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 2.0

1155156158160161540

Comments

  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    So all the complainers should be happy now, even though they aren't getting any better mileage than they were before.

    In a way, you're right Elroy. The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion was 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway. The new rating is 17 city, 24 highway. I feel as though that is more realistic and certainly a lot closer to what we actually get.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Here is how it goes (posted yesterday by someone in another board)...

    "Here's what I don't understand. According to the article, the car weighs 2800 lbs, has a 138 hp, 1.8 liter engine, and get 24 mpg city, 32 hwy. Why is that mileage so poor?

    My 1997 Olds Aurora weighs 4000 lbs, has a 4.0 liter engine putting out 250 hp and in my experience gets 19-20 mpg city, and 26-28 mpg hwy at 70-80 mph. The hwy mileage is 1-2 mpg better if you drive the speed limit. It's a much bigger and more comfortable car than the Astra, but by comparison it's pretty darned efficient."


    What he didn't consider was that Aurora would now be rated 15/24. The comparison he drew was new EPA (on an economy car) against his observed mileage on a premium midsize. And he is not alone. The new ratings have come out as a shock to many. It shouldn't have, if most weren't getting old ratings (much less exceeding it).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The onboard mpg calculator (at least on Ford vehicles) has been repeatedly compared to actual MPG calculated the old fashioned way and it is typically off by less than 0.5 mpg (worst case 1 mpg). The computer knows your exact mileage and it knows how many times the fuel injectors have fired and exactly how much fuel they deliver each time. There's no reason for it not to be accurate.

    It usually is, but not over short distances. Try it. I have. Trip computer in my car is precise enough for me to forget using a calculator (I do it nonetheless), but after a reasonable number of miles but unreliable over short distances. And since you have trip computer, do you also take note of your average speed? I have figured out that mileage is directly tied to average speed.

    The whole point of lowering the EPA estimates with more realistic tests is precisely so that people are more likely to complain get the advertised fuel mileage on their vehicles.

    Corrected for you. :)

    EPA, like any other government agency has done just that... figured out a way to address an issue without actually giving much thought to it. Looks like they don't have to, after all. Drop mileage somehow by 10-12% and people are happier! At least those that somehow couldn't meet the old numbers.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    In a way, you're right Elroy. The old EPA rating for our 2007 SEL AWD Ford Fusion was 19 mpg city and 26 mpg highway. The new rating is 17 city, 24 highway. I feel as though that is more realistic and certainly a lot closer to what we actually get.

    I would also say that people who are getting over the new rating are wondering why they were lowered. But the most important thing to the EPA and the manufacturers is, these people will not be complaining. They will take the bonus mileage, and be happy. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, so to speak. Who's going to show up at the dealership saying "My car gets 5mpg over the EPA estimate, and I want something done about it!"
  • It seems to be more or less same as the 2007,but the EX no longer has a casette player.Almost all of the specs are the same.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,229
    It usually is, but not over short distances. Try it. I have

    Are you talking about resetting the mpg calculator before each short trip starts? It usually takes several miles before the calc gets back up to speed after a reset so yes, it would be very unreliable for short trips. I think the one in our Explorer starts us at something crazy like 30+ mpg when we reset it. It goes down fast from there.

    I know the info system in my Mustang gives me average speed along with gallons used (both can be reset) but my Explorer does not give both of those. Do these mid-sizers not give that info either? Seems odd a V8 powered car would have such extra info but cars in which people actually care about gas mileage do not. :confuse:
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    So, no change in options packages, e.g. you still need to buy the "appearance pacakge" to get ABS and ESC on the LX? Bummer. I wish Kia would get with the program and offer both features standard, or at the least easily-available options. :(
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    That was a really good try to get back on topic, I appreciate it. :)

    It seems your impression of the 2008 Accord mirrors what professional reviewers have said--nice car, but some quibbles with the interior. I was not impressed with the interior materials either, except on an EX-L I saw on a dealer's showfloor that had an optional interior package with very tasteful rosewood-look trim. Many reviews have noted (in a negative sense) the sea of small dark buttons on the dash. I'm not a fan of that layout either--too many similar-shaped buttons, clustered too closely together for my taste.

    Honda added more power when the car already had plenty of it. They added more interior room, but at the expense of making the car longer than some full-sized cars. They did add more standard safety features, which is a big plus for the 2008 over earlier generations. And the smoother ride is a good change, IMO. But I think the interior and the front styling still needs some work--maybe for 2011?
  • That was a really good try to get back on topic, I appreciate it.

