Midsize Sedans 2.0

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, they're great until they break, then not so great. $$$ repair.

robr2

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah, they're great until they break, then not so great. $$$ repair.

I have a sunroof on 3 cars going back to 1991. I've never had one break.

backy

robr2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah, they're great until they break, then not so great. $$$ repair.

I have a sunroof on 3 cars going back to 1991. I've never had one break.

I've had two moonroofs: on a 2004 Elantra (never any problem) and on a 2000 328 Ci. The sunshade on that one broke after a few years. Replacement cost: $1000 (plus labor). I passed.

akirby

Buy a Fusion - moonroof is optional on all models.

Mr_Shiftright

They used to be a lot simpler in the old days.

robr2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah, they're great until they break, then not so great. $$$ repair.

I have a sunroof on 3 cars going back to 1991. I've never had one break.

suydam

I've never had a problem with a sunroof. 

Mr_Shiftright

And I hope you never do.

robr2

Mr_Shiftright said:

They used to be a lot simpler in the old days.

All my sunroofs have been the same:

a piece of glass
a motor
runners
a switch.

Don't see how they have become more complicated.

imidazol97

suydam said:

I've never had a problem with a sunroof. 

I understand you are serious and correct about sunroofs not giving trouble.

But when we were negotiating for our '14 Malibu and insisting we neither wanted the sunroof as an option nor a mandate, she said her cars have all had sunroofs but she never has any trouble because she never opens them. That avoids the problem! But still didn't change our minds into accepting a sunroof.

carboy21

robr2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

They used to be a lot simpler in the old days.

All my sunroofs have been the same:

a piece of glass
a motor
runners
a switch.

Don't see how they have become more complicated.

In the old days sun/moon roof meant just a fixed glass window.
Nowadays they slide open, they open at an angle and in some cars even the shade slide back and forth with the glass.
Its an unnecessarily complicated piece of hardware for those who will never open them during the life of the car

akirby

If you never open them then it doesn't matter how complicated they are. What does matter is the loss of headroom and the added weight.

Like I said they're optional on all Fords as far as I know - which brands are forcing you to get the moonroof?

roadburner

akirby said:

If you never open them then it doesn't matter how complicated they are. What does matter is the loss of headroom and the added weight.

Like I said they're optional on all Fords as far as I know - which brands are forcing you to get the moonroof?

Exactly- and the weight is added in the worst possible spot- the highest point of the car.

carboy21

akirby said:

If you never open them then it doesn't matter how complicated they are. What does matter is the loss of headroom and the added weight.

Like I said they're optional on all Fords as far as I know - which brands are forcing you to get the moonroof?

Most Japanese and Korean brands specially the loaded trims like Limited, Touring, EXL, Elite, XLE ...........
I had a hard time finding a Hyundai Elantra top trim Limited, without the moon roof.

ral2167

Just get the moonroof people. Lower the seat if you need more headroom.

akirby

But is that the factory not offering it or the dealers not ordering them without the moonroof? Can you order one without it?

stickguy

depends on the car. Limited Hyundais the roof is part of a specific options package. Accord EX, you want that level, you get a roof.

m6user

 Most, maybe all, Asian brands have standard and very rigid option packages.  If you want all the bells and whistles offered in top line offering, you must accept the sunroof.  They do it for manufacturing efficiency I guess.  It just bothers me that something that adds weight in the worst area of the car, costs extra, reduces headroom and has potential for problems from leaks, noise or malfunction is forced on me if I want other options.
Not the end of the world but I'm sure if the situation was reversed a lot of people that love sunroofs would be bitching like crazy.

carboy21

It just bothers me that something that adds weight in the worst area of the car, costs extra, reduces headroom and has potential for problems from leaks, noise or malfunction is forced on me if I want other options.

It bothers me too. Plus it creates a hazard during roll over crashes as it might be weakening the roof which we are not made aware off.

