Midsize Sedans 2.0

Michaell

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda could survive with no sedans at all. Not would they try. They already cut it down from 3 models to 2. I suppose it is possible they could combine the 3 and 6 into one model (like when Acura merged the TSX and TL into the TLX). My guess, however, is they keep both the 3 and 6.

Hey, I'm glad they offer them. I think I'm going to test drive a 6 pretty soon - gotta get either @breld or @jpp5862 to accompany me for moral support.

Michaell

Michaell said:

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda could survive with no sedans at all. Not would they try. They already cut it down from 3 models to 2. I suppose it is possible they could combine the 3 and 6 into one model (like when Acura merged the TSX and TL into the TLX). My guess, however, is they keep both the 3 and 6.

Hey, I'm glad they offer them. I think I'm going to test drive a 6 pretty soon - gotta get either @breld or @jpp5862 to accompany me for moral support.

Just looked at the inventory of the closest Mazda dealer - they have 3 MT equipped 6's. 2 Tourings and a Sport.

jpp75

Michaell said:

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda could survive with no sedans at all. Not would they try. They already cut it down from 3 models to 2. I suppose it is possible they could combine the 3 and 6 into one model (like when Acura merged the TSX and TL into the TLX). My guess, however, is they keep both the 3 and 6.

Hey, I'm glad they offer them. I think I'm going to test drive a 6 pretty soon - gotta get either @breld or @jpp5862 to accompany me for moral support.

I'm in! I want to try out a 3 hatch while we're there.

Michaell

jpp5862 said:

Michaell said:

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda could survive with no sedans at all. Not would they try. They already cut it down from 3 models to 2. I suppose it is possible they could combine the 3 and 6 into one model (like when Acura merged the TSX and TL into the TLX). My guess, however, is they keep both the 3 and 6.

Hey, I'm glad they offer them. I think I'm going to test drive a 6 pretty soon - gotta get either @breld or @jpp5862 to accompany me for moral support.

I'm in! I want to try out a 3 hatch while we're there.

And you'll be in town when?

Aren't you executing the move in the next few weeks?

stickguy

I really liked the 6. When I was test driving 2 years ago (during the time where the plan was for me to get a new car, and pass the Sonata down to the princess. A plan, that was never a very smart plan) it was one of my favorites. And my local dealer had a dark blue stick (touring I think) equipped exactly how I wanted it. That was tempting. Though the winner would have been the cheap lease Si Civic probably!

I only have 6 months (well, 5 months, 3 weeks) left before I am carless (or, car sharing with the wife). Really cutting it close this time!

Michaell

stickguy said:

I really liked the 6. When I was test driving 2 years ago (during the time where the plan was for me to get a new car, and pass the Sonata down to the princess. A plan, that was never a very smart plan) it was one of my favorites. And my local dealer had a dark blue stick (touring I think) equipped exactly how I wanted it. That was tempting. Though the winner would have been the cheap lease Si Civic probably!

I only have 6 months (well, 5 months, 3 weeks) left before I am carless (or, car sharing with the wife). Really cutting it close this time!

Plenty of time to test drive all the options and make a clear, level headed decision.

stickguy

even more for you, starting 2,5 years early!

Michaell

stickguy said:

even more for you, starting 2,5 years early!

It's cheap entertainment.

andres3

ab348 said:

The Si is likely not a bad car. Not really in the same class as a GTI though in terms of driving dynamics. VW and Honda are pretty much diametrically opposed in that department. People who like one don't like the other. And then there is the matter of the Honda's size and styling.

Ahhh... you found an exception in me.

I like Honda and VW/Audi; including the driving dynamics of all 3. Surely, some Honda models are softly sprung, but certain models I'm sure compare well, like Si models, and V6 Accord Coupe models have a sportier suspension than even V6 sedan models, which in turn are sportier than 4-cylinder models (although you get a weight penalty). Surely, the Honda's don't quite inspire enthusiasts, but I think that's precisely what the Si and type R models are intended to do).

andres3

stickguy said:

read through. 2 things that really bug me. The tiny (12 gallon? Really?) gas tank. And no spare tire or place for one thanks to the center exhaust (style over function). Just a mobility kit and toll free #. Yeah, don't think that is going to fly.

I would hate to have to eliminate a car I really like over something as silly as no spare (and not even run flats, not that I want them either). But the bombed out roads around here, just make me gun shy!

Could you live with the spare taking up some of your trunk space? Seems like a bolt or two and you'd be able to keep a spare secure in the trunk.

stickguy

I probably would, but it would trash the trunk space, so defeats the purpose.