    I'm glad somebody does. :shades:

    It seems your impression of the 2008 Accord mirrors what professional reviewers have said--nice car, but some quibbles with the interior.

    I thought the reviewers were being overly critical since it was a Honda, but after some observations, they were right. To me, one of the most appealing things about the Accord was the interior, both with materials and fit-and-finish. Notice how I said was. Instead of raising the bar, they nearly miss it altogether. The Altima and the Aura are nicer IMO, blending style, ergonomics, and materials nicely.

    Honda added more power when the car already had plenty of it.

    I'll be the last person to complain about too much power, but you're right, the power wasn't lacking. The "ECO" light that comes on the dash is a nice touch to an excellent (and seamless) cylinder-cutout program, and the resulting increase in fuel economy doesn't hurt either.

    They added more interior room, but at the expense of making the car longer than some full-sized cars

    This is something else that may hurt more than help. It's too big for me, that's for sure...

    I have yet to see the Malibu up close, but I might this weekend with my Accord observations fresh in my mind.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The comparison he drew was new EPA (on an economy car) against his observed mileage on a premium midsize.

    That is an excellent point, I bet that'll happen a lot. I get 32 mpg hwy in my 2007 Mazda6, I would not buy a 2008 as they only get 28 now ;) .
  • OK! After 50+ posts can we conclude that the EPA says "Your Mileage May Very"
    says it all?

    You buy a car for great mileage, buy a light weight car with a 4 banger.
    You buy a car for a combination of fair size, comfort and mileage, buy a V6
    You buy a car for speed and performance, buy a Mustang or Corvette.

    If you can't find everything you want in one car, build your own like I did :shades:
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668

    If you can't find everything you want in one car, build your own like I did.


    What is it? Did you literally "build" your own car or just custom order one?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    You buy a car for a combination of fair size, comfort and mileage, buy a V6

    I'd say buy a 4 cyl midsize to meet those criteria. The 150-180 HP engines are adequate for most. If you do give any weight to mpg and overall economy, there is no need to put a V6 in most of these cars.

    If you want a combination of speed/performance (acceleration really), fair size, and comfort, then look at a V6 (or 4 cyl turbo) midsize.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'd say buy a 4 cyl midsize to meet those criteria. The 150-180 HP engines are adequate for most. If you do give any weight to mpg and overall economy, there is no need to put a V6 in most of these cars.

    If you want a combination of speed/performance (acceleration really), fair size, and comfort, then look at a V6 (or 4 cyl turbo) midsize.


    I agree. I don't need a car that out-accelerates a Mazda Miata Roadster, like today's V6 sedans will do.
  • I don't need a car that out-accelerates a Mazda Miata Roadster, like today's V6 sedans will do.

    Oh goodness that is not a good benchmark. My dog on a tricycle will out-accelerate a Miata. That is not that vehicle's strong suit. Once up to speed the fantastic handling dynamics take over and reward the driver with finesse. I would go with a M-roadster for acceleration.
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    You buy a car for speed and performance, buy a Mustang or Corvette.

    Umm...you left out the '08 Viper - the highest HP rated production car in the world under $100k. Sorry, as a Viper enthusiast I couldn't pass it up.

    And speaking of winter gas (well, it's in the subject title, anyway), I was reading the popular Car Talk column with Tom and Ray that's in our newspaper every Friday. They said there actually is some benefit to filling up your car at night when the temp is lower than in the heat of the day - you get more gas (condensed) for the same price.

    Keeping that in mind, is there any relation between the cooler winter weather and the oil companies putting additives in the gas during the winter which has a side effect of slightly lower fuel economy?

  • What is it? Did you literally "build" your own car or just custom order one?


    Yes if you will allow that I didn't manufacture every part myself from raw steel.
    I started with a 1928 Ford Frame. Boxed it, added cross bracing put in a IFS and Rack and pinion unit out of a Mustang II. and on and on. The body is from a 1917 Dodge Brothers touring car called a Phaeton.
    It has a 300 HP Custom built, (100% after-market parts, including the 302 cu-in small block. It has no air bags, No bumpers, no catalytic converter. no smog pump. No smog test :shades: it has four doors and no roof, no heater, no A/C and I even painted it in my garage. It took 3 years of work before I could drive it.
    It's not everyones idea of a nice car, but it is mine. It is what I wanted. and no one built what I needed, a 4door convertible/roadster that weighed under 2000 pounds.
  • Umm...you left out the '08 Viper - the highest HP rated production car in the world under $100k.

