Midsize Sedans 2.0

robertsmx

We've been there.

And sometimes it may not appear to be contradictory, just misleading. We have been there too.

captain2

didn't think you would accept the challenge but to answer yours - I don't read press releases because I think that nobody in their right mind should ever believe them - from anybody! And yes, that whole thing about a system on any vehicle that is NOT reacting to something is typical of PR BS, not to mention a number of PRs dated back in 05 that 'promised' the DT3.5 in the Five Hundred.

akirby

That is such a ridiculous statement that I'm not even going to respond.

Let's talk about the vehicles.

jeffyscott

Well, no I'd have to wait 4.5 years for mine to reach that 5 year old status first and even then mine won't really be a good barometer as I'll probably have less than 50K mi in 5 years. I'm not a trader anyway, so not likely I'll be looking into that just for the sake of posting about it here.

I agree that certainly anyone who paid list or even invoice for a speed6 will be experiencing horrible trade in value. 2007 buyers of that got huge discounts, or were very foolish if they did not.

I had read that Mazda was going to try to reduce incentives. In 2006 I think they had started at around $2k and ramped up to about $4K, I believe. So 2007 was quite different. In 2007 they also created the sport value package, which was reduced quite a bit in price from the most comparable model the previous year...I think it lost a spoiler and fog lights and price was reduced by around $2K.

jeffyscott

Isn't GM also getting away from limiting you to 4 speed auto in the 4 cylinders? This is another indicator of increased emphasis on the I4.

Mazda (and presumably Ford???) are also upgrading the 4 cyl. They are going to a 2.5 L, with ~170 HP, I believe.

aviboy97

Detroit may miss the boat if they don't get on the small 4 cyl (or V6) diesel bandwagon

I will agree with that as well. 4 cyl and diesel engines seem to be the future, especially the way fuel prices are jumping. While V6 power is nice, and great to talk about in comparo's, the reality is, a higher % of mid sized sedans will be sold as 4 cyl's. When these companies can build a powerful diesel that meets Cal Emissions standards here in the US, I'm sure they will be in serious demand, like how hybrids were a few years ago.

I have heard VW is about to import their newest diesel here. Mazda is working on one that they already sell in Europe.

aviboy97

So 2007 was quite different. In 2007 they also created the sport value package, which was reduced quite a bit in price from the most comparable model the previous year...I think it lost a spoiler and fog lights and price was reduced by around $2K.

Yes, this year Mazda reduced the price with the intro of the Sport Value Edition, about $2,000 then the Sport package from 2006. Also, in 2006 there was a peak of $4,000 in rebates. This year, only $2,000 at model year end.

captain2

a TRUE story whether you choose to believe it or not:
In the spring of 05 was shopping for a sedan to be my personal driver: things like a TL, G35, Avalon, Maxima, 300 and Five Hundred were all interviewed. Down here in Texas we have things called feeder roads that parallel the highways with many businesses including car dealerships directly accessing that feeder road. The problem is that the traffic on these feeders moves at or about the same speed as the highway. Since there is usually lots of traffic on these roads, 0-60 (or 5-60) becomes very important in any car to safely 'get up to speed' or 'merge'. Well, I had just got done test driving a Maxima and Avalon and then tried this in a Five Hundred which really did impress me on the showroom floor - I mistakenly anticipated similar power out of the Ford because the other 2 cars were leaving rubber and getting up to speed quite nicely. I almost got killed (literally) and just couldn't wait to get the thing back to the dealership - at which point - the sales manager hearing my complaints hands me something on Ford's letterhead telling me all about an improved engine for that car due within 6 months and asked me if I consider waiting. The answer to that was no, of course but it now seems like Ford was circulating its 'lies' even amongst its own employees, it was 3 years not 6 months. Wish I still had the PR. In any case, I've had this thing ever since about Ford and its promises, the real value of what should be excessive power (or lack thereof) in cars like this, and particularily the DT 3.0 ever since.
PS - what ridiculous statement? I believe I made 2 in that particular post and I also assume that everything I say is ridiculous in any case :P

captain2

my only wish is that these diesels are more like 200-250hp and 300-400 lb ft. so that much of the slowness (these cars are indeed getting quite large) that I personally find objectionable is minimized. The increased FE, whatever the HP is, is what its all about, of course and as long as the premium in cost is recoverable in a reasonable period of time - how can you not like the prospect of these new diesels? .

zzzoom6

while I happen to agree with you, personally I would suggest to you that that 'straight line' capability is what most drivers will find more useful whether its passing a semi on a 2 lane or merging on the highway that happens to be moving at 80! That old DT engine does leave about 50hp on the table.

