Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Nissan was off my list for years because a couple of relatively minor but very poorly handled issues with a 2004 Quest. I've had Altimas as rentals a few times since then, and liked them well enough. Always stay up on new car reviews and Nissan seems to have gained equal footing with Honda and Toyota (and/or, those two have lost some of the luster and lack of criticism they used to get from name alone). Decided to give the brand another try, and ended up really liking our Pathfinder. But still, I only gave them a chance because I knew we'd be leasing, therefore always under warranty... and the dealer is very close to my office, just in case I have to use that warranty a lot...
Heck, I'll avoid certain brands of electronics, clothes, even restaurants and groceries, if I detect an inferior product. Now take 1,000X the money, plus a lousy customer service experience to go along with the poor product.
It's easy to tell someone, "Oh, that was five/ten/twenty years ago, you should give them another chance..." But when there is a competitor keeping me happy, it's hard to give a second chance to the one who burned me. It's not even a matter of money alone, the inconvenience of free warranty repairs is a drag. Especially as one's life becomes more complicated by work and family obligations. I've far less time to waste on dealer service issues than I did in my 20's. You get to a point where truly, time is money, and you'll gladly pay more for peace of mind and perceived quality.
So, yeah. I agree. Not nice to hold a grudge, but it's a big job for an automaker to maintain and repair its reputation.
Especially if you have a choice of automakers you have had good experience with. Between Honda, Toyota, Mazda and Nissan I can usually find something that works well for me.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
The Buick Regal is a midsize car. It is marketed as a midsize and the buying public considers it a midsize. The Buick Verano is the compact offering. Whoever said the TLX is smaller than the TSX is just plain misinformed and should check the facts. The TLX is bigger than the TSX and a little smaller than the TL. In fact, the wheelbase on the new TLX and the TL are basically the same. It fits clearly into the midsize realm. However, it is is not a "midsize sedan" as discussed here as it is considered a luxury brand. Some like to call it a "near luxury" bran because it isn't quite as luxurious as say a Lexus, but it is certainly the premium brand for Honda motor company just the the Lexus and Infiniti are for the Toyota and Nissan respectively.
I have never once referred to the EPA classification when shopping for a car as overall interior volume means little to me. In most cases it is just a little more headroom that, unless you're very tall, don't use in the first place. The Honda Accord has a high roof line in comparison to most of the other midsize car styles out there now. So what happens? Bigger interior volume. But if you compare most of the actual measurements such as shoulder room, leg room, and hip room the numbers are almost identical. I laugh sometimes at the volume they list for behind the second or third rows on SUVs/CUVs. The volume may be there but it is mostly unusable vertical space with little floor room to be very useful.
Last I checked headroom was an actual measurement and it is one of the things that keeps cars like the Regal from appealing to people who use the back seat - no headroom.
TL, TLX, TSX...so damn confusing. Why can't they bring back Legend and Integra?
Lincoln is even worse. All those MK's, I have no idea which is which.
Here's an off-the-wall car that could potentially be considered by people looking at midsize: the all-new VW Golf GTI 4-door.
Everyone would likely say it's a different class of car. Fair enough. But in terms of interior room it's pretty darn close. Take a look at a few comparisons.
Accord rear headroom: 37.8, rear legroom: 38.5, cargo: 15.8
Mazda6 rear headroom: 37.1, rear legroom: 38.7, cargo: 14.8
Golf GTI rear headroom: 38.1, rear legroom: 35.6, cargo: 22.8
And look at the overall lengths of these cars. Accord: 191.4, Mazda6: 191.5, Golf: 168. Talk about packaging efficiency. Wow.
Hard to believe that huge cargo figure for the Golf, but if you stuff it to the roof I guess so. But that means for 2 out of 3 of these particular measurements the Golf beats the Accord and the 6!
It will also easily beat them going 0-60. It would also beat the times of all other midsize cars with turbos, I think, and maybe even the Accord V-6.
The list price of the Golf GTI 4-door starts at $25k.