    I'm Sorry. What is the HP on that 8.4 L V-10? 600 I think. That'll have considerable THUMP :shades:
    I left out a lot of comparisons, including trucks like my Dodge 8L V-10.
    A Mustang and a Corvette makes the point that Asian DOHC 4 banger or V-6 that all sound like sewing machines to me. Even their V-8's sound like big sewing machines :D
    The Viper sound is unique and a lot of reader here have no idea what that sounds like. If I had included the Ford 427 Shelby, or a Kieth Black 500 on Nitro, most would have no idea what that sounds like so why bother?
  • Its just a change in thinking, but the same basic concept. When I replaced the tired D16 in the CRX with a B16A, it was still tiny little 4 cylinder engines, but I went from 105 hp to 180 hp (still no torque, but its a CRX, who cares). Honestly, I didn't even open the motor, just did the timing belt and water pump, but people that had set ups much cooler than that had with custom pistons and rods.
    Hot rodding is always the same recipe: get more power, build up or swap a motor, change the way it breathes (Contour SVTs has factory extrude honed heads and plenum, IIRC), and forced induction, etc.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Oh goodness that is not a good benchmark. My dog on a tricycle will out-accelerate a Miata

    Geez, since when did sub 7 second times become dog slow?
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    And one of my co-workers was wondering as I was reading this...is the dog a Chihuahua or a Greyhound?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    My dog on a tricycle will out-accelerate a Miata

    Not so true anymore! The 2006+ are rather quick. Let's not forget the Mazdaspeed either....
  • Geez, since when did sub 7 second times become dog slow?

    When has a Miata ever had a sub 7 second 0-60 time?

    1991 Mazda Miata 9.1
    1994 Mazda Miata 9.7
    1996 Mazda Miata 8.7
    1999 Mazda Miata 7.9
    2001 Mazda Miata MX5 7.9
    2006 Mazda Whatever its officially called 7.5
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    And then there's that larger (actually mid-sized), four-door Miata/MX-5 with a hard roof that's been rumored!

    Or maybe not.

    ;)
  • Its enough on the bloated pig side right now as it is, it ties in to the whats wrong with a subcompact discussion. How much chubbier is the new one than the 1990?

    I hope they kill it off entirely and let it die a dignified death before it succumbs to fat secretary car purgatory.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Many midsize sedans do calculate and show average mpg (and average speed). Altima and Accord (w/NAV) have it and hope it becomes more common. I like the feature, and it can teach a person to improve driving style. It did to me. Now I know speeding isn't necessarily a bad thing. :P

    So, over last eight months and about 10K miles, I haven't had a single tank that has not been calculated and measured against indicated mileage. It has helped me learn a fact that average speed is closely tied to observed fuel economy. And now, if someone told me that my TL has an average speed around 34 mph after 350-400 miles on the tank, I can pretty much guarantee that mileage will calculate around 24 mpg. Around 37 mph, it jumps up to around 26 mpg. My average speed on (urban) highway is usually around 68-70 mph with occasional high speed around 80 mph, and 25-30 mph for the other half in city streets. The trip computer is impressively accurate but only after over 150 miles. Any less, and there seems to be a greater discrepancy between calculated and indicated.

    After all these observations, I find it hard to believe that folks are happier just meeting (worse, not meeting) the new EPA ratings.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The last test for an AUTOMATIC MX-5 I remember seeing was 7.0 seconds
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    The trip computers are accurate all the time in most cars. It is the manual calculations which are usually not accurate in relative short measurements. Say if the pump reading is "off" by a tenth of a gallon or two, or if the odometer (or trip odometer) is "off" just a little bit, the manually calculated MPG will be off a bit. The trip computer measured EVERYTHING in much greater detail. As longer mileage is recorded, the rounding of such measurement is minimized.
  • I am in the market for a midsize car. I test drove the Honda Accord LX-P and the Nissan Altima 2.5S with Convenience Plus Package. We liked both. I like the roominess of the Accord. Don't much care for the front end. It looks like they have tried hard to make it look smallish. Liked the front end of the Nissan Altima, but the rear seat room is lacking. My knee was knocking against the hard plastic of the door. The roominess was deceiving I thought!

    The other aspect of the car that irked me the most in the Altima was the lightness of the steering, it is almost like driving an old Buick! I just wanted to find out from others that are using it how this works in normal driving - especially during cornering. I am yet to drive the Toyota and the Malibu. We kind of got stuck on Altima because two in our household like it.
  • Liked the front end of the Nissan Altima, but the rear seat room is lacking. My knee was knocking against the hard plastic of the door. The roominess was deceiving I thought!

