Howdy, Stranger!

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

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    However, nothing I have read has mentioned that the trade must be junked unless it is just considered so obvious to be assumed.

    Absolutely the vehicle has to be junked to get the voucher. I sure thought that was obvious, as one motivation of the plan is to get rid of a few gas guzzlers. Here is one article that mentions that the "trade in" must be crushed: 1
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    They give bailouts to companies for making bad decisions. Now, they want to reward consumers who bought gas guzzlers they didn't need. So someone who was energy conscious, and didn't buy a gas guzzler (they didn't need) is out of luck. No credit for you. It pays to be ignorant these days. :sick:
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,019
    Toyota asked Japan for "bailout" money, too. What bad decisions did they make?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,174
    Must be something like that as I am still on page 624 and at the top of the screen it does indicate that I can go to "next" and it does not show a page 625 as in "624 0f 625". I don't have a large screen, only a 19" tube type monitor. The page fills my whole screen and I have text size set to largest so I'm not really sure what it could be. I see all the posts so it not like I'm missing something I guess....just kind of strange that eveyone else seems to be on a different page.

    Actually I have been accused of that at times in my life so maybe it should be expected. ;)

    PS I am now on page 625 with the rest of you as I edit this message. OK, now back to midsize cars. Thanks for indulging me.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    You are correct, there is nowhere a page will say "624 of 625", that's just not how the display is designed. If you have a "Next" link, that means you are not at the last page of the discussion and, as I suggested in my last post to you, that would explain your issues. Again, the size of your monitor, text settings, etc., would not have an effect on what you are reporting that you are seeing.

    If you can see the post box at the bottom of the page, you are on the last page of the discussion. If you cannot see the post box at the bottom of the page, you are not at the last page of the discussion and you should have the "Next" link available to you. That is an easy way to tell.

    One final suggestion for you if what I've said here does not help - take screen shots and use the Help link at either the very top or very bottom of the page to report the problem. If someone at that link looks at what you are seeing, I am sure they will be able to help sort it out.
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    I bought my first van in '90 and then sold my 3.8 L Monte carlo and my 5.7L Formula. The three were 21, 23, and 23 mpg on trips. Ten years later, gas was 89 cents a gallon and the Astro was $70 a year to insure. It was deemed too small for our needs and we needed a larger van and went and got it. It was another 23 mpg on trips vehicle. All 4 qualify as 18 or under combined mpg clunkers. This is not being rewarded for buying a gas guzzler. All these cars were medium engine sizes except for the Formula which got sold due to high ins premiums and egress with a car seat issues. Someone who likes roominess in their vehicles is not any less energy concious. It could be practicality or affordability or comfort is their overiding need.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,174
    Thanks Pat. I'll see how it goes. I have decided to ignore the page numbers.....problem solved! I'll just make sure the individual post numbers are sequential unless one gets zapped by the hosts. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    . This is not being rewarded for buying a gas guzzler.

    IMO, it would be discriminating to those who don't have a guzzler to trade. The credit should be given to anyone buying a fuel efficient vehicle, and not reserved for guzzler owners only.
  • nananomnananom Posts: 11
    Hi folks; could someone please tell me how to work a camry manumatic gear. I also understand the '07--2010 camry I-4 have timing chains while the V-6 has belts. True?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    I agree. A more effective solution to get people out of the gas guzzlers and into midsize cars :D , would be to set up a gas tax that would keep gas at $4 per gallon. That seemed to be pretty effective, people were trading in or just parking trucks and SUVs at those gas prices.

    Of course, economic recovery will likely see rising gas prices and increased sales of midsize and other cars may help stimulate the economy.

    Also the mileage standard seems kind of weak at 22 mpg for cars and having it even lower for SUVs and trucks seems counter productive. I think all 4 cyl midsize cars get at least 23 mpg, so that would seem to be an appropriate minimum.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,174
    And you could still get a V6 that has an EPA avg of 23mpg. Toyota Camry V6.

    Interesting note. If the EPA uses the 55city/45hwy formula how do they come up with these 2009 numbers?

    '09 Camry V6 auto: 19city/28hwy = 23 avg mpg
    '09 Accord V6 auto: 19city/29hwy = 22 avg mpg

    There seems to be something else figured into the equation or the Accord would be the same or higher avg mpg. Or am I missing something?
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    rounding error--19 for the Camry could be 19.4, while 19 for the Accord could be 18.6.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,174
    Very good, thanks. It would probably have to be on the city side or probably both to cause that much difference.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    A more effective solution to get people out of the gas guzzlers and into midsize cars , would be to set up a gas tax that would keep gas at $4 per gallon.

    That's just crazy big government "I want to control your life" type thinking.

    How would you like to apply your same logic to electricity (gotta conserve power), groceries (don't want people getting too fat), or where you can live (people don't need single family homes with a yard--apartments provide shelter)?

    Government is not the answer, at least not to people who believe in freedom.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    We already have this kind of thinking. Have you bought a pack of cigarettes lately?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The logic is...given the premise that the government wants to encourage you to use less fuel, the best way to accomplish this goal is to make it cost more. This says nothing about whether or not the goal is a worthy one.

    The point is this has been demonstrated to be far more effective than all the CAFE nonsense.

