Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1240241243245246544

Comments

  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    I can't remember being stranded by a VW. Actually, ever. I have had to fix things to get them going (the fuse boxes were very poor from the 70s through the 90s and would rust, needing tweaks to get them going again) but things like accessories, power windows (the motors, the switches, etc) were sub-par.

    Be thankful. VW has stranded me five different times with two different cars (both late-'90s Golf TDIs, I might add).

    The accessories were worse than sub-par IMO. In fact, I'd throw in the ENTIRE electrical system, which DID have an effect on being stranded. I had to deal with headlights shorting out constantly, brake lights eating bulbs like a snack, blown fuses with everything, a faulty (and frustrating) keyless entry system that when it actually functioned at all, it either locked out the driver/passengers or tripped the alarm for no reason. The list goes on...

    I think people make trade-offs. The difference between best in class and worst in class is statistically significant but not actually significant. If a Toyota needs to go to the dealer once every 5 years, and the VW needs to go every 2 or 3 years, its worth it to me to have a more fun to drive car.

    Considering most Accord owners also can go 5 years without seeing a dealer, while having just as much fun behind the wheel... Not to mention my '04 6, which has seen the dealer ONCE (for a CEL due to a faulty gas cap) in 78K miles, while having a BETTER driving experience...

    The only trade-off I made when getting my Mazda over a VW is the close, personal relationship I'd form with the VW Service Manager, helping him put his/her kids through college and buying his/her 24' yacht. :)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    You are right that Toyota outsells VW in the US substantially but I'm not sure to what power...it could be ten to one like you say

    http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002413

    Adding up Toyota, Lexus and Scion have 2.54 million sales in 2006. VW, Audi, and Bently total about 329,000. So almost 8 to 1.

    It is strange that VW has such a limited share in the US compared to the rest of the world (eg. nearly 20% in europe). I don't think it can just be ascribed to the driving experience. VW was biggest seller in China, not sure if it still is, and I don't get the impression that the chinese are big on the driving experience. One Chinese co-worker does not even drive when "test driving", he has the salesman drive so he can concentrate on things like how the ride feels (or more likely does not feel :) ).

    I think some of the low reliability in the US is due to the demographics of the buyers here. The average VW buyer in the US is much younger than the average Toyota buyer. Another factor is poor maintenance practices, such as putting the wrong oil in the engines (especially turbos). I don't think VW has a poor reliability reputation in europe, it'd be surprising if they could maintain 20% of the market if they did. I wonder what the european opinion is of Honda and Toyota (they must have a much smaller market share there than in the US).

    One other thing is that VW has some lower priced makes and models in europe, compared to here. Under the VW nameplate they have the Polo and Fox, some of their other makes may target the lower price range also.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    You bring up some interesting points which lead to more questions. I guess the answers probably would fit better to a discussion of brands rather than "mid-size sedans". One thing for sure.....it is rarely one thing that makes people like a certain brand of cars and can vary greatly even among the devotees.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I think people make trade-offs. The difference between best in class and worst in class is statistically significant but not actually significant. If a Toyota needs to go to the dealer once every 5 years, and the VW needs to go every 2 or 3 years, its worth it to me to have a more fun to drive car.

    Considering most Accord owners also can go 5 years without seeing a dealer, while having just as much fun behind the wheel... Not to mention my '04 6, which has seen the dealer ONCE (for a CEL due to a faulty gas cap) in 78K miles, while having a BETTER driving experience...

    A contemporary Honda Accord (203+) is not as fun to drive as a 2000+ Jetta or Passat. I would say the 90s was a low point for VW (like 1993-1998 or so) but the '98 Passat and the roll out of the 1.8t was a pretty sweet ride.

    I really like the Mazda6. I am working on acquiring one to replace the '07 Accord now.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    VW ranked tops in driving feel? Not even close.

    Actually I didn't say VW (specifically the Passat, for this discussion) is "ranked tops in driving feel." But others have...

    "If you're seeking a four-cylinder, four-door "driver's car," look no further" [than the Passat] - Motor Trend

    C/D hasn't done a comparo of mid-sizers with the Passat, but the latest comparo they did of small cars put VW (Rabbit) on top, largely because it was tops in "fun to drive."