    My wife drives a '07 Altima similarly equipped (2.5S with Convenience Plus pkg), and one of the last things that we'd complain about is the room. We've always found plenty of space for 4 or even 5 people. It may not be "full size" like the Accord, but it works for us.

    The other aspect of the car that irked me the most in the Altima was the lightness of the steering, it is almost like driving an old Buick! I just wanted to find out from others that are using it how this works in normal driving - especially during cornering.

    The lightness of the steering is also an annoyance for me, but my wife has no problem with it, both with parking lot maneuvering and highway driving.

    If you don't like lighter steering, stay away from the Camry! Talk about Buick-like... I haven't tried out the new Malibu yet, but if it's anything like it's platform mate (the Saturn Aura), you'll probably like it. My sister's Aura has nice, tight steering, almost as tight as my Mazda6.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    I am in the market for a midsize car.

    Do yourself a favor and check out the Fusion/Milan. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. These are great cars with many standard features, great ride and handling and very good room for a mid-size.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I concur. The discrepancy with only a few miles can be larger due to inaccuracies involved with manual calculations. And while the trip computer is virtually perfect (when measured against manual calculations over a tank), it has also made me wonder if my TL really gets 36-37 mpg at 60-65 mph which has been observed several times but over only 20-25 mile stretches. I have been wanting to validate it by taking a 5-6 hour pure highway trip, now only if I had the patience to stick to 60-65 mph! :blush:
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    If you don't like lighter steering, stay away from the Camry! Talk about Buick-like...

    Uh not really, Camry SE has much better steering feel and feedback than the Altima 3.5SE that I drove. The Altima steering is very very light, like you are driving through air.
  • Uh not really, Camry SE has much better steering feel and feedback than the Altima 3.5SE that I drove. The Altima steering is very very light, like you are driving through air.

    I'll admit that the SE is an improvement over the rest of the Camry line, but it's still not up to the feel and tightness of the Mazda6 and Aura IMO.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    but it's still not up to the feel and tightness of the Mazda6 and Aura IMO.

    I don't remember the OP was mentioning the Mazda6 and Aura.

    He was focusing on Altima, you brought up Camry and since I happened to drive both before I felt obligated to give my opinion. Also, why's that every car in this segment has to compare to the Mazda6? What if I am only interested in Camry, Altima and Accord?
  • A little sensitive, aren't we? :)

    I remember the OP complaining about the light steering of the Altima, and based on that, I thought he/she wouldn't mind a suggestion or two about other cars in this class that may better fit his needs in terms of steering feel.

    Also, why's that every car in this segment has to compare to the Mazda6?

    Because it's what I drive everyday and am most familiar with, just like Grad with his Accord(s) and you with your Camry.

    What if I am only interested in Camry, Altima and Accord?

    Then you're missing out on a slew of excellent choices in this class, besides the Japanese "Big 3".

    Isn't that what this forum is for? :confuse:
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    you with your Camry.

    I don't drive a Camry. I just happened to have opportunities to drive both the Camry SE and Altima before.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Altima's steering is not only light, it affords no feedback. Feels very artificial to me. Steering feel is high on my list of must haves in my choices, right next to NVH associated with the engine. "N" in this case is not for noise suppression, but how the engine sounds which is another thing that doesn't help Altima's case with the 2.5.
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    Altima's steering is not only light, it affords no feedback.

    Exactly, like I said, almost like it's driving through air. I am pretty sure some people like that but that's not my cup of tea.
  • I get a kick out of everyone talking like their a race car driver. The Altima 3.5SE is superior to the Camry or Aura, probably not the Mazda. I've owned both the V-6 '07 Camry and now Altima. Read any article and they'll tell you it has excellent feedback, corners well, as evidenced by the slalom time of almost 68mph, and is quick to say the least. The Aura actually gets criticized for its handling and feedback. Anyway, to each his own, IMHO the Altima is tops in this group and not because I own one. I also agree with an earlier post, the Fusion handles well, but you need to plan a box lunch while getting from 0-60.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062

    I get a kick out of everyone talking like their a race car driver.

    Fusion handles well, but you need to plan a box lunch while getting from 0-60.


    Why is 0-60 time important for a midsize sedan? Do you drag race Camrys and Accords from stoplight to stoplight?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    the Fusion handles well, but you need to plan a box lunch while getting from 0-60.