The mpg of the new GTI is better than the past version, but still can't match the class leaders in midsize. Accord epa combined mpg: 30, Mazda6: 30, Golf GTI: 28.
When the regular Golf comes out, which is very soon, I think, it will have a 1.8 turbo rather than a 2.0 turbo. The regular Golf will probably equal the Accord and the 6 in mpg. And the diesel Golf will probably get a rating of c. 35 mpg combined.
I use the EPA size rating when car shopping. I don't really care what a car company markets something as since they do it for their own benefit. The EPA is a standard measurement no matter who makes the car. The EPA classifies the Buick Regal as a midsize sedan.
The sedan version, the Jetta, has amazing interior room (especially back seat leg room) and trunk volume for a compact car. I suggested a few days ago to someone looking for a mid-sized car with a stick that it might be a good alternative. Personally though I'd go for the Golf, with hatchback versatility and soon an all-new design, with much higher interior quality than the Jetta's--almost Audi-esque based on what I saw at my local auto show earlier this year. The only drawback I see for the Golf other than it will now be sourced from Mexico for the USA market, instead of Germany, is that the base trim MT is a 5-speed. However, I found the 5-speed on the current Golf to be ok, with a tall 5th gear that keeps RPMs low. Also the price on the Golf is pretty high. Could probably get a base model mid-sized sedan for the same price as a base-model Golf.
I fit in the back seat of my Regal quite comfortably and I am 6' with a long torso.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I agree with backy that the all-new Golf is a strangely compelling car. It's "strange" for me, because I was burned by a used 1987 Jetta that I owned from 1997-2000. That was eons ago in car years, but the shoddy engineering of that car seriously annoyed me. The hood release, for instance, kept breaking because of an uber-cheap plastic part that was essential to its operation.
But some things about that Jetta were great. The trunk was astonishingly large for a car that size. Iirc it was 16.5 cubic feet—which is a little larger than the trunk of my 2013 Accord! The handling of that Jetta was German road-car worthy. It was really fun to drive when it worked.
But, like many other people, my seemingly endless trips to the VW service bay made me feel like I was making a lot of payments on someone else's boat. I remember parts that took weeks to ship from Germany, etc.
I assume those bad old days are behind VW now, and that their cars are well-built and reliable. Still, there's a reason millions of people like me are wary of buying a VW.
But as backy says, what's appealing about the new Golf in particular is the idea of getting an almost Audi-level of car for many thousands of dollars less. And part of that is because it's made in Mexico. Here's an interesting article on the huge factory in Mexico that makes VWs. It's the biggest VW factory outside of Germany, and employs a massive 20,000 people. It just celebrated its 50th anniversary:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/web-originals/volkswagen-mexico-factory-things-we-learned
I guess I'm glad Mexico's auto industry is booming. But I'm also glad my Accord is made in Ohio. It's a small but significant thing for me to know that my hard-earned money is circulating in the US and helping the economy here....
Anyway, Motor Week has a rave review of the 2015 GTI. And they say that the new base Golf will have a starting msrp of c. $19k—which is $2-4k less than most entry-level midsize sedans.
The EPA has set the standards for years. It gets the interior room data from the manufacturers. Thus the Regal is a midsize sedan and the TSX and new TLX are compact sedans. If you don't think so, check the interior room for them and you'll see they are in fact both compact sedans. The new (compact) TLX is actually smaller than the (compact) TSX.
You said the other measurements were "actual" hence headroom was not.
I did check and I have sat in one. No headroom.
To clarify my point. The EPA has set the standards for car classification via interior volume for many years. It is the industry standard. The manufacturers use their interior volume to the EPA for classification. If you go to the EPA website it will tell you the size classification for a car (you can also check Edmunds for the interior volume). IF you disagree with the classification you can either contact the manufacturer and ask for a remeasurement (good luck) or contact the EPA and tell them they've got it wrong and tell them what the standards should be to meet "your" classification (again, good luck). (I hope it doesn't wrap these numbers when I post.)
EPA car class
Total passenger and cargo volume (cu. ft.)