    But then I would expect someone with a handle of "mz6..." to rate the Mazda6 tops in class as a driver's car. ;)
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think most Americans prefer somewhat of a boat ride despite what they might say in surveys and forums, which accounts for some of Toyota's success here. VW felt they could go for the sportier drive and feel niche. Unfortunately, they charged too much and cars like Mazda and Honda pretty much fill that bill in the popular price ranges at more attractive prices, plus Honda seems to have better long term reliability.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Have you checked the price of a Civic or Accord lately? They are now in the same ballpark as comparably-equipped Jettas/Rabbits and Passats. The Mazda6 is getting pretty pricey too--can't get a well-equipped I4 "Sport" version for around $16k as was possible back in '08, for example. There is no question Honda (and Toyota) have a better long-term reliability history than VW, but as someone else noted, if it means you take the car to the shop outside of normal maintenance stops once every 2-3 years vs. once every 5 years, maybe that is worth it for the European feel of the Passat and other Vdubs, the turbo mill on the Passat, the slick 6-speed Tiptronic (try to get something like THAT on an Accord). The Accord and Mazda6 are fine cars, to be sure. But it's nice to have some distinctive choices in the mid-sized class too--cars like the Passat and Legacy, for instance.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The meat of the market is in not in the $30k XLE Camry/EXL Accord/3.5SL Altima; rather, it is found in the LEs, LXs, and 2.5Ss of the world. Volkswagen has abandoned that, with a starting price... STARTING price... of $28,300. That is well-equipped in standard form, of course, but they've eliminated a huge chunk of sales by not offering any trim levels. Want a quiet, smooth, V6? Well, ya can't get that either. You're relegated to the 2.0T (a good enough engine in its own right, with 200hp and even more torque), but some people simply are willing to pay for a V6. Well, you pay for it in the Passat, but you don't get it :blush: .

    The Altima starts at $19,900; the Camry also in the 19s, and Accord starts out at a thousand more than the Altima, at $20,905.

    Since the Jetta plays in the compact class, I won't go down that road for the sake of discussion. :) Couldn't help but comment though. Backy, I know what you meant by "same ballpark" pricing, but let's face it, the majority of drivers aren't buying the top of the line models, which is exactly where Volkswagen competes.

    It seems like VW doesn't know what they want their American lineup to be. Mainstream? No way, they're too expensive for that. Luxury? There's no Vee-Dub in the lineup that can compare favorably to anything that Benz or Bimmer have to offer, unless you use the price differential comparison, in which case we're back at square one. Maybe they're trying to be the Saab/Acura/Volvo of the world; not in the big-leagues, but not catering to the budget buyer. The question is, does anyone see VW as that premium marque?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    generally prefer a soft, quiet ride.

    #1. We(I say we even though I have a Mazda6 and like the sportiness but can still appreciate the Camry type ride) Americans grew up on Detroit iron....need I say more.

    #2. The few "European" cars we were exposed to early on were mostly British roadsters and German VWs both of which at the time were far less reliable than American made cars and the VWs were hardly thought of as sporty with their 40+ HP and light front ends..

    #3. The first Japanese cars were like most other things made in Japan at the time and that was tinny and cheaply made. The first few years of the Honda were almost as bad as the first Hyundais.

    #4. Our long, straight wide open roads and highways laid out in mostly grid systems didn't require cars that can turn and stop on a dime.

    #5. We don't have good public transport here. Not saying it's a good thing just the way it is. So driving is a necessity, not a pleasure trip in most cases.

    #6. The Madison Avenue agencies drilled into us a sense of bigger and quieter was better. However, this could beg the statement of "which came first, the chicken or the egg"

    There are most undoubtedly more reasons but I think it is unfair to expect anything other than the current American expectations due to history. If you've driven much in Europe (Italy and Greece come to mind especially) you can really understand why a small, very maneuverable car is prized due to the small narrow roads/streets, sharp turns and just the way they drive.
    Compared to the average European we rack up a tremendous number of miles and most of us like something we can be comfortable in for a long drive.

    I see nothing wrong with people wanting a Camry ride if that is their preference and I won't insinuate that they are automatically poor drivers any more than I would that Beemer owners are necessarily good drivers.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Well, this isn't a discussion about luxury cars, is it now. It is clear to me anyway VW is not trying to be a volume sales leader in the U.S. If they were, you'd see a bare-bones Passat to compete with the likes of the Camry LE and Accord LX. Maybe with the 170 hp I5 in it. I have read many cases where buyers cross-shop the Jetta with other brands' mid-sizers, but room-wise the Jetta is clearly at a disadvantage to almost all of the current "mid-sized" sedans.

