By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
A Mazda 6 would be fine for running small kids around town. I think Lilengineer mentioned his friend's wife has a Volvo wagon or something similar that I'm sure would be used for any type of family excursion.
I do not have children myself, so I will defer to others experience on this.
A MazdaSpeed6! We may have found the right car for our young Dad here.
I liked it, but don't think you'll see one under $25k until one shows up used.
Oops! Always a little rain falls on our parade.
Lilengineer must like challenges!
The Camry and Accords automatic transmissions are so good that they get the same mileage as their manual counterparts now, if not better.
also, I seriously doubt the G6 4 banger gets anywhere near the same mileage as the Honda/Toyota 4 bangers, especially in real world driving, let alone EPA ratings. last I checked the 166 HP Accord was getting 24/34.
How different is the Mazda6 from the Fusion? They are starting to have really good deals on 4cyl Fusion with a 5spd because its the loss leader model on the lot.
Or, exactly what the Pontiac G6 is getting.
In my experience, GM cars in real driving trend closer to the epa ratings than ToyHon.
I believe the Mazda6 is shorter overall and somewhat lighter. The 6 bases with a stiffer suspension. Believe the Fusion has a sport suspension option, however.
I agree there is not a whole lot of difference between the two. I prefer the looks of the 6. But that is subjective.
You get some more room in the Fusion, but they are fairly similar.
And my experience is the exact opposite, which is why comparing EPA ratings and not anecdotal evidence is the only fair way 2 different people can compare 2 different vehicles.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I happen to agree.
Exactly why I reported the G6 EPA ratings are identical to what Andre said the Honda's were.
Exactly why I reported the G6 EPA ratings are identical to what Andre said the Honda's were.
I agree to agree, EPA provide a "reference standard" of equal comparison, athough the reference may be flawed, it is still consistent.
The Fusion is nearly identical to the Accord in size whereas the 6 is, as you already know, a bit smaller. I have not driven a Fusion yet and I drive a Mazda6 V6 every day so I can't compare. FWIW though most pro reviews I've read to date claim similar handling but the Fusion is a more comfortable ride. The 6 puts up better track numbers IIRC.
I should also mention that I strap two kids in the back of the 6, 2.5 yrs and 3 months old, every day. Neither is cramped for space and we actually opted for the 6 over the Mazda3 because of our rear-facing car seats. They just didn't fit well in the 3 but fit just fine in the 6. Well, the V6 had a lot to do with the decision too.
I can also fit a stroller and one of the bulky convertible car seats in the trunk if need be (I have done it before) with room to spare. Yes the 6 is smaller than it's competitors on paper but it's not so small that it's unuseable. OTOH, I wouldn't go more than two kids in the 6.
You're seeing 5-speed manuals right? The ATX is a 5-speed unit too so I just want to make sure you're looking at the right thing.
Exactly why I reported the G6 EPA ratings are identical to what Andre said the Honda's were.
I have to set the record straight and tell the truth, since it is obvious you are not telling the truth and you are definitely guilty of stretching and bending the truth.
The accord, as I stated gets 24/34 MPG with the 166 HP 4 banger. The G6, gets less fuel economy, not equal as you stated. The G6 is rated at 23/34 MPG, close, but no cigar.
And most definitely not equal.
Of course, that's just a sample of one car. You could take two identical cars and they could get different fuel economy. Then, factor in how different people drive, climate/driving conditions, traffic, etc.
Maybe I'd better stop listening to what Consumer Reports says. I take their reliability ratings with a grain of salt (or at least how they interpret them), so maybe I should apply that to their fuel economy results, too. After all, I think they got 31 mpg out of a 1984 Caprice with a 305-4bbl once! :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I posted the numbers. So I overlooked the city number being off 1 mpg. I can hardly be bending the truth when I posted the numbers myself.
You and Socala seem to come from the same cloth. Always ready to call people names.
Edmunds is really going down hill from where it used to be.
A few years back they had a big vetting and got rid of the name callers. Seems we are turning full circle. Too bad.