Minicompact Less than 85 cu ft
Subcompact 85–99 cu ft
Compact 100–109 cu ft
Mid-size 110–119 cu ft
Large 120 cu ft or more
Infiniti Q50: interior volume (cu ft): 101.9 (compact)
2014 TSX: EPA Total Interior Volume = 108.5 cu ft (compact)
Acura TLX: EPA Total Interior Volume = 106.5/107.6 cu ft (compact)
(of note - the compact TLX is smaller than the compact TSX)
2014 TL: EPA Total Interior Volume = 111.3 cu ft (midsize)
2014 ACURA RLX: EPA Total Interior Volume = 117 cu ft (midsize)
2014 ACCORD: EPA Total Interior Volume = 119 cu ft (midsize)
2014 CAMRY: EPA INTERIOR VOLUME = 118.1 cu.ft. (midsize)
2014 CIVIC: EPA Total Interior Volume = 107.4 cu.ft. (compact)
2014 COROLLA: EPA INTERIOR VOLUME = 110.5 cu.ft. (midsize)*
*The corolla is typically thought of as a compact. IDK if they advertise it as a compact or as a midsize
wayne21: thanks. Great info!++
2015 VW Golf GTI passenger volume=93.5+luggage 22.8=
total interior volume 116.3
In other words, it seems like the GTI is a midsize car by the EPA's measure, just a short one.
Since it weighs 3031 lbs, it's only a couple of hundred pounds less than an Accord Sport 6MT, which weighs 3276.
And since we are talking about the Regal:
rear headroom 36.8 rear legroom 37.3 cargo 14.2
So it's a bit tighter than the Accord or the 6. Still, the rear compartment is perfectly fine for most normal-sized people.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
@wayne21
I wasn't arguing that Regal should not be classified as a midsize because I agree that it is...but not because it fits into an EPA category. Buick markets it that way and their compact offering is the Verano. Manufacturers, as a rule, don't market two cars that are very different in size as being in the same category. Like Toyota has the Yaris(subcompact), Corolla(compact), Camry(midsize), and Avalon(large). The EPA is just a govt agency that has a somewhat arbitrary definition of what midsize, large, compact size cars are. It sets no "industry standard" for the auto industry. The manufacturers have not signed up for these definitions like you say they have just because they have to furnish data to the govt. I'm pretty sure VW markets the GTI as a compact and the Passat as a midsize car. I don't think Acura is going to market the TLX as a compact car as they market the ILX as a compact car. What if the Accord had just one more cubic ft of space. Would everyone suddenly think it was a large car just because it would fall into the EPA large car definition? I don't think so. It would still be a midsize and be compared to other midsize cars and not to a Taurus or 300. The Corolla is a midsize?? Pretty sure Toyota markets it as a compact and the Camry as their midsize car. That's what I mean about the EPA methodology.....it just doesn't jive with the real world. Nobody in their right mind thinks the Corolla is a midsize car.
I don't think many people go the EPA website looking to see what "class" the EPA thinks the car they are looking at is classified as. Outside dimensions mean as much to people as inside dimensions as that affects how easy the car is to drive, park and store. Could it be handy to see their numbers. Sure I guess so, but like I said, I've never went to their site for that reason and I don't think many people do. I believe the vast majority go there to compare MPG numbers it they go to it at all.
You seem to think that just because the EPA says something that we should all accept that they are the final say on car classes. They are not. It's fine that you think the classifications they come up with work for you but I don't think that very many people would consider a GTI or a Corolla a midsize car no matter how much room it has inside and behind the second row or because the EPA might have it in a certain category.
I'm not arguing with you, just saying that the EPA is not the end all - be all in car classifications. I personally go to cars.com and compare cars using their compare tool. It lists the passenger volume and the trunk/cargo volume on separate lines. But I don't add them up to see what class they are in according to the EPA.
Oh, just for grins I went to the Mazda website to see how they market the Mazda2. They call it "IT’S SUBCOMPACT. NOT SUB-PERFORMANCE". Guess what, the EPA classifies it as a Compact Car. So much for the EPA being the industry standard. There are other examples of this too as this discussion has come up before in this forum.