    But when you compare what you get with a $28k Passat, performance-wise and content-wise, it is pretty close to if not superior in some ways to the likes of the Accord and Camry V6s. Please don't try to compare the Passat to those $20k Accords and Camrys. There is no comparison. And the Passat has that German "cachet." Some folks will pay more for that (see BMW and Mercedes). Personally, I won't pay more for a car just because it's a German marque, but I can see why people love the way the Passat and other VWs feel and drive vs. the same-old/same-old offerings from Japan and the U.S. Ja, ja, ve have der different shtrokes for different volks, er, folks.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    VW is planning to create a new and lower priced US midsize to be assembled in Chattanooga. Of course, since it is to be a US only model maybe it will be Camry-esque.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    don't try to compare the Passat to those $20k Accords and Camrys. There is no comparison.

    That's just it though, I'm thinking a lot of people will look at the price difference (the Passat costs roughly 40-50% more) and write off VW right there. You're right, there is no comparison... yet we compare in this discussion. :)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, and we also compare Accords and Camrys that cost $20-25k with Sonatas and Optimas and Fusions etc. that cost $5k or so less, comparably-equipped. So what's the big deal with a similar price differential between a pedestrian Camcord or a turbo Passat? :surprise:

    And it's NOT 40-50% more, for a comparably-equipped car. Price out an Accord EX AT compared to the Passat. Not nearly 40-50% price difference.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    you've bought a VW then? I lost track when you dumped the Beemer. Last I read your posts on that you were still looking. What V-Dub did ya buy?

    I am for fun looking at a late 60's early 70's VW Camper Bus as a travel idea for later(maybe to go with work, not necessarily a retirement idea). I was reading I believe Automobile magazine a few months ago and the author of this one article on the old Bus' really treated them right in the article. I will look casually at the idea as time moves along.

    I learned how to drive a stick on my Dad's baby blue '66 VW Fastback with I believe a 4-speed stick. The car was a joy to drive, so I have mostly good memories of VW's in general. I wouldn't poo-poo the idea of some sort of VW purchase one day, but it's not real likely, either.

    One question about the '09 Mazda6. Is the new engineering worth a starting price of around $28,000? Seems just a titch high. Reviews I've read have been pretty favorable for the new 6.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It was not a mid-sized VW. ;)

    The '09 Mazda6 doesn't start at $28k, more like $20k. But it goes up over $30k with the V6 and options.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    You'll note I even emboldened the term "starting price" in my first reply. You can buy an Altima without the doo-dads for 20k MSRP. I can't buy any Passat without going over $28k MSRP. That my dear pal, is my main point. :)
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    "If you're seeking a four-cylinder, four-door "driver's car," look no further" [than the Passat] - Motor Trend...

    ...But then I would expect someone with a handle of "mz6..." to rate the Mazda6 tops in class as a driver's car.


    Rather than rely on the "opinion" of a magazine journalist, I'd rather take them out and drive them myself to get MY opinions about a good "drivers" car. I've driven just about all the cars listed in one form or another on the right (except for the 2010 models), and I stand behind my evaluation of the Passat compared to the others in this class.

    And as "biased" as you think I am ( ;) ), I simply bought that I thought was the best-handling "drivers" car in this class in 2004, while being comfortable, relatively reliable, and reasonably priced. If the new Legacy and/or Fusion is a bigger standout than the current 6 when I purchase new next year, then I won't hesitate to get either one of them.

    But for $28K, a V6 should be under the hood. And yes, I've driven the 2.0T, and despite the 200 HP, it still feels/sounds/runs like a 4-cylinder. It's a good one, but not $28K worth...
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    I believe it was the V6 2009 Maz6 for at least $28,000, to start at. I was doing the Evelyn Woodhead School of sped-readin' yesterday at Safeway while the wife was picking up groceries! :P

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yep, an Altima with less power and torque, 16" steel wheels, no ESC or traction control (not even available as an option on the $20k MSRP car), no moonroof (not even available on the $20k car), drab cloth interior, manual driver's seat, no seat heaters, no satellite radio, only 4 speakers, no CD changer, plastic steering wheel etc. etc. Not quite comparable to a the Passat, is it? Shoot, I could buy lots of cars for under $20k, but it doesn't make them comparable at all to the base Passat.

