Midsize Sedans 2.0

backy

imidazol97 said:

berri said:

The current Malibu is a nice car, but the media has consumers all worried about backseat legroom and trunk space, even though for many that isn't really an issue.

The Sonata/Optima and TLX have less legroom, but you'd never know it from the way the media folks harped on it for the Malibu. It's almost like politics the way the media over emphasizes an item.

The Sonata has less legroom than... what? I test-drove a 2015 Sonata and it's virtually limo-like in back. I've also sat in the back of the Malibu and it seemed cramped in comparison.

Sandman6472

Drove a '13 Verano with just over 31k on it and it drove very nicely, feels like a vastly different vehicle that it's cousin, the Chevy Cruze. Nicer creature comforts and exterior but since the Chevy is cheaper, they probably sell more. With a turbo engine, think the mpg's would go up and make it a better deal all the way around. I did almost buy one back in 2013 but they couldn't find one with the features and color I wanted.

The Sandman

nyccarguy

In a few weeks I'm coming up with 1 year of Legacy ownership. I've got somewhere in the mid 18K as far as miles go. The Legacy has proved itself to be a fantastic commuting companion. I can't seem to get close to EPA estimates. I'm averaging 26 mpg overall. My last tank was 26.7 mpg (trip computer showed 28.2). Best tank so far has been 28.9 mpg.

sda

I have owned the Accord for 2 years earlier this week on Sept 8. Other than one TSB for wind noise around the driver's window, no issues at all. Still on original tires, Good Year Assurance Fuel Max. They have worn evenly and still ride without vibration or pulling and have 5-6/32 tread. Normal maintenance, car washes, waxed every 3-4 months. Still looks and drives as new. Good power from the 2.4, CVT ok, great gas mileage, consistently above 30 mpg, have broken 40 mpg on occasion. I do wish the ride was a little less firm, a little less road noise--though much improved from past years, a better sound system (got to have good audio and having been spoiled by the Dynaudio in previous car, I have become even more critical). The 2016 addresses some of the items I would have liked to have on my 13. Split folding rear seat, Homelink, HD and XM radio, yet still no leather wrapped steering wheel on the EX. I am very pleased so far. 47350 miles.

stickguy

I have a sonata. It can pass for a limo in back.

I'm at 10 months on mine. I think I broke 7k on recent trip to NC. Also got close to 34 overall on that 1k jaunt.

benjaminh

Just took a c. 160 mile trip, 90% hwy, 38.5 mpg. 2013 Accord CVT.

suydam

That's about what I get on highway drives.

backy

I'm saying goodbye today to my wife's 2013 Sonata GLS--turning it in from its 3-year lease a little early because we already bought a replacement vehicle, a 2012 CX-7. It's been a good car, but my wife needed the easier entry/exit of an SUV. Also the buyout is more than current retail value--which was a good deal for us, payment-wise. We put just over 24k miles on it in 34 months, including a 3000-mile cross-country trip.

Overall we were very pleased with the Sonata. Smooth ride, good power, decent handling, comfortable seats (especially the 8-way power driver's seat), handy seat heaters, and very good fuel economy that exceeded the EPA ratings when driven moderately. There were a few recalls for software fixes and the shifter, but nothing that ever took it out of service. Nothing broke--except the front bumper, from several parking-lot incidents, but that wasn't the fault of the car except I wish those front bumpers weren't quite so low to the ground. I'd be tempted to jump for a lease on a 2015 Sonata (I've seen them recently for under $200/month sign-and-drive for 36 months) except for the need for the higher entry/exit.

So now down to just one mid-sizer in the family fleet, the 2008 Mazda6i that my daughter drives to school and work. That car is still going strong at about 110k miles, except I found out it will need a new valve cover gasket soon.

ivan_99

I'm the proud owner of a 2016 Mazda 6 Touring (6M). I drove the Accord (not the manual), Altima, Sonata Eco, Fusion SE.