Now if Grandmom was driving, she tended to be the fastest thing on the road! She probably would have been lucky to make the EPA estimate with that car! (24 highway IIRC) I never could get more than around 22 with that car, myself, but I also never took it on a long trip. That's also about the best I could muster with my '86 Monte Carlo with the 305 V-8, but it also had about 180,000 miles when I got it... a bit past its prime. And I never really took it on a good, long trip either.
I agree, it's not a huge difference, but there is a difference nonetheless. When people on here try to defend the domestics by bending the truth, by saying the G6 gets "identical" mileage to the Honda, I have a problem with that. The Accord is slightly superior in fuel economy. Just like the Hyundai Sonata's V6 is slightly inferior to the Honda's. So the Sonata V6 has ALMOST as much power as the Accord V6, but it's not the "same" or "identical." Now why would you want the car with either less power or less mileage???? Well, one reason with the Hyundai is that you get a lower price and a longer warranty. You also get what appears to be respectable reliability. With the G6, you get no advantages whatsoever (unless you like cheap plasticky interiors).
Please refer to the hosts disclaimer right above you.
As it is, I posted the epa 23/34 in my original post. Your complaint about my missing the 23 - 24 city, a mistake I admitted, is, well, to borrow from Shakespeare: Methinks the 'person' doth protest too much.
Well, one reason with the Hyundai is that you get a lower price and a longer warranty. You also get what appears to be respectable reliability. With the G6, you get no advantages whatsoever (unless you like cheap plasticky interiors).
Again, based on industries surveys, your chances of getting better reliability with the G6 are better than from the Sonata.
I am questioning if there really is a difference. A couple of things to remember, first is that these are estimates and real world results could show that the G6 gets better mileage. Secondly these are whole numbers, so if you don't round them off what is the real difference? Does the G6 get 23.49 MPG (rounded down to 23) and the Accord get 23.50 (rounded up to 24)? If so than its not a difference in my book. So two cars getting 1 MPG difference is pretty much the same.
Now why would you want the car with either less power or less mileage????
First the power issue. If you only look at the horsepower the Sonata has slightly less power, but it delivers it at a slightly lower RPM. Not only that but the Sonata produces more torque at a much lower RPM. So that could be a very good reason. Its not all about HP but how to get power to the road. Looking at the whole picture I wouldn't call the Sonatas V-6 less powerful, and in a less expensive vehicle.
As for fuel economy they are the same (using my methodology) or the Sonata gets better if we go by how you would look at it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
An invalid argument in my book, because what is equally likely is that the G6 gets 22.50 MPG, and the Accord gets 24.49 MPG. Therefore by all accounts using your methodology, the Accord gets about 2 MORE miles per gallon in city driving (close to 10% more economy).
Micheal Jordan came very close to not winning 6 championship rings. Very close indeed, sometimes by one point, but there is still a difference, and it is not a tie. The liklihood that the G6 gets better mileage in real world conditions is no more likely than the Accord doing the same. Barring other information, you take it for what it's worth. The Accord will generally get an extra mile per gallon than will the G6.
You can twist and contort information all you want, but a point is a point, a mile per gallon is a mile per gallon.
If I had to bet money, I'd bet the scenario I paint whereby the Accord could be rating 1.99 MPG better is more likely to be accurate than the .01 difference you suggest.
This is because they serve different purposes. In a truck, a solid axle is good, because it is stronger. However, in a sporty car, such as a Mustang, it is not good, because it typically doesn't handle as well as independent suspension, and may cause axle wrap under hard launches. Theyre two completely different cars, and tats why one vehicle can have one thing, while the other one shouldn't. For instance, I wouldn't expect a Cobalt and a Suburban to have the same suspension, as those are vehicles for different purposes.
Most manufacturer's would be smart enough to figure that out.
Actually GM has been selling ffv for just as long as Ford, if not longer, they just never advertised them, and GM's vehicles are much more widely available, as Ford mainly sells its ffv t fleets.
In your book maybe but not in mine because we don't know what is to the right of the decimal point, but even more important (now remember this) its just an estimate and the G6 could get more MPG in the real world.