While it's true that the engine in the Mazda6 is rated at least 50 hp less than the Accord, Edmonds just tested the v-6 Accord w/ a manual transmission and found it's 0-60 time was 6.3 seconds. The Altima's 0-60 time was 6.2 seconds. MotorTrend found the Mazda6 v-6 with a manual to be 6.4 seconds. Car and Driver tested the Mazda6 at 6.7 seconds. Most everyone have noticed that from a complete stop the Mazda6 is not the quickest off the line but it makes up time as it revs higher where there's more torque. So that suggests that from a rolling start, the Mazda6 would out-accelerate the Accord. Probably top end speed would be higher in the Accord in case there are some people out there who think driving faster than 125 mph is a good idea :confuse: Perhaps I'm reading too much into this data, but it seems when you say the Mazda6 has a huge power defeceit I'd have to say that the difference in acceleration is minor so what's the significance? For many thousands less than the $6000 price difference between the Accord and the Mazda6 I can get stickier tires, lighter wheels and a cold air intake and likely improve my 0-60 times by a few tenths.

What was also interesting in the Edmunds review was their comments on the Accord's braking system... they wrote, "The Accord's four-wheel discs and tires produced only one good stop from 60 mph with an effort of 128 feet, and the car's stopping distances grew as the brakes heated and faded noticeably. The third quarter-mile run at more than 100 mph was particularly memorable, as the brake system couldn't generate enough brake pressure to lock the tires sufficiently to even elicit a response from the ABS. Yikes." Not the car I'd like to be driving going around the twisty roads! Imagine heading toward a corner and finding your brakes have faded.... definitely one area that I'd have to modify if I bought an Accord.

thegraduate

Edmonds just tested the v-6 Accord w/ a manual transmission and found it's 0-60 time was 6.3 seconds. The Altima's 0-60 time was 6.2 seconds. MotorTrend found the Mazda6 v-6 with a manual to be 6.4 seconds. Car and Driver tested the Mazda6 at 6.7 seconds. Most everyone have noticed that from a complete stop the Mazda6 is not the quickest off the line but it makes up time as it revs higher where there's more torque. So that suggests that from a rolling start, the Mazda6 would out-accelerate the Accord.

Edmunds typically has slower runs that those car magazines you mention.

Case-in-point:

Motor Trend numbers for 2003-2005 Camry and Accord: 8.5 seconds to 60MPH, 9.5 seconds to 60MPH. Both are 4-cylinder models.

Edmunds has the same cars (2005 models instead of 2003 like in Motor Trend). They quote the acceleration numbers at 9.5 and 10.3 for Accord and Camry, in that order.

So, to compare Motor Trend or C&D to Edmunds, you really need to take into account Edmunds' tendencies to get times slower by around one second to 60 MPH.

I'll look at numbers from the SAME source a lot more closely. Different sources will offer HUGE variables, as in the example I provided.

Most everyone have noticed that from a complete stop the Mazda6 is not the quickest off the line but it makes up time as it revs higher where there's more torque. So that suggests that from a rolling start, the Mazda6 would out-accelerate the Accord.

Um, no it doesn't. (Correct me if I'm not following your logic)

It means that it has more meager low-end power, and it improves with higher revs. The Accord's power is more than ample at the low-end, but it improves with higher revs just like the Mazda. The Accord has more top-end power than the Mazda, so it would out-accelerate the Mazda.

I'm not a drag racer (I have a 4-cyl vehicle), but I couldn't help but chime in since it was brought up.

zzzoom6

So you're saying the Accord's 0-60 time in Motortrend will be 5.3 seconds? Yeah, I'll take that bet...

captain2

a few things - first, acceleration times from different sources on different vehicles are NOT comparable - second, it is that higher torque of the Honda engine applied over time (also called HP) that means it must outaccelerate the Mazda (other factors equal) and lastly the other factors aren't really equal - the new Accord (which I assume is the one you are talking about) is in a different category size (and weight) wise.

captain2

manual tranny and a little car abuse - I would be willing to take 5.8 or so - 5.3 OTH is really really quick.

thegraduate

Never said that so you'll be betting against yourself. Quit putting words in my mouth zzzoom6.