I actually liked them all, but fell in love with the Mazda. The Sontata had the 7spd which was real nice, it wasn't as eager as a VW DSG, but I liked it better than the traditional auto. It may not have been a fair comparison as the Mazda was the only manual (which I prefer but am not bound to). They all felt similar in power but the Mazda appeared to have more low-mid than the others (again this could have been the transmission choice). I will not be dropping the clutch at high rpms or tracking it so they all have more than appropriate power for a daily driver (not that I'm opposed to stupid power...I was considering the Challenger/Charger hemi)

The Mazda did not have the types of rebates as the others but I felt the vehicle was a trim level above the others. The Sonata had huge rebates, Ford did as well (with 0% for 72mo) I really liked the Mazda leatherette; I felt it was on par with others leather. The interior actually reminded me of Audi (that I was swayed to previously but wouldn't drop that kind of money now). For me it was the best driving, best interior. They sealed the deal by giving me 1600 off of MSRP (TMV shows only 500) and $3k more than others for my trade in (plus 0.9% was nice...).

Missing...I do like fog lights that were not included (I like extra light at night...) and the home link rear view mirror. I'll be adding these as aftermarket add-ons. It didn't have NAV but I was told it could be added at any point for $400. I can't see doing this as every integrated NAV always paled in comparison to google maps (it would be nice if google maps were added as one of the Mazda Apps). It didn't have a sunroof...which made me real happy since I can't stand them (so this missing was a plus for me).

m6user

We just bought the Touring with auto and the upcharge red color which had a MSRP of $26115 for $22400.  This included a $500 rebate for financing.  No trade was involved as we gave our 2007 Mazda6 to our grandaughtet.  This car has 132000k and had one repair in 8 years which was a front wheel bearing. 
We almost bought an Accord but the Mazda6 just drove so much better and the interior was a step up from the Accord.  We actually could have gotten an even better deal on the Accord as they were blowing out the 2015s but just liked the Mazda6 a lot more.  I'm with you on the sunroof, hate them.  I don't miss the fogs in the least either.  Our other two vehicles have them and I never use them.  The Homelink auto dimming mirror may be a Christmas present.  First tank of gas netted 33.2mpg which admittedly is due in part to babying the car for its first 600 miles and is only one tank.  But it's a good sign.
Good luck with your new Mazda6 Touring.

[Deleted User]

sandman_6472 said:

Drove a 2015 Malibu at work yesterday and was surprised at how well it drove...comfortable with ample power when needed. Everything was where it should be and the exterior was very unoffensive. Don't see why GM doesn't sell more of these to be honest. About an hour later, got into a 2015 Cruze LTZ and though I didn't like the power under foot, the interior was o k and the exterior a bit bland. After seeing a pic of the new 2016, it looks much better and hopefully will give Cruze sales a shot in the arm. If I was going this size in a GM model, would definitely prefer the Verano as it seems and feels to be a more upscale vehicle. But when these two are compared to their import counterparts, not sure what I'd do. Price wise, can't beat GM but there's just something about certain imports which more folks prefer for some reason.
But must admit, GM does make some impressive vehicles right now but needs to improve their mpg's for one thing and push the envelope on their exteriors. Once they do these couple of things, think their sales will definitely keep pace with the top models in their segments.

The Sandman

What I prefer with imports over the GM's is not being stranded on the side of the road with a bad alternator, starter, radiator leak, minor and major engine problems like busted timing chains and blown head gaskets. Now, this was a long time ago, but it still leaves an impression. Every time I see a GM that I like, there is this little voice in the back of my head that says "what are you a glutton for punishment stupid?"

I just need consistent, fantastic reviews and a lot of time before I would ever consider one. On the truck end, I think the Ram continues to look the best...and I don't need a truck to haul 14 transmissions at a time so Aluminum or Steel is moot point, Chevy continues to take pot shots at Ford to reassure owners of it's continued use of "High strength Steel" (yes I know this is sedans...but I thought I would throw that in).

P.S. Hi everybody. I have spent the past 10 days moving my mom into a retirement community and moving myself into her home, while a re-hab team works on my old condo to extract max value. The end result is NO MORTGAGE. Kia gave me a payment deferment which really helped out with expenses, including two guys and a van for $200 that did a great job when the rest of us were just knackered. It was 100 F and 120% humidity last week too. Sweet. (Uggghhh)

[Deleted User]

ivan_99 said:

I'm the proud owner of a 2016 Mazda 6 Touring (6M). I drove the Accord (not the manual), Altima, Sonata Eco, Fusion SE.