My another big beef is that with my Limited trim Hyundai Elantra, I was forced to accept the 17 inch wheels with small profile tires. I don't like them as they give a harsher ride and poor winter performance and more expensive tires. I prefer smaller wheels and larger profile tires. I want more rubber between the car and the road.

robr2

m6user said:

 Most, maybe all, Asian brands have standard and very rigid option packages.  If you want all the bells and whistles offered in top line offering, you must accept the sunroof.  They do it for manufacturing efficiency I guess.  It just bothers me that something that adds weight in the worst area of the car, costs extra, reduces headroom and has potential for problems from leaks, noise or malfunction is forced on me if I want other options.
Not the end of the world but I'm sure if the situation was reversed a lot of people that love sunroofs would be bitching like crazy.

For the 99.97% of the public that doesn't track their cars, the extra 40 lbs. on the roof isn't going to make a bit of difference. For those .03% that due, take it as an opportunity to become a better driver.

Sunroofs are offered because that manufacturer knows people want them and are willing to pay for them and they are profitable.

nyccarguy

Another sub-par tank fuel economy wise for my 2015 Subaru Legacy 2.5i. Last weekend I took the Legacy on it's first trip. Normally it is my daily driver on my 62 mile per day, 6 day a week, round trip commute from my home in Connecticut to my job in The Bronx, NY. I've been averaging 26.1 mpg per tank for the last 13 months and 20K miles. Last weekend's trip was for my 9 year old son's 1st hockey tournament in Marlborough, MA which is approximately 150 miles from my home in Stamford, CT. We stayed in a hotel that was about 4 miles away from the ice rink, making a few round trips, mostly with the car "cold." When the tournament ended, we drove into Boston, parked in a lot not too far off of the highway, and then left later Saturday afternoon. The drive from Boston back home was about 180 miles.

I was confident this was going to be my 1st tank breaking the 30 mpg barrier. Now that gas is cheap (I paid $2.10/gallon) this means nothing, but still. On the way up, I watched as my average mpg gauge (which reads about 2 mpg high) climb up and plateau at 34 - 35 mpg. I was optimistic. 478.6 Miles. 75% highway driving. 16.748 gallons. 28.6 mpg for the trip. Not even my best tank. This car is far from a performance car (I think 0-60 is in the 9 second range). It is however spacious, comfortable, & the AWD is amazing. For the performance I get from a 174 horsepower boxer 4 coupled to a CVT I just expect better fuel economy.

m6user

All you hear manufacturer's saying is that they add CVTs to greatly increase mpg but I just don't see  the big difference between them and newer traditional auto trans.

carboy21

m6user said:

All you hear manufacturer's saying is that they add CVTs to greatly increase mpg but I just don't see  the big difference between them and newer traditional auto trans.

The race to get higher MPG is a race towards diminishing returns.
I make it a point never to buy CT tranny cars hence my preference for Hyundai and Toyota.
CVT are a compromised disposable solution picked up from the the ATVs and the Snowmobiles where smaller engines and shorter distances are the norm. These belt driven "rubber band " and pulley systems are not made to last and no one knows their longetivity yet except some Nissan cars which were shoddy and troublesome when first introduced. Once broken, the CVT tranny need to be replaced at exorbitant cost or people just sell the cars before the [non-permissible content removed] hits the fan and the next sucker who buys the used CVT will be left holding the baby.
I will never buy, Subaru/Honda,Nissan who have sold their soul to the CVT at the altar of higher mileage God

akirby

The difference is shrinking but remember that in CAFE terms even 1/2 mpg can be big depending on the circumstances. It's not just the overall mpg but the vehicle's weight, option percentages, etc. that factor in. I remember Lincoln deleting the rear headrests from V8 LS models in 1999 to prevent it from going into a higher category.

ab348

carboy21 said:

CVT are a compromised disposable solution picked up from the the ATVs and the Snowmobiles where smaller engines and shorter distances are the norm. These belt driven "rubber band " and pulley systems are not made to last and no one knows their longetivity yet except some Nissan cars which were shoddy and troublesome when first introduced. Once broken, the CVT tranny need to be replaced at exorbitant cost or people just sell the cars before the [non-permissible content removed] hits the fan and the next sucker who buys the used CVT will be left holding the baby.
I will never buy, Subaru/Honda,Nissan who have sold their soul to the CVT at the altar of higher mileage God

Woman I know slightly locally had the CVT let go on her '09 Versa last week. Dealer quoted her $4900 for repair (presumably a new trans). Needless to say she did not go for it. I don't like Nissan much, never have, but this just adds to my disdain.