Micheal Jordan came very close to not winning 6 championship rings.
That is a very poor analogy since the EPA figures are estimates and it isn't an estimated that MJ won 6 championship rings.
You can twist and contort information all you want, but a point is a point, a mile per gallon is a mile per gallon.
Again since it is an estimate we don't know if the accord will get an extra mile per gallon, and extra two miles, and extra 40 feet or 2 miles less. What are the real world numbers. Since an estimated difference of 1 MPG (4.167%) is within a reasonable margin of error statistically they are the same. That is unless you can give us some real world results.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Once again remember that these are estimates a 1 MPG is within a reasonable margin of error.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
EPA numbers are more of an average, not an estimate. If you read the fine print, they will say you might get 19 to 27 MPG City, and 27 to 37 MPG Highway (for an example). If the Accords City mileage range (from an average of 24 were indeed 19 to 27 MPG) then the G6's range would be 18 to 26 MPG). Anyway you wanna slice it, dice it, twist it, or squeeze it, you are always going to come out behind on an average. An average is slightly different than an estimate.
Well you better tell that to the EPA because they are under the impression that its an estimate. It actually says "the majority of these vehicles with these estimates". On their fuel economy guide they call them estimates that are based on lab tests. They are not averages but estimates and are subject to a margin of error and since the lowest margin of error is 1 MPG that means a difference of 1 MPG is statistically the same.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
While it's certainly fair to speak in generalities, i.e. an Accord should get better fuel economy than would a Corvette, I wouldn't focus on differences of 1 mpg as if they are meaningful or definitive.
On the whole, I would expect properly operating gasoline-powered cars of similar weight, gearing, drag coefficients and horsepower (not including the power gained from forced induction systems, such as turbochargers) to have roughly equal fuel economy. In the real world, it's unusual to have cars that match this closely with one another in every respect, but here, they might be close enough to say that the differences are negligible. That doesn't mean that both are equally reliable, fun to drive, or good to own, but the fuel economy difference seems minimal to non-existent, if the test is to be believed. (And again, your mileage may vary...)
EDIT: That being said, there may be some modest differences in fuel economy due to technology differences, such as the use of variable valve timing. That might account for the modest difference between these cars as well, althoug again, those differences may be minimal at best.
Oh really. 9 times out of 10 when I see a Tahoe or Suburban they are doing basically the same thing as a cobalt. Hauling people and driving on road. A Tahoe/Suburban is far from an ideal off road vehicle. I'll occasional go down a rutted path, but I sure wouldn't go rock climbing or mud bogging it.
The 1/2 Suburban uses a different rear suspension from the P/Us (Excluding the Avalanche). Rear coil springs instead of leaf. The '07 now longer has the torsion bar front suspension and has replaced the recirculating ball with rack and pinion. Why? To provide better on road handling.
Honestly, I don't care that much about the IRS in a Suburban or Mustang. As long as it works is what matters. I will add that not having to worry about 4 wheel alignments and additional suspension components is a plus too. But, I certainly wouldn't avoid an SUV with an IRS or a Mustang without. Since I tow, an Armada and Expedition both have higher tow ratings with there supposed inferior IRS setup.
The solid axle maybe stronger, but the rear dif isn't, mine whines like an old mule with only 65k. The trans shop that rebuilt my trans said the rear ends on the 1/2 ton GM trucks are fairly weak and he rebuilds lots of them with less than 100k miles.
Mustang, it is not good, because it typically doesn't handle as well as independent suspension, and may cause axle wrap under hard launches.
True, but the previous Mustang Cobra with an IRS along with the CTS-V are known for excessive wheel hop on hard launches. Sure, I'd like to see a Mustang with a proper IRS, but it seems to work pretty well w/o.
Hard launches are one of the reasons the SRA was kept. Price of course was the other.
When and if Chevrolet builds the next Camaro GM fans better pray that they stick with a SRA too otherwise it'll be gone again in three years. And if anyone should see that loud and clear it should be GM after the GTO fiasco. Styling and price are separate issues for buyers and both have to be there for the masses to lay down their cash. The GTO had neither and the Camaro is going to need both.