I actually liked them all, but fell in love with the Mazda. The Sontata had the 7spd which was real nice, it wasn't as eager as a VW DSG, but I liked it better than the traditional auto. It may not have been a fair comparison as the Mazda was the only manual (which I prefer but am not bound to). They all felt similar in power but the Mazda appeared to have more low-mid than the others (again this could have been the transmission choice). I will not be dropping the clutch at high rpms or tracking it so they all have more than appropriate power for a daily driver (not that I'm opposed to stupid power...I was considering the Challenger/Charger hemi)

The Mazda did not have the types of rebates as the others but I felt the vehicle was a trim level above the others. The Sonata had huge rebates, Ford did as well (with 0% for 72mo) I really liked the Mazda leatherette; I felt it was on par with others leather. The interior actually reminded me of Audi (that I was swayed to previously but wouldn't drop that kind of money now). For me it was the best driving, best interior. They sealed the deal by giving me 1600 off of MSRP (TMV shows only 500) and $3k more than others for my trade in (plus 0.9% was nice...).

Missing...I do like fog lights that were not included (I like extra light at night...) and the home link rear view mirror. I'll be adding these as aftermarket add-ons. It didn't have NAV but I was told it could be added at any point for $400. I can't see doing this as every integrated NAV always paled in comparison to google maps (it would be nice if google maps were added as one of the Mazda Apps). It didn't have a sunroof...which made me real happy since I can't stand them (so this missing was a plus for me).

Ha Ha, I don't care for sunroofs either, after years of malfunctions, leaks, and other fun things like that. I HAVE to have fog lights, and I actually prefer my cell phone Google maps attached firmly with a Garmin w255 mount. (The Garmin mount fits the Galaxy s2, s3, s4, and s5 like a glove. No wiggling or bouncing up and down on the windshield)

Also, I drove the Mazda 6 twice, and I also noticed mid range punch was better than on my car and the Accord. Funny thing though, over 4200 RPM my Optima's 25 HP and just a bit more torque advantage kicks in. However, the Mazda's power is more usable at legal speeds....and mid speed fun is the only fun you will have around DC. There really is no "out on the open road" around here. We are lucky if the road is just "open".

ivan_99

m6user said:

We just bought the Touring with auto and the upcharge red color which had a MSRP of $26115 for $22400.  This included a $500 rebate for financing.  No trade was involved as we gave our 2007 Mazda6 to our grandaughtet.  This car has 132000k and had one repair in 8 years which was a front wheel bearing. 
We almost bought an Accord but the Mazda6 just drove so much better and the interior was a step up from the Accord.  We actually could have gotten an even better deal on the Accord as they were blowing out the 2015s but just liked the Mazda6 a lot more.  I'm with you on the sunroof, hate them.  I don't miss the fogs in the least either.  Our other two vehicles have them and I never use them.  The Homelink auto dimming mirror may be a Christmas present.  First tank of gas netted 33.2mpg which admittedly is due in part to babying the car for its first 600 miles and is only one tank.  But it's a good sign.
Good luck with your new Mazda6 Touring.

My mileage has been amazing down particular roads. I'm just using the instant MPG setting (so I'm not certain if it's scientific or more of a novelty). There is a stretch of road I routinely take to pick up my kids and have consistently achieved 50-60mpg. It's a stead 50mph in 6th gear. It's interesting to see how a small incline will drop it to 30mpg...or accelerating around a corner will show 12mpg.

backy

m6user said:

We just bought the Touring with auto and the upcharge red color which had a MSRP of $26115 for $22400.  This included a $500 rebate for financing.  No trade was involved as we gave our 2007 Mazda6 to our grandaughtet.  This car has 132000k and had one repair in 8 years which was a front wheel bearing. 
We almost bought an Accord but the Mazda6 just drove so much better and the interior was a step up from the Accord.  We actually could have gotten an even better deal on the Accord as they were blowing out the 2015s but just liked the Mazda6 a lot more.  I'm with you on the sunroof, hate them.  I don't miss the fogs in the least either.  Our other two vehicles have them and I never use them.  The Homelink auto dimming mirror may be a Christmas present.  First tank of gas netted 33.2mpg which admittedly is due in part to babying the car for its first 600 miles and is only one tank.  But it's a good sign.
Good luck with your new Mazda6 Touring.