It raised an interesting question to which I do not know the answer: do transmission repair places actually repair CVTs or just replace them?

carboy21

ab348 said:

carboy21 said:

CVT are a compromised disposable solution picked up from the the ATVs and the Snowmobiles where smaller engines and shorter distances are the norm. These belt driven "rubber band " and pulley systems are not made to last and no one knows their longetivity yet except some Nissan cars which were shoddy and troublesome when first introduced. Once broken, the CVT tranny need to be replaced at exorbitant cost or people just sell the cars before the [non-permissible content removed] hits the fan and the next sucker who buys the used CVT will be left holding the baby.
I will never buy, Subaru/Honda,Nissan who have sold their soul to the CVT at the altar of higher mileage God

Woman I know slightly locally had the CVT let go on her '09 Versa last week. Dealer quoted her $4900 for repair (presumably a new trans). Needless to say she did not go for it. I don't like Nissan much, never have, but this just adds to my disdain.

It raised an interesting question to which I do not know the answer: do transmission repair places actually repair CVTs or just replace them?

Obviosly replace them. Nowadays they don't even repair cracked bumpers.

suydam

I have a CVT on my Honda Accord and I get much better FE than your Subaru. I think it may have more to do with the AWD than the CVT. I routinely get 28 mpg in town and on a long trip such as you describe, anywhere between 35-40 mpg depending on the terrain and weather.

Michaell

@nyccarguy - we got 27-28 MPG in our 2015 Outback 3.6R on a 1700 mile trip from CO to AZ and back. Pretty well loaded and 80-85 MPH speeds on the interstate. Not sure why you're getting such poor mileage from your 2.5i.

Something to think about as I contemplate my next lease a year from now.

Mr_Shiftright

remote control, dual or tri position, larger panoramic sizing, non replaceable glass, more difficult access, etc.

robr2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

They used to be a lot simpler in the old days.

All my sunroofs have been the same:

a piece of glass
a motor
runners
a switch.

Don't see how they have become more complicated.

sda

suydam said:

I have a CVT on my Honda Accord and I get much better FE than your Subaru. I think it may have more to do with the AWD than the CVT. I routinely get 28 mpg in town and on a long trip such as you describe, anywhere between 35-40 mpg depending on the terrain and weather.

My experience with my Accord mirrors yours. I have found getting 36-37 mpg fairly easy to attain with a/c on driving between 65-75 mph. About 6 weeks ago I drove to Pittsburgh and back. This included a lot of city driving and being caught in traffic that was at a virtual standstill for 3 hours due to an accident. For the trip I still averaged 35.7 mpg. The CVT was a pleasure driving up and down the grades in the mountains in VA on I-77, no bothersome downshifting and upshifting, just effortless driving. My only concern is long term reliability of the CVT. It has been fine so far and just turned 50000 mi. I do have a life time powertrain warranty, not sure if put to the test, it is worth the paper it is printed on. Hope I never have to find out. In the meantime, I continue to be very pleased the Accord.

stickguy

My sonata gets much better mileage too. Not so much real shirt hop around town, but definitely mixed and straight highway.

Did a couple RTs to citi field recently, so mix of highway and jammed NYC traffic, and still got 32-33 doing that one trip. Pulled a legit 34 running down to NC in the summer.

m6user

I know that many things go into the mpg battle but when you look at these midsize sedans they are really close in size, hp, weight, wind resistance, etc.  But, it doesn't seem like those with CVT are any higher mpg than others when the manufacturer's are touting them for increased mpg.  What would those cars get if using a 6 speed auto?  A Mazda6 gets like 38-40 hwy.  What could it get with a CVT?  I'm not buying the CVT sell job.