    That makes me wonder about your diet. ;)
  • I checked out a 2005 Toyota Camry with 10,000 miles, called dealerships untill I found out where it was serviced. It had 72,000 miles in september. It is listed on Edmunds.com. The guy says it was his grandmothers car. Car fax reports 53,000 miles. Glad I paid the money for unlimited carfax reports. vin # 4T1BF32K55U605280 . I was told the car was in Savannah, Ga.

    Be very cautious2
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,934
    The comparo Edmunds conducted with six drivers drawn from the public is posted on the main page. A big surprise to me was that Edmunds chose low-end, I4 versions of the Accord, Camry, and Malibu to test. The results didn't surprise me too much:

    Car / 1st Place Votes / 2nd Place Votes / 3rd Place Votes
    Accord / 3 / 3 / 0
    Malibu / 3 / 2 / 1
    Camry / 0 / 1 / 5

    The numbers don't tell the whole story, however. While it's clear the Camry was the "loser" of the bunch, I thought it was kind of funny that the only person who rated the Camry higher than 3rd owns... guess what? A Camry! The comments on the Camry were overall really negative (except for the Camry owner of course). Some wondered out loud how the Camry could be the best-selling car.

    The other thing that is sort of evident in the rankings is how close the Accord and Malibu were rated. But reading the reviews, in which the Accord just edged out the Malibu in some cases, the Malibu's strong showing was even more clear. Even the guy who rated the Camry 1st (and the Accord 2nd; btw he owns an Odyssey too) said he really wanted to vote for the Malibu over the Accord, but he couldn't because the long-term quality of the Malibu is unknown. I guess he was confused--he must have thought the comparo, on a test track in SoCal, was sponsored not by Edmunds.com but by Consumer Reports. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    he really wanted to vote for the Malibu over the Accord, but he couldn't because the long-term quality of the Malibu is unknown. I guess he was confused--he must have thought the comparo, on a test track in SoCal, was sponsored not by Edmunds.com but by Consumer Reports.

    More than one of the testers commented on the reputation of the manufacturers being a reason to doubt the Malibu. Don't you think reputation matters? History means nothing? Consumer Reports are not the only ones who care about "Will it hold up"? Consumers do too.
  • I did test drive the Fusion and the Milan as well. The cars handled very well. Very comfortable seating. The downside was the interior feel was not nearly as good as Nissan Altima or Honda or Aura. I did test drive the Aura as well. The Aura felt very good. Though I did not drive the Malibu knowing it is built on the same platform as the Aura I am pretty sure it will handle very well. When I initially looked at Aura the only engine choices were the old 3.5 or the 3.6. Gas mileage on both were not nearly as good as the fours from other manufacturers.

    Why rear seat comfort is important to me is with two grown up kids I am pretty sure I am going to take the 'back seat' in long driving situations. I think the Altima's rear seat is bit lower to the ground hence my knee knocking against the door problem - I think. I will go back to the dealer with a tape measure next time to get the seat height.

    Our cars do close to 20 ~ 25K miles every year. So gas mileage is important. This is why we whittled the list down to peppy 4 cylinder cars. I kind of like the Malibu but will have to wait for the 6 Spd to get the mileage that the Accord/Camry/Altima get today. I am planning on test driving the Camry SE soon, maybe do the same with Malibu.

    I also liked the Legacy of the past for driving dynamics. But the rear seat is a joke and only good for small kids. I couldn't get into the car without knocking my head. The front is very nice and roomy.

    By the way thanks for all the posts.
  • While your'e test driving,why dont you look at the KIA Optima and the Hyundai Sonata...you will be pleasantly surprised.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    More than one of the testers commented on the reputation of the manufacturers being a reason to doubt the Malibu. Don't you think reputation matters? History means nothing? Consumer Reports are not the only ones who care about "Will it hold up"? Consumers do too.

    Even CR separates ratings of cars based on how they drive, functionality, quality (and this does not mean reliability), etc. from their recomendations which include reliability considerations. I assume the point of the comparison test was to compare the cars not to rate them based on one's expectations of reliability.

    It would be pointless to test and examine the cars, if no matter what the results of that are you are one who will pick the Camry because you just know it will be reliable and reliabilty trumps all other considerations for you.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Camry because you just know it will be reliable and reliabilty trumps all other considerations for you.

    There are people whose sole consideration is just that. It's not my consideration. I don't worry about reliability because in the end it's a crap shoot. There are people however, who worry about the number of projected times the car will be in the shop.
Sign In or Register to comment.