That red is a great color! I see a lot of current-gen Mazda6s in that color--for good reason. Congrats on the new car! Looks like you got a heckuvadeal!

m6user

Tks backy.  

benjaminh

The way the EPA measures it, the 2016 Civic coming out in a few months will actually be classified as a "midsize car." Here's the math. The EPA says that if you combine the interior volume of a car with the trunk volume, a car needs to be at at least 110 cubic feet to be Midsize. The top of the midsize range is 119 cubic feet, and I think the Sonata goes just past that and all the way into full size territory.

Anyway, the current Civic LX has an interior volume of c. 94 and a trunk that's 12.5 cubic feet.

The 2016 Civic LX will, it seems, have an interior volume of c. 98 and a trunk that's 15 cubic feet, leading to a total volume of c. 113. Even the 2016 EX Civic, with the moonroof, will apparently have inside room of c. 96 cubic feet, and since the trunk is the same, it'll be around 111.

I don't think Honda's going to advertise is as a midsize car, but that seems to be what it is.

It's also going to have highway mpg of c. 42 mpg with the newly available 1.5 turbo, which is tops for the class, and acceleration with the turbo that is also going to be class leading, and might even break 7 seconds, which would be significantly faster than a 4-cylinder Accord with the auto.

The 1.5T is said to make c. 174 hp.

The only downside to the car I can see is that the rear visibility for the driver doesn't look very good. But the styling is pretty sporty for a Civic.

benjaminh

rear view of the 2016 Civic....

brian125

The Elantra followed by the Sentra is the biggest small car depending on the new 2016 Civic numbers. I have not seen them yet.

Hyundai Elantra Ft, headrm 40. ................ 15 Civic = 37.9
..............................Ft hip....... 53.5 .................................= 50.5
Ft leg.......................................43.6.....................................42.0
ft shoulder...............................55.9.....................................56.6
Rear hip .................................52.7......................................51.4

Sentra's cargo is listed at............. @15.1cu ft . EPA interior @111.0


This redesign model should put Honda up in sales this coming year. Rear and side visibility looks terrible on this Civic model.. The Corolla and Sentra would seem more attractive to that buyer.

benjaminh

Power to weight ratio....

2016 Civic EX-T will weigh c. 2900 lbs/174 horses with the turbo =16.7 pounds of car per horse

2016 Accord EX weighs 3336 / 185 horses = 18.0 pounds per horse

The low-end torque on the turbo is going to be impressive when you floor it. You're not going to build power slowly as revs build, like a traditional V-Tech. With the Civic turbo you're going to go like a bat out of hell after the first fraction of a second.

In other words, it seems likely to me that the 2016 Civic Turbo will be a bit faster than the Accord 4 CVT.

PS Agree with you Brian that rear visibility looks poor. What a pity....Wish they'd made it look like a BMW 3 series instead....

m6user

It's a good thing that hardly anyone considers the EPA as the designator of car class.  I appreciate they give you a comparison number but a Civic is just a compact car with a lot  room like the Sentra.  I think even the subcompact Versa has a lot of room the way the EPA measures it.  
Putting a tall roof on a car increases interior volume but unless your an NBA player it's not a big deal and doesn't add much useful space.  I find it hard to believe the new Civic will have a 15 CU ft trunk and haven't seen that in any of the product announcements.  Nor have I seen HP mentioned anywhere.  Where did you find those numbers?

benjaminh

In this long 30-minute plus premiere of the 2016 Civic, plus a another reveal in Detroit, a few stats were leaked out. They phrased it in terms of things like "the turbo will have 31 more horsepower than the current Civic" (which is 143), and "the trunk will be 2.5 cubic feet larger," etc.

In Detroit, Honda exec John Mendel had a chart showing that the 2016 Civic turbo would beat all in the "competitive set" by a good margin for highway mpg and 0-60 acceleration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM3i8ScO--4

explorerx4

The Civic will be improved, but not nearly the quickest in it's marketed class or EPA classification.
2 off the top of my head are Golf 1.8 and Focus ST.

brian125

I'd like the put that young philly in my new green Civic.

benjaminh

explorerx4 said:

The Civic will be improved, but not nearly the quickest in it's marketed class or EPA classification.
2 off the top of my head are Golf 1.8 and Focus ST.

