Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

1274275277279280871

Comments

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Guess we'll just have to wait and see. If Ford came out with an I4 that got 40 mpg with 250 hp and was smooth as silk you'd still find something wrong with it.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    the fact that both the supposed new I4 and certainly the 'new' DT3.5 are unremarkable and still, to a large degree, not competitive even though the mfgr. has had a few extra years to develop them.

    Lets take a look and see if Ford is competitive with their 3.5L to Honda and their new 3.5L. The following engines are applied to the Ford Taurus and Honda Accord

    Power:
    Ford: 263hp 249tq
    Honda: 268hp 248tq

    Fuel Economy:
    Ford: 18-28
    Honda: 19-29

    Lets look at the definition of "competitive" or to "compete": To be able to do as well or better then others. To put up a reasonable contest.

    From these numbers, can we say Ford can compete with Honda. By definition, yes.

    Considering that Honda has an advanced VCM system and a high tech variable valve timing system, to only have a 1mpg advantage and 5 hp over Fords 3.5L is quite disappointing.

    Lets look at the definition for "refined": Sophisticated and effective, developed to or possessing a high degree of precision and effectiveness.

    Considering that these numbers are quite similar, how can you claim that Ford is not a "refined" engine or for that matter, competitive? Please explain?
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,229
    It's no use arguing avi. The "H" blinders are on and they are not coming off. Just leave him be because he'll need the extra free time to figure out all those tiny buttons on the new Accord's center stack. :P
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    To be a fan is one thing. To repeatedly be incorrect and ignorant, to me, would just be embarrassing. Not at fault for being ignorant, but, I just thought I would post some fact rather then sheer emotional opinion.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Power:
    Ford: 263hp 249tq
    Honda: 268hp 248tq

    Fuel Economy:
    Ford: 18-28
    Honda: 19-29


    Can you tell me when the power comes online? If Fords 249 comes on line at a higher rpm, then I would have to say I would take the Accords lower torque rating as better because more is available at a lower rpm.

    What are the acceleration numbers? Measuring raw output is almost meaningless.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    Regarding the mazda sourced 2.3 liter... at least in the mazda6 and the mazda3, most magazines have praised this engine for being extremely competitive (ie: smooth, willingness to rev, etc) compared to other i-4's in this market including the H and Toyo's. So I'm not sure where the self-described "captain" is coming up with his long stated biases against anything ford, but his response was pretty predictable. While it will be nice that Mazda and Ford will likely get newer, more powerful engines with better gas mileage fairly soon, it is far from necessary at this point. Not only do these cars cost thousands less than the H or T variety, but have been getting some very good reviews regarding their reliability and quality of driving experience. Are they everything to everybody? No, but show me a car that is...
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    What are the acceleration numbers? Measuring raw output is almost meaningless

    No, it is not meaningless. We are not comparing the Ford Taurus to the Honda Accord. We are comparing the Honda 3.5 to the Ford 3.5. My response was to the claim that Ford cannot build a fuel efficient / powerful / competitive engine like Honda, or other manufacturers do.

    Fords peak torque is 4,500 rpms, Honda is at 5,000
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    truthfully the only direct experience I have with the 'new' DT is in the Edge - an application where the engine might be a little more challenged because of vehicle weight. In no way is the engine (DT35) as smooth, quiet, or willing & able to rev as those engines that I do have a lot of experience with - the Nissan VQ and Toyota 2GR. And I'm apparently NOT the only one who thinks so, CR (in their 08 auto issue) notes the engine to be well short of the 'leaders' in this class in their reviews of the Taurus/Lincoln, MT cited the same problem in the Edge (rough, I think was the adjective). This type of thing has always been the problem with the DT3.0 as well (ever drive the Five Hundred?) All of which leads me to believe that the extra HP you guys are so prideful of comes only as a result of the displacement increase from the DT3.0 and nothing more. Although I mentioned the superior FE of the Toyotas and Nissan engines specifically, give me the turbine like smoothness of the SOHC Honda V6 you chose for 'comparison' (the new Accord a bigger heavier car) instead of that DT. There is much more to a good engine then simple HP/Torque numbers (and FE, as well) .
    In fact, give me the smooth and quiet operation of Honda's 4 banger in lieu of any DT V6. There is nothing in Ford's past (or present) that would indicate to me that they magically learned to build a truly good smaller engine. I challenge you to name just one. To be fair though, this is a 'problem' shared with 2 other pretty large mfgrs. I can think of, and kind of summarizes the other difficulties all three have been in for 30+ years now.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Since you site CR, they did say that they no longer recommend the Toyota Camry V6, however, every application that the Ford Duratec35 is in IS recommended. What does that say about Toyota? It cannot be refined if it is not reliable, can it?