It's impressive, isn't it, how various trims and option levels can transform what is basically the same car. I was recently in Seattle visiting my mom, who owns a 2013 Accord LX CVT. We own a 2013 Accord EXL Navi. The engine, transmission, body, and so much else are identical, and yet the experience of driving the car was different in a few important ways imho.
The LX is a great deal on a lot of car for a street price of about $21k. And at first it's hard to see how the same basic car would still be a good deal with essentially $7000 in various options to move all the way up four trim levels to the EXL navi. But they are both worth it.
The first thing you notice is the steering wheel. The LX steering wheel is solid and economical plastic, grippy and functional. But it certainly doesn't give any "premium" feel at all. I've seen reviews in car mags comment on this, and I was surprised to find myself agreeing that a nicely leather wrapped wheel really is a very nice tactile thing that subtly enhances the driving experience.
Next are the seats. The cloth seats in the LX Accord are quite nice and comfortable, but the leather seats seemed more comfortable and nicer.
I never got a chance to drive the LX in a spirited way, but I imagine there are differences there because of the suspension upgrade (shock tower bar) and wheel and tire upgrade.
Anyway, my Mom's Accord feel like a very nice midsize economy car, while our EXL feel almost like a luxury car.
Ben,
I agree with you.
If your on a budget the Accord lx model is a great choice. The cvt model shifts nice and its very peppy. I also had the V6, EXL model and I have driven the Lx model too.
Speaking of the Mazda2. I was in a dealership a few days ago and the sales guy was telling me Toyota is making there own version of the mazda2. I'm assuming There is a big market for these little cars.
Last week I meet up with some friends to play golf at Pebble Beach in CA. for a couple of days. Spent a up- seen amount of cash there so I figured I'd save some money renting a small rental car to drive down the coast to Calabasas for the rest of the week. 2013 Ford Focus. This little car had the worst visibility I have ever been in . I would of never though this. Sloped side windows, small back window. visibility was terrible all around. . Backing into spots was bad . A rear view camera would of helped. This was a dangerous car to be driven in CA. Drivers on the west coast drive a lot faster on Highways cutting in and out of lanes. My 100 h/p engine was no match to even attempt to change lanes quickly. LOL . I would never put a young driver in a vehicle like this to drive . The Corolla might of been a better choice.
23 Telluride SX-P X-Line, 23 Camry XSE
It's a little more than that. Mazda will be building the new Toyota sub compact in their new Mexican plant. Toyota will be taking the new Mazda 2 platform and Toyota is building around it. Toyota realized the Yaris was horrible and the Mazda 2 is a pretty good driving car.
I agree completely. This is a serious issue. On the outside, a lot of vehicles look like they would probably have pretty good visibility. But it's just "perceived visibility" rather than actual visibility, because those little rear window that most sedans have these days are useless from the driver's seat. You can't see out of them.
The design BMW pioneered, with the Hofmeister kink (named after Wilhelm Hofmeister, BMW's design chief from 1955-1970), is really much more functional in terms of visibility. Too bad only a few today use it, like BMW, Mercedes, Honda, and Toyota.
I think everyone has made a good point.
You forgot the Buick Regal.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Actually Mercedes does NOT use the Hofmeister Kink--maybe they don't want to appear to be mimicking BMW. Honda (Accord, Civic) uses it, but Toyota not so much (latest Avalon does). Some other automakers that use this feature pretty often are Buick (Regal, Verano, LaCrosse), Chevy (Impala, Cruze), Chrysler (200, Dart), Mazda (3, 6), Nissan (Versa, Sentra, Altima, Maxima), Subaru (Impreza, Legacy), and VW (Jetta, Passat). Hyundai used to use the Kink on cars like the Elantra and Sonata, but went away with it with its "fluidic sculpture" theme. But the new Genesis has one.
Didn't Hofmeister Kink play for Germany in the World Cup?
The term reminds me of Dr. Kamm!