The Focus ST would I think be compared with the Civic Si, which won't be out for 6 months or so.

But I'm guessing the 2016 Civic 1.5 Turbo will beat the 0-60 time of the 2015 Golf 1.8T auto:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-volkswagen-golf-18t-tsi-automatic-test-review

"Acceleration times for this fully loaded 3135-pound Golf were unimpressive at 7.7 seconds to 60 mph and 15.9 in the quarter-mile."

As a hatchback, however, the Golf is a champ when it comes to total room. With room behind the backseat at an impressive 22.8 cu ft., and passenger room at 93.5, it gets a total of 116, making it a midsize car by the epa classification.

In terms of mpg the Golf 1.8T would have been impressive even a few years ago, but now the highway rating of 37 is just average. The Accord is also rated at 37 on the highway now, and the Mazda6, the current leader, is rated at 38. The new Civic Turbo is expected to get an epa rating of c. 42 mpg hwy.

explorerx4

I found better numbers for the Golf. You have bad sources.
You should have checked the next one down the list.
A Focus ST will about the same price point as a turbo Civic.

benjaminh

Car and Driver is a good source.

There are other sources that are good too. What's yours? Please post...

In any case, I'm just guessing that the 2016 Civic turbo will be faster, mainly because of its lower weight. But we'll see in a month or so.

The Focus ST has a 2.0 Turbo, the new Civic Si will also have a 2.0 turbo, but won't be out for several months.....

brian125

Here is Edmunds take on the 16 Focus St model

Powertrains and Performance

Under the hood, the front-wheel-drive 2016 Ford Focus ST gets a turbocharged 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder engine that delivers 252 hp and 270 pound-feet of torque. It's mated to a six-speed manual transmission that includes hill-start assist.

In Edmunds testing, the Ford Focus ST accelerated from zero to 60 in 6.4 seconds, which is a bit sluggish for this type of performance car. That's partly explained, however, by the fact that you have to shift into 3rd gear to hit 60, which puts a little extra time on the clock; most rivals with manual transmissions can get there in 2nd gear.

The EPA estimates that the Focus ST will achieve 26 mpg combined (23 city/32 highway), a respectable showing for a hot hatch.

brian125

The 2016 Honda's Civics' Turbo if I read it correctly was @280 h/p.

explorerx4

@benjaminh,
Same as you, just the next review down the list with a manual transmission.
Maybe a base Civic will be lighter than the current one, but once you go turbo, a bunch of stuff needs to be larger.
C&D tested the heavy Titanium Escape, same as my wife has, with the 2.0 and 0-60 in 7.0 seconds.
caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-ford-escape-titanium-20l-ecoboost-4wd-test-review-features-features-and-more-features-page-3
My lighter SEL grocery getter is much faster.

benjaminh

But the 2016 Civic EX-T 1.5 turbo will apparently only be available with the auto trans. It's better to compare similar cars with similar transmissions when possible.

Motor Trend:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/1406_2015_volkswagen_golf_tsi_first_test/

"We clocked a Golf equipped with the automatic transmission at 7.8 seconds in the sprint to 60 mph and 15.9 seconds at 87.8 mph in the quarter mile, 0.4 second slower than a similarly powered Mazda3 to 60 mph..."

The new Civic Si 2.0T, which might not be out until the 2017 model year, is going to have a manual trans.

explorerx4

Just because the Civic is lacking a feature other competitors offer, shouldn't exclude them.

akirby

Yeah, but the Focus RS will do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and cost about $35K. It's not a hot hatch, it's a boiling-lava-hatch.

benjaminh

"In Edmunds testing, the Ford Focus ST accelerated from zero to 60 in 6.4 seconds, which is a bit sluggish for this type of performance car."

Sounds fast to me!

roadburner

benjaminh said:

Sounds fast to me!

Not hardly; my Mazdaspeed 3 dispatches the 0-60 run in 5.4 seconds dead stock- and even then I wouldn't say that an MS3 is all that fast.

m6user

I think he was being facetious.  

roadburner

m6user said:

I think he was being facetious.  

I'd hope so!