I would be they'll be a bit quicker than 6.3. I pointed out the vast differences possible from two sources in acceleration times due to conditions, drivers, and launch methods being different.

My personal bet is 5.6-6.0 sec. The 240hp 2003 Accord coupe with a 6MT ran it in 5.9.

I think a mid-upper 5sec time is reasonable if a 5.1 second time can come from a 306hp 3500lb Lexus IS350 from C&D.

captain2

yeah, 12hp/lb. is in a different category than even the 13-14 for the other 'quick' cars of this group. However, 5.1 for the IS?? Consider the source - C&D....

zzzoom6

bottom line: getting from 0-60 in 6 and change seconds is plenty fast for a family car and can be very entertaining especially if one is inclined to have fun when driving. dog the engine in the Mazda6 all you like, but those who have reviewed the Mazda6 in car mags tend to find the car very entertaining and quite comfortable. And with the prices available on this car, it is a great value. I saw an ad last week for a Mazda6 w/ a v-6 and an automatic for 17k...

Having driven the Mazdaspeed6, more power would be a welcome addition to the 6 as the chassis has so much grip, it could handle more power without problems. But after taking the Speed6 around some familiar roads that are twisty, I came to the conclusion that yeah, the Speed6 was quicker, but the v-6 in my car was still very fun and I loved the utility of the hatchback design that I could not get in any other car in this segment including the Speed6 so I contentedly walked away from a great deal from the dealership on the Speed6. Who says you need 260+ HP in a car to be considered fun to drive or safe... this whole line of reasoning is just a strawman argument: making a big deal out of something that is really not that important. Especially when you remember that there is a Mazda6 that has more power... the Mazdaspeed6. And I bet you can get this car for less than a v-6 Accord w/ a manual transmission.

captain2

and there would be those that contend that 0-60 in 8 something with a 170hp 4 banger is plenty fast enough as well - and relative to those cars available to us even 10 short years ago - those that would say that are absolutely right!

zzzoom6

the graduate writes: Quit putting words in my mouth zzzoom6.

the graduate "imposter" also wrote: you really need to take into account Edmunds' tendencies to get times slower by around one second to 60 MPH.

no, I'm just putting your words back in your mouth. ok, you did say "tendencies" which gives you some wiggle room, but I just took your argument to it's extreme which I'll admit is a bit unfair.

Actually I was surprised that the Altima and Accord didn't break into the 5's so you're probably right. But the argument that you need a car to have 0-60 times in the 5's or even 6's to be safe or to be able to have fun is ridiculous. Yes, the Mazda6 v-6 engine is less powerful than most v-6's in this segment, but it is still fun, safe, and fast (relatively of course... maybe I should say faster than 90% of the cars on the road anyway).

aviboy97

Especially when you remember that there is a Mazda6 that has more power... the Mazdaspeed6. And I bet you can get this car for less than a v-6 Accord w/ a manual transmission.

Good point. Even though the MS6 has been discontinued for now, it is still on sale, as there are a few still out there.

thegraduate

Yes, the Mazda6 v-6 engine is less powerful than most v-6's in this segment, but it is still fun, safe, and fast (relatively of course... maybe I should say faster than 90% of the cars on the road anyway).

I'm not saying it isn't... like I said, my 4-cylinder pulling in the low-8s for 0-60 is still plenty quick for me.

urnews

But the argument that you need a car to have 0-60 times in the 5's or even 6's to be safe or to be able to have fun is ridiculous.

Maybe I am just an old fuddy-duddy but 0-60 times are probably the least important, to me, aspects of the mid-size sedan equation just so long as the times are not measured with a calendar.

Our 3.0-liter V6 Duratec in a 2007 AWD SEL Fusion delivers fully adequate acceleration under all circumstances. It's no jack rabbit but it's not a snail either. I just don't get the 0-60 argument as a basis to evaluate the mid-size sedans.

robertsmx

0-60 is one of the least useful stat outside of drag racing. And traction upon launch (key word) is big thing. This is also why trap speed is far more representative of engine's power than ET.