    Another way to do the same thing, but with less immediate results, would be to have tax/credit scheme that would reward and punish buyers of new cars based on the efficiency of their choice of vehicle. Again this is based on the premise that our society has decided that it desires to encourage people to make choices that result in using less gasoline.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,174
    Presently there is such a broad spectrum of gas usage that it would be unfair to suddenly create an artificial price level like $4 a gal. People that have small cars already would be punished(albeit not as much) along with the gas guzzlers.

    A better way would be to just tax vehicles at purchase according to avg EPA mpg ratings. The lower the rating....the higher the tax. That way all the current owners of fuel efficient vehicles won't be penalized(could even be rewarded if structured right) and everone still chooses what they want to buy.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    A better way would be to just tax vehicles at purchase according to avg EPA mpg ratings

    Intuitively it seems fairest that taxes should be based on fuel consumption and the resulting pollution. The driver who drives more should pay more.

    This would also encourage carpooling, reducing traffic, encouraging the use of alternatives such as mass transit, etc.

    It would, however, hurt people in rural areas, as they often have little choice but to drive more than their urban counterparts. Perhaps there could be some sort of rebate program?


    The more we look at this, the more complex the alternatives appear.
  • mark_wnymark_wny Posts: 69
    Since this forum is about regular mid-sized cars, just wondered if any of you have tried BMW 3 series or MB C class - and then come home to a mid-priced product (Accord, Camry, etc.).
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I'd say virtually none as they would try Infinti, Lexus, Acura, and many others before dropping out of the "luxury" mindset. It's the same reason you get zero cross-shoppers between the RX8 and the base Cayman, despite their being nearly identical on the test track.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Went from a 3er to a Subaru. Cross shopped the 3er against the Navigator.

    BTW it's to Porsches credit the awesome performance of the Cayman. Let's see Mazda build such a big vehicle with the same performance specs.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    BTW it's to Porsches credit the awesome performance of the Cayman. Let's see Mazda build such a big vehicle with the same performance specs.

    Um, the Cayman is a small sports coupe. Are you thinking of the Cayenne instead?
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    The BEST way is to keep the +&#$*@ government out of it. Let the people decide what kind of car they want within their price range, including expected fuel usage.

    Four years ago I bought a new Sonata. It was affordable for me and came loaded with features. It's been trouble free (only 26 to 27K miles). And it wasn't politically correct in that it included 2 ashtrays & a lighter. My typical drive is less than 5 miles and I usually get better MPG than the EPA rating of 19 (local) in suburban driving.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,907
    I got to drive a Saturn Aura for 3 days courtesy of Hertz. It was a lightly-optioned XE, with plastic wheel covers and cloth trim. But it had the 6AT with paddle shifters, meaty leather wheel, woodgrain trim, and power height adjuster (but other seat controls were manual). The best thing about the car is its ride: compliant and quiet without being bouncy. Just a little tire thump on tar strips etc. The handling did not feel especially sporty (this was the base model with base tires/wheels after all), but was adequate for a family sedan with some lean around sharp corners. The I4 engine was plenty powerful for around town driving, and made me wonder whether it was a V6. Seat comfort was ok, except I thought the lumbar support was overly aggressive. Controls and displays were fine, but with lots of buttons that took awhile to get used to. I did appreciate the trip computer, and it told me that in suburban driving I averaged 23.8 mpg (90 F with A/C on all the time), but on the way back to the airport, about 45 miles of (sub)urban freeway at around 65 mph, I averaged 37.5 mpg. The engine was turning under 2000 rpms at 65, thanks to the 6AT, so it is a nice freeway cruiser. Quality-wise, there were no squeaks or rattles, and some of the trim such as the steering wheel, dash top, and radio controls seemed high quality. But some other parts, notably the plastic trim on the door tops, looked ultra-cheap.

    When my host saw the car outside her house, she said, "Oh, you got a Toyota!" I told her it was a Saturn. She looked quite surprised.

    Overall, the Aura seems like a solid, competent mid-sized sedan with a powerful but economical powertrain and a pleasant ride. Too bad it won't be around much longer.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    When my host saw the car outside her house, she said, "Oh, you got a Toyota!" I told her it was a Saturn. She looked quite surprised.

    "Oh, what a feeling!"... of disappointment (had it been a Toyota).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,907
    Why do you say that? The ride/handling was at least as good as the Camry's, if not better. The fuel economy, especially on the open road, was very good. The fit/finish was also very good, at least as good as the Camry's (which also suffers from some cheapness here/there in the interior). Power was better than the 2009 Camry, but comparable to the 2010 Camry. The Camry doesn't have the flexibility of paddle shifters. Styling-wise, I prefer the Aura to the Camry.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    Camry's (which also suffers from some cheapness here/there in the interior)

    Some cheapness? Try a lot of cheapness, I for one am sadly disappointed in the material quality in the Camry. I sat in a 2010 Fusion Sport and it made the Camry feel cheap, the quality in the Ford is far superior to the Toyota.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    I agree. The materials in the Fusion/Milan interior really are quite good. I was also impressed with most of the interior materials in the Aura and Malibu. Ditto the Sonata, for that matter. Compared to these, the latest iterations of Camry and Accord no longer stand out in the positive way their precursors once did.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Read my post again. Disappointment if it HAD been a Toyota.

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,907
    I read it, twice, but I still really don't know what your point is. I don't understand why my friend would have been "disappointed" to learn that the car I rented was actually a Toyota instead of a Saturn. If anything, my friend would have been glad I rented a Toyota, her favorite brand, instead of a Saturn.
Sign In or Register to comment.