    Also, in regards to engine noise, the majority of the noise is deadened by materials used in the car so you cannot hear it in the cabin, not the actual engine its self. Blame the entire car, not the engine.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    'H' blinders? Don't even own one and haven't since a '78 Accord when they first came out - had a 4 cylinder 'CVCC ?' engine that was less 'screwed up' with pollution stuff (all if I remember right) - great car in its day, of course, and a good example of why 'Detroit' has problems selling anything but trucks these days. And yes there were several 'Detroit' cars I owned after that Honda that even included some Ford products.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the 2GR engine is not CRs problem with the Camry - it is the early 6 speed trannies and the software related problems that came with it that has caused it to be downgraded - and rightfully so.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    It cannot be refined if it is not reliable, can it?
    even if that were the case - of course it can. I can think of a number of primarily British and Italian engines over the years that were quite 'refined' but wouldn't start when it even looked like rain. Thank you Lucas and Magnetti Morelli (splg.)
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Posts: 425
    if the Honda engine was so wonderful to listen to, why do they put noise cancellation technology in the Accord?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The overall FE for the current (and wimpy) 4 banger is the same as it is for the Toyota and Nissan V6s

    Some V6s are surprisingly close to fuel economy of 4 cyls (even non-Ford ones). But just comparing the 4 cylinders we have:

    Fusion 23 mpg
    Mazda6 24 mpg
    Accord 24 mpg
    Camry 25 mpg
    Altima 26 mpg

    As for the "wimpyness" I believe acceleration tests, that are performed the way normal people drive (ie. those done by CR) show any of these within a few tenths of a second of each other for 0-60.

    My feeling when I was shopping for a midsize with 4 cyl, which was a year ago+, was that performance and mpg were not different enough to be a significant factor amongst the cars I considered. However, I did not give much consideration to the Altima or Camry for other reasons that trumped any acceleration or mpg advantage for those. I am also one who does not put a lot of miles on...8-10K per year.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 9,205
    I wonder how everyone is doing as the people will speak and vote with their wallets.
    Toy '16 Audi TTS quattro AWD, Commuter '16 Kia Optima LX 1.6 Turbo FWD, Wife's '17 VW Golf All-Track SE 4-Motion AWD
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    No, it is not meaningless

    I disagree. Without looking at the hp and torque curves interpeting the figures means zippo in real life. Case in point, looking at the G37 engine and the N56 (turbo) from BMW, on paper the G37 should have it all over the 3 liter turbo. But it doesn't. Looking at the hp and torque curves tells the story.

    Same with the Ford vs Honda engine. I'll betcha in real life (sic: on the street) the Honda is faster and more efficient.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Posts: 1,467
    Okay, I know if anyone would know this it would be Backy?

    I was reading over at a VW website (some of you may know this well known site) that the 09 Sonata is to debut at the Chicago Int'l Auto Show next month and that models are actually beginning to surface at dealerships (or should be within the next week)

    I know Navigation will be avaialble, but what else will change. Some of the guys on the forum are Hyundai Salesmen and they claim to even have pricing. I'm interested in the facelifted Sonata because it finally addresses the one issue I had with the car...it's interior.

    Thanks in advance Backy or to any others who may know!

    R.L. Gist
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    And the Fusion has an extra gear plus AWD. It just depends on where you want to spend the engineering resources.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    As the expression goes, sometimes less is more.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    And sometimes less is just less regardless of how much spin you put on it.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The engine is not the only deciding factor in acceleration times. Weight and gearing also come into play. The closest car that Ford builds that can compare to the Accord it the MKZ. The Accord is about 100 lbs heavier then the MKZ. The Accord is about .4 seconds quicker to 60 and .5 seconds quicker in the 1/4 mile. How the transmission is geared would have a lot to do with these times as well. It's not all about the engine. It's about the total vehicle. This current discussion started by a claim the Ford can not build a competitive engine. The claim was NOT Ford cannot build a competitive vehicle.