[Deleted User]

benjaminh said:

The way the EPA measures it, the 2016 Civic coming out in a few months will actually be classified as a "midsize car." Here's the math. The EPA says that if you combine the interior volume of a car with the trunk volume, a car needs to be at at least 110 cubic feet to be Midsize. The top of the midsize range is 119 cubic feet, and I think the Sonata goes just past that and all the way into full size territory.

Anyway, the current Civic LX has an interior volume of c. 94 and a trunk that's 12.5 cubic feet.

The 2016 Civic LX will, it seems, have an interior volume of c. 98 and a trunk that's 15 cubic feet, leading to a total volume of c. 113. Even the 2016 EX Civic, with the moonroof, will apparently have inside room of c. 96 cubic feet, and since the trunk is the same, it'll be around 111.

I don't think Honda's going to advertise is as a midsize car, but that seems to be what it is.

It's also going to have highway mpg of c. 42 mpg with the newly available 1.5 turbo, which is tops for the class, and acceleration with the turbo that is also going to be class leading, and might even break 7 seconds, which would be significantly faster than a 4-cylinder Accord with the auto.

The 1.5T is said to make c. 174 hp.

The only downside to the car I can see is that the rear visibility for the driver doesn't look very good. But the styling is pretty sporty for a Civic.

My good friend Scott bought a 2015 Si with the 205 HP 2.4 liter and a 6 speed manual with at first hard, but then amazingly comfortable seats and a nice office. There were a few ergonomic anomalies, but I quickly learned them. The main thing...the engine...was phenomenal. He let me wind it out, and there was none of the unpleasant sounds mine makes as it reaches redline. I think next time I would like a Japanese car, not a Korean knockoff. I just love the fluidic feel of the Honda engines. They are just a cut above. My only caveat is why Honda does not offer a longer standard warranty???

My high-pressure fuel pump died right after I got a recall notice (which I immediately had done) to have it's pressure lowered as apparently it was a frequently replaced item under warranty. Now, this did not leave me stranded, as the low pressure pump got me through the rest of my day AND over to the dealer w/o the indignity of a tow.
I can't help wondering that if it was a Honda engine it might have been better engineered, and the DI pump may never failed in the first place. Unfortunately, I am too old for a boy-racer Civic, and since I just moved and had to replace all my flat screen TV's the movers broke, the only vehicle I am in the market for is my own vehicle's status to change to "paid for". One more year. 13 payments and I am DONE. Other than the pump, no other problem has presented itself on my '12 Optima EX base.

[Deleted User]

benjaminh said:

explorerx4 said:

The Civic will be improved, but not nearly the quickest in it's marketed class or EPA classification.
2 off the top of my head are Golf 1.8 and Focus ST.

The Focus ST would I think be compared with the Civic Si, which won't be out for 6 months or so.

But I'm guessing the 2016 Civic 1.5 Turbo will beat the 0-60 time of the 2015 Golf 1.8T auto:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-volkswagen-golf-18t-tsi-automatic-test-review

"Acceleration times for this fully loaded 3135-pound Golf were unimpressive at 7.7 seconds to 60 mph and 15.9 in the quarter-mile."

As a hatchback, however, the Golf is a champ when it comes to total room. With room behind the backseat at an impressive 22.8 cu ft., and passenger room at 93.5, it gets a total of 116, making it a midsize car by the epa classification.

In terms of mpg the Golf 1.8T would have been impressive even a few years ago, but now the highway rating of 37 is just average. The Accord is also rated at 37 on the highway now, and the Mazda6, the current leader, is rated at 38. The new Civic Turbo is expected to get an epa rating of c. 42 mpg hwy.

The Golf and the Focus St are considered "hot hatches". The Civic would not be directly compared most likely, but would be put up against other compact sedans...even though the EPA classifies it as a mid-size based on numbers....but common knowledge is that the Accord is Honda's mid size offering.

I am tired and can't thjink of the third popular "hot hatch" but perhaps it is the Mazda 3 with the 2.5. It will get slaughtered power wise...but most car mag's like the "balance" and "that X factor driving component that makes it fun despite it's power deficit". Heck, I think they SHOULD compare the Civic Si, but it will get put in with the Mazda 3 sedan, Hyundai Elantra, Chevy Cruse LTZ, the Dodge whatchamacallit. (we already know who is going to win here).

benjaminh

cski said:

....I can't help wondering that if it was a Honda engine it might have been better engineered, and the DI pump may never failed in the first place. Unfortunately, I am too old for a boy-racer Civic, and since I just moved and had to replace all my flat screen TV's the movers broke, the only vehicle I am in the market for is my own vehicle's status to change to "paid for". One more year. 13 payments and I am DONE. Other than the pump, no other problem has presented itself on my '12 Optima EX base.

