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!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

189111314543

Comments

  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    The 96 Accord was made larger than the 92 also, to accept the V6 engine available at that time. Accords of all generations handle well though, and therefore fun to drive. I can imagine your Accord (the 06) is a little more fun going fast around corners, but that doesn't stop me from doing it anyway. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 96 Accord was made larger than the 92 also, to accept the V6 engine available at that time.

    Yeah, but it was still a compact (trust me, at 6'4" I'm an EXCELLENT judge of that :)). It also weighs a lithe 2,855 pounds, only about 100 more than the 1990-1993 sedans.

    Despite the light weight, it is still pretty darn slow when trying to accelerate above 50 MPH. Around town it is plenty adequate though.

    I've often wondered what the 0-60 times for my car were (I've never seen a Car and Driver or Motor Trend test of a 1994-1997 Accord without the V6 or VTEC). Knowing the specs of a Corolla (same horsepower, a little less torque, 300 pounds LIGHTER) and it's acceleration numbers, I can only imagine how dismal mine would be. 11 seconds, maybe? It IS an automatic!
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The current Accord is also made for a 4 cylinder/stickshift combination as well. Or at least that's what the vast majority of them in Japan are sold as.

    And it shows. The car is superb. Only Mazda makes a better manual gearbox/clutch in this price range. It's efortless, revs extremely quickly and smooth as a sewing machine, and you can snap through gears faster than even some automatics.

    Oh - it's fast as well. Tons faster than the shushomatik. I'd have no problem owning one myself and ditching the V6.

    P.S. For cars that are also sold in Europe(usually under some other name), I like Top Gear's track test. It really nails the actual speed of a car. Much better than the typical 0-60 abuse-fest magazines tend to love.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Not to mention you don't always have the time for such advanced timing maneuvers.

    I would not call it an "advanced timing maneuver", whatever car you are driving the best way to pass is to do most of the accelerating before going into the oncoming lane. Instead most people will tailgate the car in fromt of them, then when they see an opening they swing out into the oncoming lane and then accelerate to pass.

    Even at 40 mph, the proper minimum following distance is 120 feet, based on the 2 sec rule. I'd guess that space should be enough to do most of the acceleration needed for passing, even with "only" 150 HP or so in a 3000 pound car.

    I just can't see ever cutting a passing maneuver so close that 0.5 to 1 sec would make a difference. It's fine that you want a V6, I just don't buy your attempts at rationalizing it as almost a need.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    From CR testing, automatic transmissions:

    0-60
    Accord, 4 cyl = 10.4 sec.
    Accord, V6 = 9.7 sec.
    Ford Taurus V6 = 9.4
    Ford Contour 4 cyl = 12 sec.
    Mercury Mystique 6 cyl = 10.4 sec
    Chysler Cirrus, 6 cyl = 9.6 sec
    Toyota Camry V6 = 8.6 sec

    45-65
    Accord, 4 cyl = 6.4 sec.
    Accord V6 = 6.4
    Ford Taurus V6 = 5.8
    Ford Contour 4 cyl = 7.7 sec.
    Mercury Mystique 6 cyl = 6.7 sec
    Chysler Cirrus, 6 cyl = 6.4 sec
    Toyota Camry V6 = 5.3 sec.

    Most of the V6 performance numbers from then are around where the 4 cylinders are today.
  • kyrptokyrpto Posts: 216
    Car and Driver discovered that the reg auto trans got better mileage than the CVT in the Altima.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    In some situations. But its hard to make an apples to apples comparison being as nissan no longer makes auto transmission. The only way to know for sure would be to test an auto altima (which doesn't exist) against a cvt altima. the same way the sticks are compared to autos. but even nissan themselves rate the cvt version as having 1 mpg wors than the stick version. But, the cvt does get better mpg than most any automatic out there, under most driving conditions. It' the most fuel efficent auto out there, and very close to a stick. and I believe the comparisson was done with a sentra, that doesn't have the same version in it, and is not as good.