    You are trying to compare vehicle to vehicle. So, in this case I gave you the closest vehicle to vehicle comparison I could find. Seeing these specs, it can be said that the MKZ, as a total vehicle (engine and all) can compete with the Accord. To say it cannot, would be farce. The Current Toyota Camry V6 shows similar time advantages over the Accord V6, about .4 seconds quicker to 60 and .3 seconds quicker in the 1/4 mile, and those cars directly compare. Would you say they don't? I doubt it. So it cannot be sait that Ford cannot, or does not build a competitive vehicle in this class, because they do.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    And sometimes more is less no matter what the spin is. Wait I've heard that before. Six speeds and AWD are not always better than 5 speeds and FWD. AWD may be an advantage to some and a liability to others. In the absolute sense AWD adds lbs to the car, and that I recognize...in exchange for altering the driving dynamics.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    The engine is not the only deciding factor in acceleration times. Weight and gearing also come into play

    You are absolutely correct in everything you say. Your response indicates you *really* agree with me in that dyno curves help interpet the engine output metrics. You cannot compare two engines side by side without the drivetrain and say one engine is better than another.

    I never said anything about "competition", you did. Unless the "you" is a generic "you".
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Unless the "you" is a generic "you".

    Yes, generic.

    Total vehicle engineering needs to be taken into consideration for how vehicles perform. We can compare engine to engine, I would say that is fair, however, I feel the total package is more important. Since the original discussion was just engine to engine, that's what I went with it, and transformed it into vehicle to vehicle for a more precise comparison
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Might as well go outside and bang your head against a brick wall. Same result.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I've tried that. It does nothing. Did it work for you?
  • tedebeartedebear Posts: 832
    The old Sebring looked much better to me.

    Well, let's just say that if the new Sebring still looked even remotely like its predecessor I'd be driving something else.

    Today I wimped out and drove to work instead of braving the 15F degree temps again on my bicycle. As I cruised along enjoying the heated leather seats, auto climate control, a Dr. Pepper in the chilled cup holder, MyGIG tuned to Sirius Ch 14 (Classic Rock) cranking away a CCR tune, I said to myself, "It doesn't get much better than this." :)

    Sorry for the interrupt - back to the dragstrip acceleration wars.
  • Same with the Ford vs Honda engine. I'll betcha in real life (sic: on the street) the Honda is faster and more efficient.

    Ah yes, the fine art of bench racing. My '87 Yugo only weighs X pounds and has that Fiat engine, and since Italians are always faster than Japanese, it will be faster and more efficient on the street I am sure.

    Or...what comes out the southern end of a northbound bull.
  • When benchmarking stuff last week at NAIAS, I commented to a coworker that the Chrysler folks should visit the Honda Accord we were looking at. As it turns out, a somewhat agitated Chrysler Sebring brand manager was standing behind me. He said there was a line of people waiting to kick his behind and I had to take a number. I think it scored as a miss.
    That doesn't mean it has no redeeming qualities. There is nothing wrong with that 2.4l Chrysler developed with its friends and if you like constantly copying your music all over with a USB 1.1 connection, then myGig is cute too.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Today I wimped out and drove to work instead of braving the 15F degree temps again on my bicycle. As I cruised along enjoying the heated leather seats, auto climate control, a Dr. Pepper in the chilled cup holder, MyGIG tuned to Sirius Ch 14 (Classic Rock) cranking away a CCR tune, I said to myself, "It doesn't get much better than this."

    Since none of this has anything to do with how well the car drives, it sounds like the Chrysler was the perfect car to you. You obviusly like toys - nothing wrong with that. Sort of like toppings on a sundae; I just don't like the ice cream chrysler sells - I'd rather have a plain vanilla Honda than a Chrysler sundae. It's all personal preference though - there's not a "wrong" here.

    Compared to something like an Altima or a Fusion, the Chrysler is an appliance to go A to B while being entertained in the process with computer gadgets, etc. The Fusion and Altima entertain you without the gimmicks. They do it with the driving experience as a whole. And, it's not a "dragstrip" thing, ted. The Fusion is not a stoplight marvel; it's actually slower than basically all of its competition. It's a lot of fun to drive though. Those things can be exclusive of one another. A Camry XLE V6 is REALLY fast but not a driver's car. The Sebring is just neither.
Sign In or Register to comment.