KIA's are well-engineered cars, and Honda has had its own problems in the past with transmissions, etc. It's great you were covered.

Congrats on getting down to just one year of payments on your Optima.++

My 2008 Accord has long been paid for, but we still have 2.5 years of payments left on my wife's 2013 Accord. My car isn't quite to the point of putting a sticker on it saying, "Don't laugh—it's paid for," but it's true that I'm slowly getting ready for something new. But honestly there's nothing wrong with my Accord. Everything works.

As to your question of why Honda doesn't have the length of warranty of a KIA/Hyundai, well, as you know, nobody else has that kind of warranty! Hats off to KIA for doing that, but no one else is going to give that kind of coverage away for free.

I have wondered now that Honda is about to introduce turbos if they might lengthen their engine warranty, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Seems like it's going to stay at 5 years and 60,000 miles. That's still a lot longer than the warranties offered back until the early 1980s, which were 12 months and 12,000 miles.

I think it was Chrysler that started lengthening the warranties back in c. 1981? Wasn't that when Lee Iacocca introduced the "7/70 Protection Plan"?

akirby

If you think a warranty is free I have some oceanfront property for you in Arizona.....

benjaminh

For 2016, some midsize cars get even higher highway MPG.

Back in 2008, I was pleased that my new Accord was rated 31 on the highway, which seemed good, and was class-competitive at the time. Real world mpg is about the same as the EPA ratings.

In 2013, my wife's new Accord CVT was rated 36 on the highway, and we've often exceeded even that.

And now this year, some midsize cars are going even higher. The refreshed 2016 Accord is now rated 37 on the highway, which was just topped by the refreshed 2016 Passat, now rated 38, and all of them have now been exceeded by the refreshed 2016 Altima, which has a 39 mpg hwy rating.

Midsize cars are now getting higher mileage than small cars of about 10 years ago.

brian125

My 2013 R-spec 429 H/p Genesis gets 14 to 18 mpg in the city when I'm feeling like Mario on the roads. Pretty bad I guess. I have hit 25 mpg on the hwy on longer trips but that's driven 10/ 15 mph over the speed limit. Hyundai claims regular 87 oct. can be put in the car which I have never done yet.

Id like to get that 39 mpg with my motor.

sda

I have wondered now that Honda is about to introduce turbos if they might lengthen their engine warranty, but it seems like that's not going to happen. Seems like it's going to stay at 5 years and 60,000 miles. That's still a lot longer than the warranties offered back until the early 1980s, which were 12 months and 12,000 miles.

Though Honda doesn't offer the 5/60,10/100 that Hyundai/Kia does, my experience has been very positive. Last week the check engine light displayed on our Pilot. It is out of warranty, 5 years old and 78000 miles. Honda had a TSB and replaced 4 sparkplugs as the VCM system caused a mis-fire situation. No charge for the repair. ( I had the other 2 spark plugs replaced on my dime for good measure). We have also received an extended warranty on the liquid filled bushings on the Pilot to 120000 miles. On our CRV, we received an extension on the AC compressor. I know Honda had issues in the past with their 5 speed auto. We had an 03 Odyssey that was affected and an additional cooling line was installed. My point is that Honda has shown good will to stand behind their product. Because of this and the fact I have been satisfied with their vehicles overall, we have leased/owned 6 Hondas since 2003.

berri

I've owned several Honda's and agree they stand behind them better than most other manufacturer's. But having said that, I'm starting to wonder how good their engineering really is. My CRV has had multiple warranty extensions due to potential quality and mechanical problems Methinks they may be going Detroit with their vendors???

benjaminh

Yes

berri said:

I've owned several Honda's and agree they stand behind them better than most other manufacturer's. But having said that, I'm starting to wonder how good their engineering really is. My CRV has had multiple warranty extensions due to potential quality and mechanical problems Methinks they may be going Detroit with their vendors???