    But thats not the bennifit of the cvt, not to me at least. It't the way it handles, the acceleration you get at any speed, the overall smoothness of it. and after having drove about 2k miles with it now, i stand by my prediction. In 10 years most cars will have the option of a standard or cvt. the automatic transmission will go the way of the carburator.
  • micro99micro99 Posts: 51
    I just can`t see ever cutting a passing maneuver so close that 0.5 to 1.0 sec would make a difference. It`s fine that you want a V6, I just don`t buy your attempts at rationalizing it as almost a need

    Agree with this sentiment totally. This will however likely bring out those few regulars who seem to strongly adhere to the view that " more and more accleration prowess is directly correlated to greater safety ". As usual , the impossible challenge is to find agreement on what is required so to safely pass another vehicle, or,to safely merge into traffic. Your comments concerning the appropriate TECHNIQUE to pass are right on the mark!!
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    I wouldn't consider a v6 a need either, but it is fun. I think it just a matter of how far engines and cars have come. I think comparing a v6 to an I4 is like comparing a v8 to a v6 from 20 years ago. add to that better valve systems and much ligher cars and you have cars equiped with I4's that accomodate any driving "need". at least in a mid size and up. I think for compact and sub compact cars, the type of engine and its HP is probably more of a concern.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,946
    Are you sure you aren't referring to the Versa? C/D did a test of the 4-speed automatic vs. the CVT in the Versa and found the 4-speed got better highway fuel economy. I was not aware that the new Altima even comes with a regular automatic transmission.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    I don't think you can get a versa with an automatic either. I believe nissan has switched all their cars to either cvt or stick.

    this is from a review, can't remember where:

    "A CVT has no forward gears or complex clutches and bands. Instead, there are two tapered pulleys with a steel belt connecting them. These pulleys can change their effective diameter through a signal from the computer. If the pulley halves are squeezed together making them narrower, the diameter in effect, increases causing the belt to move to the outer edge. At the same time, the other pulley would spread out causing the diameter to decrease. Changes in the two pulleys are always coordinated to keep the belt taut.

    If the smaller pulley is being turned by the engine (the drive pulley), the steal belt would turn the larger pulley (the driven pulley) more slowly. If the diameters change, the speed of the driven pulley will also change. By allowing the computer to control the diameters of the two pulleys, the transmission ratio will smoothly and gradually change from low "gear" to high "gear"

    This design eliminates the need for a 4 speed, five speed or even a six speed transmission, instead allowing for an infinite number of "speeds". The net effect is better fuel economy (at light throttle, the engine rpm is always at the optimal point for maximum fuel efficiency), and better performance (the engine can stay in its sweet spot for maximum horsepower delivery)"
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,946
    In fact you can't get a base Versa with the CVT in the U.S., just the 4-speed automatic or 6-speed stick.

    Which leads to a thought... since the Versa is roomier than some "mid-sized" cars, especially in back, is it a mid-sized car? I'll bet most people don't consider it mid-sized, but it can hold four adults in comfort with the best of the mid-sized field. There's a few other small cars like that too, e.g. Elantra and Sentra. I wonder if people who are satisfied with a four-cylinder cross-shop cars like that when looking for a "mid-sized" car? FWIW, I do.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Yes, your right. only the 1.8sl offers the cvt. as for the roominess, it has to be less than the altima and sentra, otherwise it wouldn't be considered a sub compact.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,946
    Yes, the Versa (95 cubic feet) has less interior volume than the Sentra (97) or Altima (101), but the Versa is actually considered a mid-sized car by the EPA, as are the Sentra and Elantra (98). The Mazda6 is considered a mid-sized car, but has only 96 cubic feet, just one more than the Versa and less than the Sentra and Elantra. The Accord EX has only 98 cubic feet according to Honda. The Legacy has only 93 cubic feet! So these smaller cars match up pretty well in interior room against some of the mid-sized cars. I suspect the Versa is classed a subcompact by some only because of its length. In some countries, it would be considered a "family car".
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Accord EX has only 98 cubic feet according to Honda.