Mr_Shiftright

I wonder if they are cheaper to make? I do know that the cost of rebuilding them is a nosebleed.

carboy21

My 2015 Hyundai Elantra gives me 42 mpg on highway driveing without CVT . It is 5AT.

All the talk of CVT giving high mpg is just sales pitch.
CVT like any typical disposable engineering, is cheap to mass produced and a killer to rebuild.

People who buy CVT would be better off trading it in before they hit 50-80k miles or they will have to have tranny replaced costing at least $ 4k. Nissan had to extend their warranty when they first came out. Now they don't so hard luck to Nissan buyers

nyccarguy

My problem isn't with the CVT itself.  I happen to like it.  Very smooth and linear.  I'm not too worried about long term reliability.  I purchased a 5 year/100K extended warranty from Subaru.  If the CVT blows during the warranty period, then I'll get a new transmission.  If it blows out of the warranty period and is expensive to fix, then I just won't buy another Subaru.  

@Michaell - right.  Why does your Outback which is heavier, has more equipment, & a bigger motor getting better gas mileage than my 2.5L 4cyl.

Michaell

nyccarguy said:

My problem isn't with the CVT itself.  I happen to like it.  Very smooth and linear.  I'm not too worried about long term reliability.  I purchased a 5 year/100K extended warranty from Subaru.  If the CVT blows during the warranty period, then I'll get a new transmission.  If it blows out of the warranty period and is expensive to fix, then I just won't buy another Subaru.  

@Michaell - right.  Why does your Outback which is heavier, has more equipment, & a bigger motor getting better gas mileage than my 2.5L 4cyl.

Excellent question .. have you checked Fuelly to see what others are getting with both engines?

Granted, we get 21-23 in normal use, which is very little highway.

berri

CVT's and 8 or 9 speed automatics - aren't they kind of merging together these days???

Mr_Shiftright

Honda's coming out with a 10-speed!

stickguy

Posh, I had a 10 speed in 1973.

A Raleigh record.

stickguy

My sonata gets hammered in stop and go and real short trips, of which I have a lot of. Steady speed, pretty good for such a big, comfy car. Can't complain. And nice big tank!

carboy21

I want car companies to offer me more choices

1. Any higher trims without having to suffer moon roof
2. Any higher trims without having to suffer low profile tires with alloy wheels.
3. Any trim with option to have MT / AT / CVT

imidazol97

carboy21 said:

I want car companies to offer me more choices

1. Any higher trims without having to suffer moon roof
2. Any higher trims without having to suffer low profile tires with alloy wheels.

On first two, I thought I was the only person with those thoughts. I even told the
owner of my local Chevy store about the packages requiring sunroofs when he was
in the showroom and my Malibu was in for its free oil change. I'm not sure it registered
with him, but I suggested he pass it on when they have meetings for feedback.

m6user

I rented a 2015 Elantra and drove round trip from Chicago area to Dallas area.  Virtually no local driving as we drove around in my dad's Buick while there for a week.  R/T mpg was 37.5.  Set cruise at about 5 over and no construction delays of any mention.  Don't know how I would have had to drive to get 42!  Only me in car and one small suitcase.

akirby

carboy21 said:

I want car companies to offer me more choices

1. Any higher trims without having to suffer moon roof
2. Any higher trims without having to suffer low profile tires with alloy wheels.
3. Any trim with option to have MT / AT / CVT

You forgot the bench seat and column shifter options.

stickguy

The low profile tires annoy me. A moonroof you can ignore. Broken wheels thanks to bomb crater roads not so much.

Mazda 6 came closest. Could get higher line models with stick, and roof optional. But once you got to a level with basic required stuff, it had 19" wheels. Ridiculous on a mid size sedan!

sda

stickguy said:

Posh, I had a 10 speed in 1973.

A Raleigh record.