    What does an Altima list for that is more comparable to a Passat? For example, include a powertrain that matches the performance of the Passat's, and include comparable safety features including ESC, traction control--maybe even eight airbags (optional on the Passat, so increase the price accordingly).
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Well, you didn't say earlier it was your opinion. You flat-out called the Mazda6 the best driver's car in the class. If that's your opinion based on driving the Mazda6 vs. the likes of the current Passat, Accord, etc, that's fine. I was pointing out there is professional opinion to the contrary.

    But for $28K, a V6 should be under the hood.

    FYI the Mazda6i (I4) Grand Touring with moonroof and Sirius (standard on the Passat) lists for over $28k. For shame, for shame! :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    FYI the Mazda6i (I4) Grand Touring with moonroof and Sirius (standard on the Passat) lists for over $28k. For shame, for shame

    Let's see what each mfgr give you for $28,000....

    Passat advantages over Mazda6:

    more powerful 200hp/207lb-ft 2.0T engine
    Daytime running lights
    side view mirror turn signals
    heated windshield washer nozzles
    12-way power driver seat
    no charge schedule maintenance 3yr/36K miles

    Mazda6 advantages over Passat:

    Better fuel economy (21/30 AT)
    Xenon headlights
    Dual climate control
    Bluetooth phone + audio
    power passenger seat
    Blind Spot Monitoring System
    333 watt Bose Audio System
    rain sensing windshield wipers
    auto on-off head lights
    drivers seat memory
    auto-dimming rear view mirror w/ Homelink
    genuine leather seats
    Advanced keyless entry & start system (push button)
    anti theft security system

    From this list, I think Mazda gives you more for $28,000 then VW does....
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    FYI the Mazda6i (I4) Grand Touring with moonroof and Sirius (standard on the Passat) lists for over $28k. For shame, for shame!

    I don't disagree with that. That's why I posted that a V6 "should" be under the hood for $28K. Trust me, I'm not settling to buy ANY 4-cylinder midsize sedan for that price.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I don't disagree with that. That's why I posted that a V6 "should" be under the hood for $28K.

    Good point....

    VW just does not offer a mid sized sedan in the price range of the lower model Accord/Camry/Altima/Mazda6/Sonata to be competitive. That is why VW announced a $20K mid sized sedan due here by 2012.

    As nice as the Passat is, it is marketed poorly. Most mid-sized sedans sold are in the lower $20K range. Not $28,000+....
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Your list had a few mistakes, and omissions:

    * Passat has a 6AT (with wheel-mounted shift control) vs. 5AT on the Mazda6i
    * Passat has remote sunroof controls and remote window operation
    * Passat does have anti-theft alarm standard
    * Passat has not only auto on/off headlamps, but dusk-sensing
    * Passat has a ski pass-through in back (does the Mazda6?)
    * Passat has a 12-year corrosion warranty, unlimited mileage
    * Passat has a full-sized spare tire
    * Passat has side and rear sunshades
    * Passat has automatic disc brake wiper/cleaner function
    * Passat has rear side airbags available
    * Passat has hill-holder function

    I may have missed some things.
  • cannon3cannon3 Member Posts: 296
    Price in this economy is going to be very important. Consumers are finding out you don't have to pay the extra $2-$4,000 to buy an Accord/Camry to get a solid, reliable vehicle.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    In Europe a car the size of the Passat is automatically regarded as something of a luxury. So the Passat's premium equipment level isn't out of place. But we Americans tend to expect more interior space and more road presence--almost as if we are buying cars by the pound. In that context, the Passat does not compete with the Accord LX, Camry LE, Sonata GLS et al.

    It would almost make more sense for VW to position the Passat against the Acura TSX or Lexus IS instead. But buyers of those brands tend to think "Audi" rather than "VW."

    I would love for VW to bring over the Skoda Octavia and Superb as a way of "bracketing" the US midsize market--Octavia could compete directly with the Fusion et al at the lower end, while Superb would be an almost-full-size car (a la Taurus or LaCrosse). In Europe these cars are highly regarded.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I realized the AT transmission gearing, but, it was too late to go back and fix it.

    I see no mention of "auto on-off headlight feature" on the Passat. This from VW..."Daytime Running Lights (DRL); upon start-up of vehicle, headlights engage with reduced power; instrument panel lighting, parking lights and tail lights remain off; to engage all lights with full power, the light switch must be turned to the on position "

    The Mazda6 also has remote window and sunroof operation.