    Would you share the dimensions for the Accords without the sunroof please? I'd guess it would be 100 or more.

    (Just trying to keep this discussion on track). :)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 5,284
    The interior volume of the Accord without the sunroof is 102.7, according to the brochure I have in front of me. The sunroof steals 5 feet of room (97.7 with sunroof), I guess. It didn't seem like that much when I compared the two models, but I'm only 5'10", and so I don't need a whole lot of headroom.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm 6'4", and have my seat about halfway between the lowest and highest settings, and my head is about an inch and a half from hitting the roof, so it isn't a problem for me.

    Thegrad

    2006 EX Cloth, Automatic
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    The sunroof steals 5 feet of room (97.7 with sunroof), I guess.

    I don't think the entire 5 feet is for the moonroof. The power seats are also larger, and may account for some of the total.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    Interesting how you refer to it as a 'sunroof'. I believe Honda and Acura call it a 'moonroof'. Considering how hot it can be with the sun beaming into the moonroof during the day (especially here in the South), I use mine mostly in the evening.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,946
    At what point did it go off track? :confuse:

    For future reference, you can find all the specs such as interior room on the Accord and all the Hondas here: http://automobiles.honda.com/
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    keep in mind the 95 Accord a much much lighter and smaller car. The 2.7 V6 weighed a whole 3200 lbs. the 4 banger almost 200 LESS. Goes to show you how far we've come in 10 years+ and how much larger cars in this class have become. FE (especially in the now 244hp 6) has improved substantially over the old V6, not to mention that the 0-60 time that has lost about 3 seconds. So we can baseline that 9s+ 0-60 and convince ourselves that that must be good because that is what the Accord V6 was able to do 10 years ago, or we can enjoy the added safety of that extra power, and know that that efficiency is not effectively costing much at the gas pumps.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    I would not call it an "advanced timing maneuver", whatever car you are driving the best way to pass is to do most of the accelerating before going into the oncoming lane.

    First you say you would not call it an advanced timing maneuver, then you describe exactly what I meant by the phrase. :confuse:

    I just can't see ever cutting a passing maneuver so close that 0.5 to 1 sec would make a difference.

    I have never cut a passing maneuver so close with the V6, that I would not have made it with the 4cyl. But it is nice to have that extra margin for error. And yes, the V6 does make a considerable difference, when it comes to passing. Opinions, like mileage, may vary. ;)
  • Well, after months of ownership and being overall very pleased with the Accord, I have my first complaint. The manual locking mechanisms for each individual door are the pull style, and are located on top of the window sill by the B-pillar. This is right in the way of where I sometimes like to rest my arm/elbow, especially when the windows are down. On my old car, the mechanism was a lever that was built into the side of the door right by the door handle.

    My solution? I unscrewed the pull itself, and removed it, leaving a small hole where it used to stick up. I'll probably try to find some sort of cap to pop in there. I guess you can say my Honda has now been modified/customized :D
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Back in 96 the V6 Accord was pretty much a wasted effort. It only added 25hp, over the 4cyl VTEC engine, and added (like the captain said) almost 200 lbs because it had a cast iron block, which made it close to a wash, as far as power to weight ratio. The V6 in the current Accord adds about 80 hp, which is more than enough to account for the added weight. The 4cyl has gained 25hp since 96, and the V6 has gained 75hp since then. The V6 Accord has come a long way, in 10 years.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    How tall are you? The window sill seems very high, to have your arm resting on it. I guess if it's comfortable for you, it's not too high. However, if you have side airbags, this could be a problem in the event of a crash.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    The V6 Accord isn't the only car that has come a long ways in 10 years.

    The Hyundai Sonata is a prime example.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    keep in mind the 95 Accord a much much lighter and smaller car. The 2.7 V6 weighed a whole 3200 lbs. the 4 banger almost 200 LESS.

    The 1996 Accord 4-cylinder weighs 2,855 pounds, according to ConsumerGuide, with the wagon weighing in at 3,053 pounds.