"Commercially Viable" - I don't believe so, logic... The GM EV-1 was a dismal and total commercial failure - GM lost a Fortune on every one, wouldn't sell them, would only lease them, and reclaimed them all after lease return, pulling them from the market. Hardly commercially viable. I'd call it a disaster of Titanic proportions.
Add to that, the American people reject electric vehicles to date for performance reasons - and the hybrid is the only stopgap available at this time. Nonetheless, I don't think the hybrid will be around much longer either. It will be replace soon with a more reasonable product.
Disagree. I see the hybrids growing in number and becoming much more mainstream. As economies of scale increase and gas prices increase the economic viability of hybrids goes up. Hybrids are more efficient as they recapture much of the energy used to brake the car to a stop.
All of the trumping about ethanol is the really silly thing. The mileage drops. The energy consumed in diesel to plow, plant, harvest, fertilize corn for ethanol makes it break-even at best. E85 is an effort for GM and the government to look like they're actually doing something when we've had no coherent energy policy for 30 years.
Hydrogen isn't going to go anywhere either. Where do you think they'd get the energy to make all that hydrogen?
What is the more reasonable product you're suggesting is coming?
The most efficient plant for getting ethanol isn't even being used. Instead it's corn, in which one of the big players and a giant farm source has a vested interest in using.
Didn't we start this alternative fuel stuff with shale oil and ethanol back in Carter's era with the earlier oil shortage...?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Did she once drive a brand-new shiny red Super Stock Dodge?
Nah, she never drove anything that exciting, although I am impressed that she could drive a stick shift with no trouble. But then I guess when you're that old, chances are you probably LEARNED on a stick! :P
I think you will be proven wrong on this. Bio-Extraction and rapid advances in solar technology, allowing companies to use vast expanses in the desert Southwest are emerging as real possibilities.
All of the trumping about ethanol is the really silly thing. The mileage drops. The energy consumed in diesel to plow, plant, harvest, fertilize corn for ethanol makes it break-even at best. E85 is an effort for GM and the government to look like they're actually doing something when we've had no coherent energy policy for 30 years.
Corn is not the only source of Ethanol. Cellulose from timber, landscape and agricultural waste - currently sent to land fills or left to rot, could be important sources of Ethanol. Brasil and Sweden both have aggressive Ethanol programs that have helped them reduce imported fuel.
The important issue is not to make Ethanol your only component. An energy plan focusing first on ending sprawl and encouraging mass transit use, adopting and refining the new advances in solar technology, and using all forms of fossil fuel saving intiatives, including diesel, ethanol and hybrids makes sense.
Perhaps I used the wrong term. The bottom line is that GM alone among the participants in the mandatory California program actually put an all electric car on the market.
As I said numerous times in the thread - GM, Toyota, and Honda all told California technology was not there yet. California insisted to GM they continue, but then allowed Toyota and Honda to substitute the Hybrids which those two had already been developing in a program with the Japanese government.
Toyota and Honda had electric-only versions of the RAV4 and CR-V available at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV_Plus
http://www.evworld.com/archives/testdrives/rav4ev.html
However, both were on a smaller scale than GM's program. Moreover, I believe Honda did not even lease its model. If I recall, Honda retained ownership but allowed either a government or non-profit corp. use them.
On the other hand, consumers could walk into a Saturn dealer and get an EV-1 on lease, just like any other Saturn.
would get better mileage and power!!! That would be a no brainer! Or maybe Honda has a turbo in the woodworks for that 1.5L....... in the future?
1. I haven't heard about any commercially available bioextraction for hydrogen, care to cite a source?
2. So we're going to plant up Arizona with corn or grass to generate ethanol? Where does the water come from?
Cellulose from timber, landscape and agricultural waste - currently sent to land fills or left to rot, could be important sources of Ethanol. Brasil and Sweden both have aggressive Ethanol programs that have helped them reduce imported fuel.
This is a possibility - but where is the US focus on this? I didn't hear GM or Bush announce the level of concerted program or focus that would make any appreciable dent in thep problem. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.