A person recently ran an almost new (1000 mile on the odometer) Accord V6/6MT. Note the results:
0-60: 6.2s
5-60: 6.2s

How many times do you see that? When do you see that? More often than not, you would see 5-60 (rolling acceleration) being higher by 0.5s to 0.8s. And in some cases (as C&D discovered with MazdaSpeed6), 1.6s.

The key is that sometimes a car's performance potential is not exploited completely with 0-60 run. Traction plays a huge role, as powerful off the line starts can overpower the drive wheels.

Note that in Edmunds' test, Accord is 0.1s slower in 0-60, but has higher trap speed at the end of quarter mile. What does it indicate? It seems to be putting down more power to the wheels during that run than the Altima V6. And did so despite of being heavier and rated with lower engine rating (a speculation is that Honda has underrated the engine, it is actually producing 280-285 HP at the crank with the 6-speed manual transmission).

backy

Lots of car makers offer something more than a 4AT in their I4 mid-sized cars. In fact, the 4ATs are becoming the exception. The Malibu LS and LT I4s will continue to have a 4AT for awhile it appears, with only the LTZ I4 getting the 6AT early next year. But Honda, Toyota, Ford/Mercury, Mazda, Kia, Nissan (well, CVT), VW, Subaru (?) all have at least a 5AT with their I4s today. Early next year it looks like Hyundai is making the switch to a 5AT with the Sonata. So those 4ATs will be pretty rare on mid-sizers come 2008.

robertsmx

The V6 in Aura/Malibu has a 6AT and although we expect it to improve fuel economy, it has not been achieved (either reflected in EPA rating or observed ratings from road tests and reported mileage by owners). So, I'm wondering if GM's reluctance to keep lower trims with 4AT is driven by the fact that it can still get decent mileage, albeit at reduced performance/refinement.

In addition to that, I feel that GM should have put 6AT right from the beginning instead of putting it as a patch just a few months after launch, or waited for the model year to be thru. Mid-year change while announcing it before the car may have even gotten to dealership doesn't sound like a good plan and sends a bad message to those who watch.

akirby

I never said that wasn't true. In fact, the 3.5L was supposed to be available when the 500 was launched. We've already established that Ford was mismanaged back then and made bad decisions. But to imply that they lied on purpose just to sell vehicles is preposterous. In fact, advertising a new engine would most likely have the opposite effect on sales of the current model. And that wasn't a public press release - it was a private dealer letter. And that's precisely why they don't advertise stuff like that publicly.

At least now we know why you're so biased against Ford.

I would also bet that "underpowered" 500 was just as quick as an I4 Accord or Camry though, so I don't see how that could possibly be "dangerous" - if it is then we need to recall about 600K vehicles sold last year.

backy

I have a feeling that limiting the 6AT on the Malibu I4 to the LTZ is more of a cost and/or availability issue than lack of FE improvement. It could also be that GM wants to ramp up the 6AT slowly until it's fully proven. The LTZ I4 will sell in low volume compared to the LS and LT I suspect.

Why not put the 6AT in all Malibus from the outset? Again, it could be due to limited availability or GM's desire to introduce it slowly. They are not the only automaker to ever offer a significant feature across the board on a mid-sized sedan after a new design has been introduced. Chevy will find out how important it is to mid-sized sedan buyers to have at least 5 forward gears on their ATs when they vote with their pocketbooks in coming months. I'm not sure how much Malibu sales will suffer from the lack of a 6AT on the I4s now. From what I'm seeing, there may be few Malibus available at dealers this year. My local dealer, which is a pretty big one, has only one 2008 Malibu, an LTZ, now, and they won't get their next Malibu (an I4) for a couple of weeks. That's almost December.

venus537

What was also interesting in the Edmunds review was their comments on the Accord's braking system...

What's interesting to me is how you pinpointed on the one negative Edmunds had for the Accord Coupe on what was otherwise a very glowing road test.

The 6 is an entertaining car to drive. And there's nothing wrong with its V6 power output but it is less powerful then the Accord's. The power difference is noticeable in everyday driving. But so what, your car is more nimble.

03accordman

"So that suggests that from a rolling start, the Mazda6 would out-accelerate the Accord"

In your dreams. You can't compare times from 2 different sources.