    Just some useful info when trying to compare relative weights of these cars.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    The Hyundai Sonata is a prime example.

    Wow, I just read a few of the owner reviews on the 96 Sonata, and I don't think any of them are going to be repeat customers. Not hard to improve on that.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Yeah, but with a brand new customer base getting a lot of car for the money, Hyundai is still rising. You really can't take that away from them. Like the old phrase goes...."You've come a long way baby." Well, Hyundai has gone from a joke of a company to a company offering solid contenders in MANY classes of car.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    It is amazing how far Hyundai has come in 10 years, when some other companies have only taken baby steps. Should I name them? No, I think you all can guess which ones.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    No, naming the companies wouldn't be good here. Naming the individual vehicles might be, but if the comments aren't constructive, there's just no point.

    This convo gets off track and too personal with one little post these days, even posts not intended to start trouble are often taken WAY personally.

    I think Ford Fusion and Hyundai Sonata should share an award (for last year) for Rookie of the Year, or Most Improved midsize offering from that company.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Another thing I find interesting, is that with such a bad start, the Sonata has retained it's name over the years. It shows that Hyundai knows what is important. Improving the car, is more important than changing the name, to give the illusion of improvement.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well, maybe they didn't want to follow in Ford's footsteps of renaming its cars every decade.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    I knew that posting something positive about a car other than Honda Accord, especially a Hyundai Sonata would push your button.

    Take a tip from thegrad. He's completely pleased with his Accords and tells us why. He also acknowledges that there are some worthy competitors, including the Sonata. Mainly, he preferred the Accord's interior. Some may like the Accord interior the best, some may not and some may put more importance on a different attribute of the cars.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,735
    Please read the post above. I thought it was a complement, to the Sonata anyway. Oh, well.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    Well, maybe they didn't want to follow in Ford's footsteps of renaming its cars every decade.

    As a former ford customer (many, many years ago) I think I know why they do that. I think, its because they allow their cars to become so inferior in quality, style, and reliability that they have too. I, for example, owned two Ford escort. both ran fine till about 70k miles, then were nothing but problems. everything from major engine problems to buttons and knobs breaking, to the most bizzare of all, the catch for the door lock (the metal piece on the frame) actualy rusted (actualy it was the body that rusted) and fell off. I couldn't close the door.

    But getting back to the point, If ford had kept making them and ever improved the car, it woundn't have mattered. it wouldn't have mattered how many awards that car would have won, or how great the reviews would have been; i would never have bought one again in my life. IMHO, ford (and to some extent GM) have such a reputation for letting their cars go to crap that they have to ditch them and start over.
  • Re naming like Ford. Are you referring to the latest rename of the Ford 500 to Taurus? Ford thinks the reason the 500 didn't sell well was because nobody recognized or associated with the name. I think it is a very good car, better than the previous Taurus MHO. :blush:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Taurus to Fusion (as the mainstream family car offering)
    Five Hundred to Taurus (as the full-size upscale offering)
    Escort to Focus (as the compact offering)
    Windstar to Freestar (as the minivan offering)

    These are the first ones that come to mind.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    how does the contour fit in there? was it in between escort and focus?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    No, the Contour was a larger car than either of those, and filled the gap between the Taurus and Escort (much like the old 90s Altima did between the Maxima and the Sentra). The market for cars like the Contour, Mazda 626, and compact Altima sort of vaporized, along with the name Contour.
  • bv050506bv050506 Posts: 97
    I didn't challenge your numbers about the Aura XR being quicker than the new Altima V-6 until I had a chance to get the real numbers. Your statement is not correct, and in fact the Altima waxes your Aura in every category, 0-60, 45-65 passing, and the quarter mile. Information as provided by Consumers Reports. It didn't stop as well, has a smaller interior, much smaller trunk, and was said to have a cheap interior. It was slower in the slalom. I couldn't find any reason other than standard stability control, an option on the Altima that your car was better. It was less expensive by about $1,500. I know you love your car, and I am happy for you, as I said earlier the Aura is a fine car. But it doesn't stack up to the new Altima by the numbers as you suggested. Enjoy your ride!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Taurus to Fusion (as the mainstream family car offering)
    Five Hundred to Taurus (as the full-size upscale offering)
    Escort to Focus (as the compact offering)
    Windstar to Freestar (as the minivan offering)