    I did not see anti-theft alarm in the spec sheet at vw.com, but, now I do

    Ski pass??? The Mazda6 has a 60/40 split folding seat.I'm sure the 40% part can be used as a ski pass through....call it even.

    Rear side airbags are an OPTION, not standard as was the subject of my post.

    I'll give you the hill hold, spare tire (which is rarely, if ever used BTW) and better corrosion warranty. I have no idea wha the brake cleaner does. I have never had an issue with "dirty" brakes.

    I still think the Mazda offers more. Splitting hairs? Yes. But, the issue is that VW does not offer a mid-sized sedan for anything less then $28,000 is a problem.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    If the Mazda 6 is so good, then the Ford Fusion would be even better since they share the same platform. cant get a Mazda Hybrid either, +1 to Ford (83MPG in a Family Sedan?!?!) make that a +2!!
  • danprtrdanprtr Member Posts: 25
    '09 Passat CC 2.0T is much quieter and smoother (inside and outside, idling) than the '06 Passat 2.0T I had. Because of this, it has perceptually more power than the previous car. The Mazda 6i touring was a nice car but it has no trip computer without nav! That killed because I'm used to staring at my average MPG's all the time! The Mazda also seemed to have ridiculously low gearing (2,800rpm's at 60mph if I remember). Mazda had nice options but when the Passat CC came in at the same payment I jumped for it.

    Passat 4cyl. not a problem for the 3yrs. I lease. Agree a 6cyl. would be way preferable for longer term use. 4 3yr. leases of 4cyl. Passats completed, and every one of them was noisier going around the hills of cincinnati than the first year of ownership. Just have to think the turbos are loosing up way before 50k and will have issues (expensive) soon after 100k (if not before).
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I don't have much use for a ski pass-through myself (and I've never had one), but IMO a 60/40 split folding rear seat with a ski (or whatever) pass-through behind the center armrest is not the same thing as a 60/40 seat without the pass-through. With the former, you can put a long albeit narrow item in the trunk and have two people sitting in the outer rear seat positions--the most comfy seats in the rear by far. Without the pass-through, you could still put 2 passengers in back but one would be in the relatively uncomfortable center position.

    BTW, one reason many folks like a full-sized spare tire is that it increases your tire life by 20% when you put it into the rotation mix.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Assuming the car does not have steel wheels, full size spare would need to be on an alloy to be in the rotation mix.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Other than a ski trip I can't think of when a skinny little opening would be of benefit in a time with 4 people in the car.

    A couple days before Christmas '08, the pull cord on my snow blower broke. With the 60/40 folding seats in my '05 Sonata I was able to load it into the trunk to get to the power equipment dealer (they close from Christmas Eve until after New Years day). Obviously, I wasn't carrying 2 or 3 passengers. However, a ski pass through without folding seats would have left me up the creek.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Mazda 6i touring was a nice car but it has no trip computer without nav!

    The 2009 Mazda6 has a trip computer standard on all "i Touring" models on up.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    That must be why the opening behind the rear center armrest is often called a "ski pass-through"! :) Although I've bought some things at the home & garden store before e.g. crown moldings that would have fit through there pretty nicely.

    FYI, the Passat has the ski pass-through PLUS the 60/40 folding rear seat.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Technically no, but it would make it a LOT easier to put into the rotation mix with an alloy wheel on the spare. I don't know if the Passat has a steel spare wheel or alloy. The last car I saw with an alloy full-sized spare wheel was a $40k Bimmer.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    It would almost make more sense for VW to position the Passat against the Acura TSX or Lexus IS instead. But buyers of those brands tend to think "Audi" rather than "VW."
    yeah, the car buyers have already showed us what they think of VW as a 'premium' brand - they called it the Phaeton. Regardless of how good the Passat might be, it couldn't succeed in the $40k+ neighborhood that you are talkiing about, as least not as a VW. Heck it is VW's tarnished reputation as well as its high relative price that make it a minor player in this group.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Captain2, the TSX starts at $29,160. The IS 250 starts at $31,305. The Passat starts at $28,300. Looks to me as though they're pretty close in price. But then my facts don't have nearly the credibility of your splenetic vents.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I'll take the IS250 over the TSX and Passat all day long....

    I'm willing to bet that the Passat is shopped against the Audi A4, TSX, IS250, BMW 328 etc....I see the CX-9 shopped against the MDX, RX350 and Volvo XC-90. Not exactly the same class, but, it happens a lot.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994

    I'm willing to bet that the Passat is shopped against the Audi A4, TSX, IS250, BMW 328 etc...