"Perhaps I'm reading too much into this data, but it seems when you say the Mazda6 has a huge power defeceit I'd have to say that the difference in acceleration is minor so what's the significance?"

Maybe minor to you, since its the Mz6 that has the deficit. If it was the Accord with the deficit; you would have been all around town.

"Not the car I'd like to be driving going around the twisty roads!"

These are street cars; any of these will lose bite after hard cornering. Please don't implpy that your Mz6 would be fade free. Heck, my E90 330i with sport pkd exhibits brake fade after serious runs.

"For many thousands less than the $6000 price difference between the Accord and the Mazda6"

The Mazda6 is not priced cheaper than the Accord. The reason you can buy it for thousands less is because it is a sales failure (including the Mazdaspeed6) right from its launch and Mazda has been giving them away with big discounts. Again, don't imply that Mazda priced the 6 thousands less. Try to get a Mazda 3 for thousands less than a Civic - no you won't because it is a seller and has no 6 type discounts.

03accordman

"So you're saying the Accord's 0-60 time in Motortrend will be 5.3 seconds? Yeah, I'll take that bet... "

Cmon, use some common sense. Not 1 second for any and every test. CD once timed a manual V6 Accord (I think it was the 06 or 07 Accord) to 5.9s; I would think the new Accord would be as quick if not more. Wanna wager CD/MT will get a high 5 for the Accord V6 stick?

03accordman

"Other then the Escape/Tribute, B-Series/Ranger, which are identical? The Fusion and Mazda6 are similar, but not identical."

The Mazda3, Ford Focus (Euro) and Volvo s40 were built using one platfrom. The Fusion is a stretched 6 platform. A few of the enignes are shared as well, like the trannys.

The similiraties however are not as close as Chevy/Pontiac/GMC

03accordman

"I happen to drive a lot of two-lane roads and highways as part of my commute and with weekend jaunts. Not once, and I'll repeat, NOT ONCE has my V6-equipped Mazda6 let me down when I needed more power, both in the instances you just described, and in thousands of other situations when I needed to get up and go. 50 HP may mean something on paper, but where it counts ON THE ROAD, the difference is negligible at best."

And I happened to drive my now departed 03 Accord over 84k miles, with a vast majority in the hills of Northern NJ; never once did it let me down as far as cornering ability of great handling goes. Some of the posters here would have all of us believe that the Accord is a boat that can't handle, when the actual differences are quite miniscule.

03accordman

"I'll take that over a coma-inducing CamCord anytime."

Coming from a Mazda6 driver? You really think that the camry and accord drive as similarly to each other that you can club them together as coma inducing? If you really want to think coma inducing, think Mazda I-4 or V6

03accordman

"Can we just hear about the features and quality of each car without constant jumping in by the fan club for Honda and Accord"

And equally, stop jumping on the hate Honda and Accord bandwagon?

03accordman

"I'll second that! Problem is, you still have to follow them once in a while which is almost equally coma-inducing."

Why not try passing them? Oh I forget, you just can't what with your lame duck engines Enjoy those taillamps.

lilengineerboy

Some of the posters here would have all of us believe that the Accord is a boat that can't handle

Perhaps that is because it has the weakest tires in its class, in an oddball size. Steering feel is on the numb side an the amount of feedback to the driver about what the front wheels are doing is poor. I actually can't get over how much floatier my '07 feels than my '93.

03accordman

I put Potenza RE950s on my Accord; never felt better. In fact, the steering of my 03 Accord was telepathic!

robertsmx

Accord has one of the best steering feel there is among midsize sedans. And despite hard OEM tires, the car handles corners extremely well. Don't believe me? Lets meet.

elroy5

The 93 Accord was a much smaller, lighter, compact car (about the size of the current Civic). It should handle better. The 7th gen I have handles better with Bridgestones. You might want to try some when a sharp rock takes out one of your Michelins.

zzzoom6

[non-permissible content removed] for tat... just sharing in the strawman arguments But really, in the many cars that Edmunds tests, how often have you read that after some of their standard tests the brakes have faded so badly that the abs wouldn't even work.... and how many times have you read Edmunds say "Yikes" about a car's brakes? A sporty coupe should have brakes that keep up with it's engine and suspension and it seems clear that the Accord's brakes are not nearly at the same high level as it's engine or suspension.