    I don't know whether the Taurus was replaced by the Fusion or the 500, but they had to have new names because they overlapped. The Taurus, Fusion, and 500 were all being sold at the same time. There are 2006s and 2007s of all three of them. Same goes for Escort and Focus which overlapped around 2000, IIRC.

    FWIW, My opinion is the Fusion was the replacement of the Contour and the 500 replaces the Taurus. Just like other manufacturers, each model gets bigger.

    The Freestar name was perhaps mainly because they were on a (silly) mission to have (almost) all cars names start with "F" (with the exception of Mustang).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    First you say you would not call it an advanced timing maneuver, then you describe exactly what I meant by the phrase.

    Just to clarify and not to extend the debate...what I meant was that all I was describing is the proper way to pass.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Carresida - Avalon
    Corona - vaporized
    Celica - vaporized
    MR2 - vaporized
    Carina - vaporized
    Starlet - vaporized

    210 - vaporzied
    510 - vaporized
    610 - vaporized
    Original BRAND NAME - DATSUN - vaporized

    Maybe its not just Ford that does this, eh?

    Honda can't do this because they aren't original enough to come up with any names, look at what happened when they renamed everything in the Acura line.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    keep in mind the 95 Accord a much much lighter and smaller car.

    So what :confuse: The acceleration times of the V6s of a decade ago are about where the 4 cylinders are today, despite the increased weight.

    So we can baseline that 9s+ 0-60 and convince ourselves that that must be good

    No, we can say today's 4 cylinders are surely more than adequate, since the performance figures are about equal to many V6s from about 10 years ago, which are still on the roads today.

    Still waiting for any evidence (not anecdotes, please) that a V6 improves safety. Statistics? Insurance discounts? IIHS report? ...Anything?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Good work.

    How about Stanza?

    Actually Honda has done it, too...Prelude, Passport.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    Since when does being the quickest equate to being the best anyway? If we all wanted the quickest then we'd all have Mustang GTs. Also high horsepower (say over 260) in a FWD car is not such a good thing considering torque steer.

    My survey of the Altima vs the Aura puts me in the Altima side of the aisle. Much more confident fit and finish. Let's see how the Aura stacks up with 80,000 miles on it.

    I get a kick out of how these newcomers get anointed status of being great and the paint isn't even dry on them.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    My survey of the Altima vs the Aura puts me in the Altima side of the aisle. Much more confident fit and finish. Let's see how the Aura stacks up with 80,000 miles on it.

    Relative to a French car being sold by a Japanese company pushing new/not totally proven technology (CVTs)with a Jack Nasser-esqe CEO? I think its pretty close to a toss up.
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    So, you can't see a passing maneuver that close making a difference? I live in Pa where the state had a program (passion) to remove as many former passing zones on the rural two lane roads as possible a few years ago. In fact this is still ongoing. But, throw in a limited number of legal passing zones with curves, or slight rises at the end of them, motorists who inevitably speed up from 45mph to 60 in a passing zone only to slow back down at the end of it, farm tractors using public roads to get from field to field, coal and garbage hauling trucks getting paid by the load (speeding excessively) believe me any time saved by a quicker pass time (less exposure in the passing lane) is greatly appreciated...
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    and don't forget the del sol. the difference with ford is, they do it to popular branded names like taurus, escort. even the probe was meant to replace the mustang. You don't see honda getting rid of the accord, or toyota the camry, or nissan the sentra.

    and I wouldn't realy consider datsun a company. it was just the name nissan marketed their US cars as when they first entered the US. And going by that, there was also
    Geo, plymoth, and oldsmobile
Sign In or Register to comment.