That was a better bike than my orange Schwinn Varsity that I bought in 1974, when I was 14. The Schwinn was heavy as a tank. I still have it--still in good shape, though I have a more current Diamondback to ride now, which I need to do more often. I am wary of a 10 speed automatic, however.

socal_eric

ral2167 said:

Just get the moonroof people. Lower the seat if you need more headroom.

Everyone should just get a minivan. Perfectly functional and nobody needs anything else. [/joking-sarcasm]

carboy21 said:

It bothers me too. Plus it creates a hazard during roll over crashes as it might be weakening the roof which we are not made aware off.

If anything, there's a good chance the roof structure is stronger on cars with a sunroof. If you look at most newer cars the roof strength is a primary function of the pillars and side structure of the car. Beyond the windshield header there isn't much structure side-to-side connecting the outer cage structure of the unibody.

Many don't realize that although brittle, glass is inherently very strong and items like the windshield play a key part in the structural integrity of a vehicle (which is why installation procedures of replacement glass is very important). The glass of a moon/sunroof that sits in rails to allow it to open/move isn't tied directly into the car's structure like a windshield but the automaker normally has to strengthen the roof structure to support the sunroof's frame assembly. That might very well increase the crush and deformation resistance for offset/side/lateral impacts to the upper greenhouse of the vehicle.

While the glass itself might fracture and not be as effective at keeping an unrestrained occupant inside the vehicle in a rollover type collision, the thin steel sheet metal panel of a conventional roof doesn't really have much impact on overall strength of the unibody. If you ever get a chance to walk through a self-serve junkyard and look at various cars that have the headliner remove you'll see most only have a very small brace to help hold up the sheet metal roof panel.

m6user

Why is this a debate on the pros and cons of moonroofs?  Who cares, it's just personal preference.  I just want to be able to get the high end bells and whistles without having to get a sunroof.
The 19" wheels on our new Mazda6 Touring look nice but I too wish we could have gotten 17" or maybe 18".  It's going to be an extra $250-$350 come new tires time.  But the big plus was we were able to get a lot of equipment on that model without having to get a sunroof.  The faux leather is really pretty nice.  Several people assumed it was leather.  They did a nice job on it. 

carboy21

akirby said:

carboy21 said:

I want car companies to offer me more choices

1. Any higher trims without having to suffer moon roof
2. Any higher trims without having to suffer low profile tires with alloy wheels.
3. Any trim with option to have MT / AT / CVT

You forgot the bench seat and column shifter options.

I did not select Captains seat and went for the bench seat in my 2010 Odyssey and it had a dash shifter
Though you wont find those options in a sedan .

stickguy

All buyers have their own particular hot buttons. But the Asian makers especially went to bundles. They go with percentages. Most people want or will pay for the option, easier to make it standard at some point. Mazda is a bit better than Honda for sure on the roof, but not wheels!

I guess you have some more flexibility on a ford, if you (and the dealer) are willing to do an order of an "oddball".

But mostly you get what they think people want, or go elsewhere. But the days of a 427 4 speed Biscayne wagon with dog dish hubcaps are over!

carboy21

stickguy said:

All buyers have their own particular hot buttons. But the Asian makers especially went to bundles. They go with percentages. Most people want or will pay for the option, easier to make it standard at some point. Mazda is a bit better than Honda for sure on the roof, but not wheels!

I guess you have some more flexibility on a ford, if you (and the dealer) are willing to do an order of an "oddball".

But mostly you get what they think people want, or go elsewhere. But the days of a 427 4 speed Biscayne wagon with dog dish hubcaps are over!

Wait till they come out with online ordering direct from the Manufacturer or from Amazon Motors and we can select whatever we like from the tick boxes and the car will be delivered to us with 2-7 day prime shipping when ready for delivery )
Now I have opened another can of worms by stating we do not need dealerships. Give us the option to order 'new car ' online from Manufacturers/ Amazon / CarMax / AutoNation / Truecar.

WE HAD ENOUGH OF BEING HELD HOSTAGE TO THE MIDDLEMEN .