Actually, I'm planning on driving the Accord coupe and I think I will like it a lot. Remember the 06 Accord came in 3rd when I was evaluating which car I was going to buy. Also, I've had 2 Accords in the past and liked them quite a lot. But "weakish" brakes on the Accord have been something I've noticed in several comparos in the past and was something that I was hoping this generation would address.

I've heard this coupe was supposed to have an improved suspension over what was already a pretty competent ride in the previous generation or the softer ride in the current generation's sedan. It's too bad the Altima did not turn out to be the competition it should have been. I thought the Altima had sorted out it's tendency to ride on it's bump stops when hitting a moderately large bump in the road. For a sporty coupe to behave that way is just awful. I'd like to believe that Edmonds just got a bad version, but apparently it was bad on many levels. Somebody at Nissan has got some explaining to do...

zzzoom6

I'd actually agree that the previous generation Accord (I haven't driven the current generation yet so I have no opinion yet) had good steering feel. It was a little bit heavy and numb compared to the mazda6, but still very good and much better than the malibu, impala and Altima (also, both cars were the previous generation) and slightly better than the Sonata. I thought only the 6 and Legacy had better steering than the Accord, but the differences were not great. I'm actually surprised lilengineerboy finds that the Accord so disconnected compared to his Subaru, but since he owns both, I'd have to think he'd know more about it than I.

zzzoom6

wow...7 consecutive posts in a row! that's got to be a record...someone's feathers must have been ruffled

I have no qualms in admitting the Accord is probably several tenth's faster to 60 than the Mazda6, but for the most part, that difference is not worth the $6,000 more I'd have to pay for an Accord v-6 coupe with a manual transmission over a Mazda6 with the same. And I'm actually being generous... the Edmunds Accord coupe came to 28k and a Mazda6 v-6 w/ side airbags, ac, cruise, cd changer and 2 extra doors I saw advertised last week for 17k (sticker was 23k). Perhaps, a person could get a discount on the newly released Accord, but I don't think it would be very much at this point. Add to this equation, the Mazda6 would stop in a panic stop 10+ feet sooner from 60mph than the Accord, which over the last 6 months that 10 feet would have put me into the passenger door of a BMW when they made an illegal left hand turn in front of me.

I'm not saying the Mazda6 is the better car, because in some respects the Accord has some traits that I like more than the Mazda. The seats are some of the best, I like the look of the interior better, it is quieter at speed, it's manual transmission is probably among the best of cars under 35k and yes, the engine has more power. But... the Mazda6 has very good seats, has a nice interior (a bit sportier look vs an Ethan Allen look of the Accord), has a solid manual transmission, has statistically been very reliable, has plenty of power, better brakes, better steering feel, cargo room that is much more flexible, nicer looking exterior (at least in the sedan version imo), is more enjoyable to drive, has 2 extra doors, and costs at least 6k less (not necessarily equipped equally btw).

I never would disparage anyone for choosing an Accord though, in fact I've recently suggested friends should consider it. But for me, the Mazda made sense on many levels, and in two years of ownership, I've never regretted my choice, which for me is very unusual as I often second guess my choices. In that way, most of us on this forum are lucky that we have found cars that really appeal to us which is why we have such strong opinions about things. I look forward to driving the Accord coupe... not so I can say my Mazda is so much better, and not so I can discover how much better the Accord is than the 6... I look forward to it because I like cars, particularly good cars irregardless of brand.

jeffyscott

Lots of car makers offer something more than a 4AT in their I4 mid-sized cars.

Right, I am aware of that. GM seems to have been one of the most V6 oriented manufacturers, so having even them finally move beyond 4 speed ATs for the I4 implies greater emphasis on the 4 cyls. Subaru still has only a 4 AT in the legacy and also Chysler in the Sebring (if anyone cares).

mz6greyghost

Some of the posters here would have all of us believe that the Accord is a boat that can't handle, when the actual differences are quite miniscule.

They may be minuscule to you, but not to me, and to the many other auto journalists and drivers that have tested the Accord and the 6 back-to-back. IMO, the 6 felt more composed through corners and switchbacks, with excellent feedback from the steering, and brakes that were almost perfect. The Accord, OTOH, handled well, but I felt more body roll than I did the 6. The steering was good, but with less feedback, which could very well have been due to the less-than-stellar tires. The brakes were good, though, and I'm sure they'd also be more effective with better tires as well.