Well, at least they extended your warranties. What for, if I may ask? And you probably saw this several months ago. Apparently Honda has intensified its quality control in the last year. The quality issues were part of what forced past Honda President Ito to step down....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/international/honda-replace-president-chief-executive-takanobu-ito.html


"Honda, Grappling With Quality Problems, Will Replace Its President
By JONATHAN SOBLEFEB. 23, 2015

TOKYO — Honda Motor said on Monday that it would replace its president and chief executive, Takanobu Ito, a sign the Japanese automaker may be trying to draw a line under recent quality problems.

Honda has grappled with a series of safety issues and development delays. Although the origins of some of the problems — notably faulty airbags made by the Japanese supplier Takata — predate Mr. Ito’s tenure, other complications have been easier to attribute to him and his management team.

Last year, in response to an embarrassing string of events, Mr. Ito appointed a senior managing officer to oversee quality...."

berri

They have all been related to drivetrain I believe. The latest was something about sticking piston seals. I wonder if Honda took a spin with US Ivy League MBA's like Toyota's fiasco's during the Wanatabe days? 4 banger ToyHonda 4 bangers used to pretty much be indestructible. Now I've got a Camry and a CRV with potential oil consumption problems.

benjaminh

In terms of EPA combined mpg, the here's how I think things stand for 2016 for the base models of midsize cars with auto transmissions

Regal: 23
Fusion: 26 (or, if you pay extra for the 1.5T) 28
Malibu: 27
Dart: 27
200: 28
Camry: 28
Passat: 30
Sonata: 30
Accord: 31
Mazda6: 31
Altima: 31

[Deleted User]

brian125 said:

Here is Edmunds take on the 16 Focus St model

Powertrains and Performance

Under the hood, the front-wheel-drive 2016 Ford Focus ST gets a turbocharged 2.0-liter inline four-cylinder engine that delivers 252 hp and 270 pound-feet of torque. It's mated to a six-speed manual transmission that includes hill-start assist.

In Edmunds testing, the Ford Focus ST accelerated from zero to 60 in 6.4 seconds, which is a bit sluggish for this type of performance car. That's partly explained, however, by the fact that you have to shift into 3rd gear to hit 60, which puts a little extra time on the clock; most rivals with manual transmissions can get there in 2nd gear.

The EPA estimates that the Focus ST will achieve 26 mpg combined (23 city/32 highway), a respectable showing for a hot hatch.

I think Edmunds provides a more realistic, and less damaging approach to 0 to 60 times. The "Big Three" car mags use agressive 0 to 60 techniques that 95% of us would never do to our own cars. Like 5k rpm clutch dumps, multiple times. It also has to be an average of two runs. one down a runway, one back to cancel out any wind advantage one direction could provide.

I think friendly, infrequent, high speed "racing" is a lot more fun than stoplight to stop light. I enjoy 85 to 100+ mph speeds and how it feels to pilot a vehicle at that level, w/o all the wear and tear of burnouts and violent tranny shifts that can bust a half shaft, or more seriously the tranny itself.

My insurance company is less enthusiastic.

[Deleted User]

benjaminh said:

In terms of EPA combined mpg, the here's how I think things stand for 2016 for the base models of midsize cars with auto transmissions

Regal: 23
Fusion: 26 (or, if you pay extra for the 1.5T) 28
Malibu: 27
Dart: 27
200: 28
Camry: 28
Passat: 30
Sonata: 30
Accord: 31
Mazda6: 31
Altima: 31

Thanks Ben. Hey, I did a Craigslist deal with a fellow tech (monitor sale) at a local Starbucks. He had a 2013 Dart with the base 1.8, and went on quite a bit about having a lot of problems with it. Like I said (and many of you felt as well) adding Fiat as a partner didn't give me any confidence in improved Dodge quality. This poor guy, enchanted with it's looks, has had trans problems, a blown head gasket, and two A/C failures. He did not strike me as a high speed racer...and made a point of indicating he wanted good F/E and style w/o a big sticker. I felt bad for him. It could have easily been me. Kia was big gamble for me...but knowing the Sonata was underneath the enchanting styling,,,inside and out, gave me the confidence to buy.

benjaminh

What a story about that Dart. Just two years old. Yikes.