Something that might have gotten overlooked in the debut of the 2015 Sonata is the availability this fall of an Eco model with a 1.6T engine and a new 7-speed DCT. I've read a few reviews and the consensus seems to be that the Eco model is the sportiest of the bunch, due to the relatively punchy turbo (177 HP), low weight, and the 7 speed tranny. That car is supposed to get 32 mpg (EPA combined), which is really good for a car with a full-sized interior per the EPA scale. No pricing on it yet, so I have to to wonder what kind of premium it'll command over the base model.
The other thing that I took from the reviews is that the new Sonata is a lot quieter, more solid feeling, and better planted than the old model. It appears what Hyundai did is focus on the little things on the redesign rather than go for a totally different look. Thus the new center console looks more boring than on the old car, but it was designed for ergonomics vs. flash.
It will be fun to see the comparos on the new Sonata and Legacy vs. The Rest, and see if one of those can topple the likes of the Mazda6 and Accord from 1st place.
I agree with backy that 32 mpg for a "full size" car is pretty impressive.
In fact, even ten years ago that would almost seem like science fiction. Just looked it up, and a 2004 Buick LeSabre had a combined epa MPG 21.
If my math is right that's about a 50% increase in mpg right there.
Yes, the LeSabre was a little bigger inside, but still that's a lot of progress in a decade.
The EPA estimates that the difference in mpg between 21 and 32 will probably save you as much as $850 a year. I usually keep my cars about 8 years, and so for me that would be almost 7 grand.
My one worry is about whether Hyundai has done any real world testing of the mpg on this little turbo. As we know, Ford has had to reduce the numbers of some of its ecoboost cars by a few mpg. Hope that doesn't have to happen here.
It does seem like the jury is still out about whether small turbos really save you money in the long run. You get a smaller engine, but they are more expensive to start with, and there's more that can go wrong. And then if you ever have fun driving it seems like you end up being worse off in terms of mpg than some NA engines.
But for now 32 seems like an impressive achievement.
I also owned a Golf "GT" Note that it was not a GTI. Which meant that it had the 12 valve engine. I think it was an 85, but I am not sure. I bought it to race with it at a local dirt track against similar powered cars. I was beat by a Fiero 2M4, piloted by my best friend. Mid engine cars handle better I guess, cause I NEVER beat him. Nothing worked on the Jetta but the stereo, and only because I had one lying around. Iron Maiden is essential for relatively low speed dirt racing. I am proud to say that the drivetrain held up well. It still ran when I sold it for scrap after visiting a local tree up close. It was ok though, since the property was closed off after someone got hurt requiring an ambulance, and the cops found out we were racing there. At one point we had 6 cars. It was awesome. Hugely step hills, mud, sand, and hard pack "road" with a really long straight. It was really, really, fun.
Sorry backy, but I think the sportiest version of the Sonata is still going to be the 2.0T. I get what you mean though, and none of us have talked about it. I wasn't even aware that they made it.
Your last comment is right on the money. I drove a 2015 Optima Turbo and the Mazda 6 back to back 2 weeks ago and they both felt vault like strong. The first thought I had after driving off in the turbo Kia is how much tighter it felt. It drove way better than my car.
So, since the Sonata and the Optima platforms are shared, perhaps those same improvements are in the Sonata chassis.
Hyundai had to do the same thing not long ago with their NA engines .. my Elantra GT is rated at 27/37 (automatic) and I see 28-29 in driving that is about 90% city, 10% highway.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
I worry about having a turbo in general, especially with a company that has less experience with them. they literally glow red hot. I don't know if the diesel low pressure turbo's do, but I have seen gas turbos run and anything that gets that hot then cold over and over again is eventually going to break. So, I just stay away from them in general. I know manufacturing is much better now, yada yada yada, but I still don't trust them. When I drove the 2015 Optima 2.0T the power output was less than I expected. It wasn't worth getting 10 more thousand in debt over.
Actually, my Elantra is the only NA engine in the family. Both the wife's CX-7 and the daughter's MINI Countryman have turbo engines.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
I think it's the other way around. The 2015 Sonata is the newer design, compared to the current Optima. So maybe the platform strengthening (more high-tensile steel) and suspension tweaks Hyundai put into the new Sonata will be applied to the next-gen Optima.