IMO, between the Accord and the TSX (which I also considered), the TSX was actually the better match with the 6 in terms of handling.

If you really want to think coma inducing, think Mazda I-4 or V6

With that statement, you've obviously haven't tried out a 6 with I-4 and manual. Either that, or we're a little too sensitive about our cars...

Why not try passing them? Oh I forget, you just can't what with your lame duck engines Enjoy those taillamps.

Once again, with my "lame duck" engine, I've NEVER had any problem passing with my 6, including the CamCords.

mz6greyghost

I never would disparage anyone for choosing an Accord though, in fact I've recently suggested friends should consider it. But for me, the Mazda made sense on many levels, and in two years of ownership, I've never regretted my choice, which for me is very unusual as I often second guess my choices.

Well stated, and I fully agree. It seems that some others can't say the same though...

When I last bought a car in 2004, it was down to the Accord, 6, Altima, and TSX. The Altima was out due to the miserable build quality and interior materials (at the time. For the record, the 2007 Altima that my wife just purchased is quite different and much-improved IMO). The TSX had the excellent Honda VTEC and 6-speed, and the interior was top-notch, but so was the price, and the dealer wouldn't budge anywhere near what I thought was a fair price. The Accord was honestly my second choice, and I probably would've bought it IF they offered a manual with the 4-door V6 (they didn't at the time). I considered the coupe, but the 4-door is more practical for my needs, and the 6 had the 4-door with V6 and manual, at a lower base price (and much lower OTD price ).

lilengineerboy

The 7th gen I have handles better with Bridgestones. You might want to try some when a sharp rock takes out one of your Michelins.

Mine has Bridgestone Turanza EL somethings...if this is better I hate to see it before. I can't believe this is the car you are bragging about, I am starting to think there is something wrong with the suspension on mine.

On an upside, I noticed my tires are nitrogen filled from the factory/dealer, a nice touch.

jeffyscott

PS - what ridiculous statement? I believe I made 2 in that particular post and I also assume that everything I say is ridiculous in any case

Now that's funny...and I am glad to hear it from you, as you sometimes seem kinda intense here.

Down here in Texas we have things called feeder roads that parallel the highways with many businesses including car dealerships directly accessing that feeder road.

Never been in Texas, but have seen the same sort of thing in AL...only no feeder road they just have 50-60 mph highways lined with busnesses and every business has its own entrance and exit directly to the highway. I'm no fan of big governement, but too much of that sort of freedom is not good either. We have a little different approach to zoning and highway design in the upper midwest.

Anway, the 500 was measured at 8.7 seconds for 0-60 by CR. While this is slow by today's V6 standards and 2 seconds slower than the Maxima and Avalon (6.8 and 6.7 sec, as tested by CR), many (most???) people do not have a problem driving cars with similar or slower acceleration.

It has been redesigned since then, but in a test just 2 years before the 500 came out the previous version of the Avalon got a 0-60 of 8.6 seconds, when tested by CR.

akirby

On an upside, I noticed my tires are nitrogen filled from the factory/dealer, a nice touch.

The Fusion comes from the factory with a 78% Nitrogen blend.

kdshapiro

Once again, with my "lame duck" engine, I've NEVER had any problem passing with my 6, including the CamCords.

Why I like a turbo under the hood. :shades

lilengineerboy

They may be minuscule to you, but not to me, and to the many other auto journalists and drivers that have tested the Accord and the 6 back-to-back. IMO, the 6 felt more composed through corners and switchbacks, with excellent feedback from the steering, and brakes that were almost perfect. The Accord, OTOH, handled well, but I felt more body roll than I did the 6. The steering was good, but with less feedback, which could very well have been due to the less-than-stellar tires. The brakes were good, though, and I'm sure they'd also be more effective with better tires as well.

IMO, between the Accord and the TSX (which I also considered), the TSX was actually the better match with the 6 in terms of handling.

I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head, I probably should've looked more at the TSX than the Accord, but the TSX was/is out of budget and incredibly hard to find with a manual transmission. It also seems a little pricey for a 200hp engine, regardless of the number of cylinders. In a way that still doesn't make sense though, at that price point I could've gotten an MS6.