    Exactly. And at the other end of the midsize spectrum, inexpensive sedans like the Fusion are probably cross-shopped against the Elantra and Civic, as out-the-door prices are pretty darn close. That's the pesky thing about "midsize (or midmarket) sedans."
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Could both of these, Passat and CX-9, be priced too high. When my wife and I bought our Infiniti QX-4 we were looking originally at Pathfinders. The decked out Pathfinders were within $2000 of what we could buy the Infiniti for. With the extra year of warranty, little more luxurious feel and better looking IMO it was an easy choice. We decided the Pathfinder was just priced too high when optioned similar to the QX-4.

    I think if the non-luxury model approaches the luxury model in price unless someone is really "payment constrained" it's kind of no brainer to jump up in class.

    Same with the Fusion or Milan and the MKZ. If a optioned up Fulan is within a few grand of a MKZ, I would buy the MKZ. Keep in mind I'm talking market price and not MSRP.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Could both of these, Passat and CX-9, be priced too high.

    The Passat is priced a little high for what it has, but, the main beef with it is that VW does not offer a lesser Passat to compete with everyone else in the mid-sized class.

    As for the CX-9, it's priced really really good. It's far cheaper then an MDX, Q7, RX350, GMC Acadia. It's on par with the Pilot and Highlander.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So as has been discussed, VW's all-new mid-sized sedan that will be larger than the current Passat, offer the 2.0 and 2.5 engines, be built in the U.S., and start at about $20k will arrive in early 2012. So folks turned off by the idea of paying mid-$20s (after the inevitable discounts) for a German turbocharged mid-sized sedan with lots of features will have the choice in about 3 years to pay a few thousand less for a German-engineered, U.S.-built mid-sized car that will most likely have fewer features but a lower price.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    to da metal, too. Did anyone else hear about the Ford Fusion Hybrid test run that ended this morning at 5:37? Wow...they got 1,445 miles on one tankful, an incredible 81.5 miles per gallon! Make that smiles per gallon. :surprise:

    Might just have to put this midsize Ford on my futures list with the three all-electric powertrain cars I'm tracking like a Seahawk. 81.5 miles per gallon. Ford said that we should expect smiles per gallon of what, 43 for this hybrid?

    image

    http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1020291_fusion-hybrid-finally-runs-out-of-ga- - - - s-1445-7-miles-on-single-tank-81-5-mpg

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    The AWD CX-9 and MDX are only $3475 apart according to Edmunds TCO. Equipment varies but overall pretty close. It would be tempting to get the Acura for the resale and warranty. Five year cost is $4700 more for the Acura which is less than $1000 a year. I would imagine you could apply this exercise to midsize sedans as well. My point is that when less than $5000 separates a standard vehicle and a luxury one over 5 yrs....the luxury vehicle wins IMO.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    The better comparison is a Hyundai Veracruz Vs. the RX350, a fully loaded AWD is ~$10K less than the Lexus and has nearly all the features and luxuries of the RX350. The CX9 Is far more expensive and from the comparisons I made when I got a Veracruz, the VC is roomier up front and less claustrophobic than the CX9, that was the main fail point for me.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The AWD CX-9 and MDX are only $3475 apart according to Edmunds TCO

    This is definitely the wrong thread to be talking about this, however, the CX-9 AWD starts at $32,000 and a GT w/ nav is around $40,000. MDX starts at $40,000 and MDX w/ tech is $45,800. I have a pre-owned MDX with tech on my lot, and I must say, I don't see how it is worth nearly $6,000 more. Plus, Mazda has killer incentives on the CX-9 right now with rebates totaling near $4,000.

    If you want to continue this discussion, I can meet you in the crossover comparison thread.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    No need to jump threads. I was just using them as an example of standard vs luxury which I guess is beyond the scope of this thread anyway. Tks.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    gotcha!
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    My point is that when less than $5000 separates a standard vehicle and a luxury one over 5 yrs....the luxury vehicle wins IMO.

    $5000 would represent more than 30% of the total price that I paid for my midsize car. This is a huge difference.

    In any case, I have no interest in "luxury" vehicles and they often come with things I hate, such as leather, wood and chrome.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I did say "over 5 years" which represents about 9% of the 5 TCO. But I agree it is still a material amount especially if you don't like the items you mentioned in the first place.
Sign In or Register to comment.