to 'hard'. A Malibu setup like the Mazda6 may not have the broad appeal that you think to the average midsize sedan buyer.
  • Well given the pricing, the Impala SS is actually a sweeter buy for a performance oriented buyer. When it comes to muscle V8s sedans, leave it to Detroit! :shades:

    And the Impala already sells better than the Malibu at the moment too.
  • You are correct, my bad. However, according to the Lincoln website the FWD MKZ is rated 19/27, the AWD model is what's rated 18/26. Still lower, but not so bad.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    GM should examine the Accord, the Camry -- and then build a better car in every way!.

    If GM could build such a car, don't you think they would have? Honda and Toyota have patents on their designs, so outright copying them can't happen. GM doesn't have the engineering or technology to build a car as good, much less better than Accord/Camry.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    The Impala as we know it will be buh bye by 2009 because it's going to be replaced by a much bigger RWD Sedan with GM's 3.6 V6, 5.3 LS-4 V8, and 6.2 VVT V8 in the SS model. ;)

    Rocky
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    It's not that they can't do it but they need to make a profit.

    So you don't think this "perfect car" would sell? Believe me, if they could make this car, they would.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    The Impala as we know it will be buh bye by 2009 because it's going to be replaced by a much bigger RWD Sedan with GM's 3.6 V6, 5.3 LS-4 V8, and 6.2 VVT V8 in the SS model.

    Therein lies GM's neverending problem. Big engines with lousy fuel economy. I guess they'll never learn.

    Watch for Honda to go the other way. Diesels, hybrids, hydrogen etc. I know which company I'd bet on.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    However, according to the Lincoln website the FWD MKZ is rated 19/27, the AWD model is what's rated 18/26.

    That's strange, the numbers I posted (18/25 for FWD) were from fueleconomy.gov., they have the AWD at 17/24. :confuse:
  • ggesqggesq Posts: 701
    I'll respectfully have to disagree with ya rock. 08 Malibu is definately a step up from its predecessors but the 08 Accord will be out too.....
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Well I suppose it will be a good car. It is basically the Aura. The G6, yet another variant, is just let's say a different looking car, but pretty much the same. Then there is the original of this class, the Malibu Maxx. Let us all pray the Consumer Reports data looks better for Malibu going forward. That is one thing which kinda concerned me a bit about the Aura -- not so stellar data on past Saturns and the Malibu in Consumer Reports data from owners. No not going buy test drives.

    Anyway, the Malibu will be a nice, sorta new car, yet it seems like it is but one of four.
    -Loren
  • I didn't think Consumer Reports had tested a Legacy GT since they started offering stability control. I believe their initial test is still the one in their ratings and doesn't reflect a model with the stability control option. I think the biggest remaining knock they'd have against it is the gas mileage but I don't think they have tested one with the SI drive feature either yet so they might even find it more acceptable. I could be wrong but I am a CR subscriber and just don't recall an updated test - I keep thinking they will include in a new test - maybe they will with the 08 redesign which is due out mid year I think.
  • I have not test driven the Accord or new Camry to compare to the Fusion but I have test driven the Fusion, Sonata and new Altima and I'm not sure I would choose the Fusion over the Sonata or Altima. I saw the video that showed testimony to the Fusion but what I don't know is how many of the 600 people actually chose the Fusion over the other cars tested. Ford only stated that the Fusion was the winner. That could simply mean getting 34% of the vote. Also, I don't remember any of the people on the video being asked "If you were going to buy one of these cars today, which one would it be"? I don't remember hearing anyone make a statement that they were actually going out that day and buy the Fusion (but I could be wrong). I think there are too many other considerations to make before one could say that. It's not only initial price and performance but also depreciation, reliability and customer service after the sale, both from the dealer and from the manufacturer. Don't get me wrong. I like Ford products, moreso that GM. I had a bad manufacturer customer service problem 9 years ago from GM and would never buy another new GM (or GM owned) car again. On the Fusion Challenge, I would really like to have that question asked and also to see the complete vote by all 600 people.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    It was a closed course designed to highlight advantages of AWD handling.
    They could have put a FWD drive Fusion and a AWD Fusion together and the people would have said they preferred the AWD version on the course just as the people preferred the AWD Fusion to FWD Accords and Camrys.
    I wonder how it would have gone if all the vehicles had been FWD?
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    It was a closed course designed to highlight advantages of AWD handling.
    not only that but also 'handicapped' the other two cars with some nice speed limiting stability control systems not even offered on the Ford. There is absolutely no way that anything with that nasty DT is going to compare even close to favorably with those other 2 drivetrains. If you pick out 600 folks put them in front of an appropriately good salesman you will get the results you want - can you say OJ Simpson. 'The Fusion Challenge' should be regarded as the joke that it is and Ford should be ashamed of having to resort to such tactics.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    This discussion is about the cars. It's not about the shortcomings or difficulties of the manufacturers, it's not about currencies, it's not about geo-politics, it's not about sniping at each other over differences of opinions - it's not about anything except the actual cars.

    Once again here is the link to the Automotive News & Views board where conversations about the manufacturers are going on all over the place.

    A number of posts have been removed. If this discussion is going to remain viable, you folks have got to cooperate with me on this. I've been asking for your cooperation for a long time and I'm sorry to see I'm not really getting it.

    Work with me here please. This is a really good discussion when it's on track. None of us wants to lose it.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 13,744
    my view is ford has a product with a handling advantage and showed it off. it was able to negotiate the course better than the others, eventhough they have more horsepower and a stability control system.
    toyota has a commerical for their new truck that demonstrates it accelerating to 60 quicker than 4 competitors. i like it a lot better than the one that say 'the average truck has x, we have x+1'. that may or may not mean anything in the real world.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    eventhough they have more horsepower and a stability control system.

    you don't seem to understand, laying out the course in a particular manner can (and did) negate any horsepower advantage (and probably also prevented the participants from experiencing that wonderful meat grinder that the Ford engine is) and a stability control system will do nothing but get in the way on an open track course like this. A good poker cheat can arrange to get 4 aces every time.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 13,744
    my thinking is that better handling is more important than more horsepower. are you saying stability control is useless on dry pavement? i would think it was working during the test, and those vehicles would have done worse without it. i am also sure there is some fuel efficiency price to be paid for awd, though.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    I don't think so. Stability control, like on the Camry, which comes on quickly, as in error on the side of safety will slow down the test results. It can not be turned off on the Camry, so slalom test scores may be lower than other cars. It may show lower skid pad results. That said, driven normally and not on the edge control loss, you may not know that there was a stability control on the Camry. Some little, yet wide tracked cars, like the Mini Cooper, I am sure can out slalom say the Porsche (no I did not check - best guess). Doesn't mean the Porsche is not a great handling car and will not dust the little guy on the race track. Have not seen the test track Ford set up, but I would imagine the shorter wheelbase to width + lower car came out on top. If it is shorter track HP indeed will not matter. Actually a go cart may be the winner here. Anyway, the Stability Nanny is for safety and not for better test results, though some advanced, and expensive cars, like the Porsche have it and it will work well at high speed cornering. Not sure what would happen though on slower speed slalom runs. As for getting a car with AWD, I would go Subaru over getting the Ford -- personal preference.
    -Loren
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 13,744
    any post that mentions a mini cooper, porsche and a go kart, only reinforces the handling capabilites of the awd fusion vs the cam/cords.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    :confuse:
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Let's please stick to the midsize sedans here.
This discussion has been closed.