I was surprised too at the commentary that the 1.6T powertrain on the new Sonata was the sportiest, but maybe it's not too surprising given the 2.0T model is the heaviest of the bunch and the 1.6T has a 7-speed dual-clutch tranny that is likely much more responsive than the 6AT used in all other trims including the 2.0T. Also the 2.0T lost 30 horses from 2014, which according to Hyundai was for improved driveability. But I'll bet it lost some of its sportiness also.
Ford has tested their ecoboost turbos well past 150K miles. These are not add-on turbos like the 80s - these engines and turbos are designed as a complete package together from the beginning. They also use modern materials like ceramic that don't have the temperature related problems of the early turbos. I'm sure the other mfrs are similar. These are not your grandfather's turbos.
Why would there be much difference in weight? 1.6L turbo vs 2.0L turbo should be minimal weight difference, same with transmission. Maybe 50lbs if that?
Any recommended VW dealers in the Long Island area? I got a Lexus last year from a NJ dealer that was thousands less than anyone local. Rock bottom price, looking for volume, but took care of me perfectly (registered the car in NY, met me half way for delivery). Maybe there is a similar VW dealer?
My guess is, it's not just the engine but all the added equipment that comes with the 2.0T model, as it's at the top end of the Sonata trims. Hyundai's published curb weights are 3270-3296 for the Eco vs. 3505-3616 for the 2.0T.
Also I see that prices are published now for the Eco, and it's a $2,125 premium over the base (SE) trim. That seems like a lot, but it looks like the Eco includes the SE's Preferred Package ($1200) as standard, plus has several available options the SE doesn't have including heated front seats (my wife's 2013 included those in the Preferred Package
). So really less than $1000 for the higher-FE, more responsive turbo. Not too bad I guess.
That is quite a weight difference. I wonder what can weigh that much more? A sunroof is usually a big weight item but I can't imagine not being able to get a sunroof on the Eco model. I know leather weighs more too. I guess when you add up everything it does add up.
Stereos (especially subwoofers) can also be really heavy.
They probably did what Chevy did with the Cruze Eco: lightweight wheels and tires, fewer body welds, thinner steel, less structure, all sorts of tricks.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Lightweight wheels and tires yes. They did not cut down on welds or steel thickness, at least not for anything structural. Sometimes the hood is aluminum on lightweight models (my Miata has one) as well as trunk lid.
This from a Chevy website:
"Weight (Mass) reduction - The Chevy Cruze Eco has slightly shorter welds and thinner sheetmetal in specific areas. The fuel tank is smaller by three gallons. All in all, the Chevy Cruze Eco weighs between 125 and 188 less than other Chevy Cruze models."
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Re the Sonata, probably not. Note that the curb weight of the Eco with the 1.6T is about the same as the SE with the 2.4L engine and 6AT. So it doesn't appear Hyundai did any special tricks on the Eco to lighten weight. They just used a smaller (turbo) engine with a 7-speed dual-clutch automatic.
Probably just the hood and trunk and maybe the fenders. If they change the structure the crash tests are not valid. Though I guess you never know with GM. An ignition switch should have been a simple thing.
And getting a fuel economy rating correct ought to have been really simple for Hyundai.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
@rbirns1
Platinum VW on Old Country Road in Hicksville. They are a small dealership, but sell A LOT of cars. I helped a friend lease a VW Tiguan about a year & a half ago. I emailed every dealer in the 5 boroughs, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, & even a couple here in Fairfield County, CT. The salesman was open, honest, knowledgable, & ended up giving my friend the best price.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
I'm still reading some grim stories about VW reliability in regard to recent models. Over at driveaccord.net someone says they traded in a 2013 Passat TDI because the turbo blew in just a year. Parts availability is still issue, as it was the last time I took my Jetta to the VW service bay in 1999. Yikes. Glad I own a Honda. Any desire I had for the GTI is gone.