I remember looking at a Volvo S60 (used) a couple of years back, and checked the trunk. It had a spare in a bag like that. Reminded me of a 1970s domestic, with the giant spare in the middle of the trunk.

At least in the Acuras (TLX and ILX) the spare well is still there, and they offer an actual option to add a spare and jack kit. Hyundai Elantra has the same deal.

My guess is, for a number of reasons, I would end up considering the Civic EX-L instead, with the CVT. But will certainly try them both!

benjaminh

In Car and Driver's road test they found that the manual turbo Civic was slightly slower to 60 (one tenth of a second) than the CVT....

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-honda-civic-hatchback-15t-manual-test-review

explorerx4

Well, there is this:
The manual Sport does outperform the CVT in many other acceleration measures, however, cracking off a quarter-mile 0.2 second sooner, in 15.2 seconds at 94 mph, and reaching 100 mph 1.5 seconds earlier than the automatic version.
0-60 can be overrated. Some cars need to shift just below 60 mph, so after that there are a lot quicker.
If I'm comparing the acceleration of my vehicle to another, I'm not stopping @60 mph.

jpp75

Michaell said:

jpp5862 said:

Michaell said:

stickguy said:

I don't think Mazda could survive with no sedans at all. Not would they try. They already cut it down from 3 models to 2. I suppose it is possible they could combine the 3 and 6 into one model (like when Acura merged the TSX and TL into the TLX). My guess, however, is they keep both the 3 and 6.

Hey, I'm glad they offer them. I think I'm going to test drive a 6 pretty soon - gotta get either @breld or @jpp5862 to accompany me for moral support.

I'm in! I want to try out a 3 hatch while we're there.

And you'll be in town when?

Aren't you executing the move in the next few weeks?

I'm moving late next week, I'll text you details later.

berri

I suspect the cvt gets better mileage than the stick shift as well - computer power.

benjaminh

Yeah, the CVT gets slightly better mpg in the epa ratings.

stickguy

I believe that sticks tend to get better real world MPG than EPA estimates in many cases. Often the other way with an automatic. But don't make me prove it.

berri

When I was a kid Mobil used to run these economy competitions driving across the country. Man, some of those professional drivers could really ease those cars around to get every drop of gas mileage out of it. I think that might have been where the advice to drive your car like you have an egg between your foot and the pedal may have come from. In any event, it got a lot of press coverage well before fuel mileage was even that big of a deal.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

I believe that sticks tend to get better real world MPG than EPA estimates in many cases. Often the other way with an automatic. But don't make me prove it.

In my 2008 Accord with the 5-spped manual I struggled to get the epa numbers, city and highway. I was close, but maybe about 1 mpg under. And I'm not a lead foot. Well, not much of one. Most of the time.

But in my 2016 Accord with the CVT, I often beat the EPA highway number by 1-4 mpg. Just today I took had a 70 mile drive and got 41 mpg with the AC on, going 65-75 mph. 41 mpg! On that same drive in my 2008 Accord, in the same conditions, I think I'd get about 30.

Now, with a six speed manual, that might make a big difference. In my 2008 with the 5-speed I was pulling almost 3000 rpm at 70 mph. In the 2016 with the CVT it's about 1800 rpm. That's a lot of it right there. And a six speed would obviously help a bit there.

stickguy

what about around town driving? That is probably where you get a bigger impact.

but I always got even or better highway on my sticks, and most ATs tended to not sniff it (the Odyssey did not tend to get 26 MPG highway!).

benjaminh

Yeah, the around town mpg is better too. Part of it is the CVT, but part of it is that the 2016 is a little bit lighter, has a better engine, better aerodynamics, etc. Over the 9000 + miles that I've owned the new Accord my average mpg—maybe 60% highway/40% city—is c. 32.

sda

benjaminh said:

Yeah, the around town mpg is better too. Part of it is the CVT, but part of it is that the 2016 is a little bit lighter, has a better engine, better aerodynamics, etc. Over the 9000 + miles that I've owned the new Accord my average mpg—maybe 60% highway/40% city—is c. 32.

That is essentially the same I was getting until my commute changed. Now it is 40% city, 40% rural, 20% highway and am averaging 30 mpg. Still very pleased.

Mr_Shiftright

explorerx4 said:

Well, there is this:
The manual Sport does outperform the CVT in many other acceleration measures, however, cracking off a quarter-mile 0.2 second sooner, in 15.2 seconds at 94 mph, and reaching 100 mph 1.5 seconds earlier than the automatic version.
0-60 can be overrated. Some cars need to shift just below 60 mph, so after that there are a lot quicker.
If I'm comparing the acceleration of my vehicle to another, I'm not stopping @60 mph.

That's the case with the Sport--its gearing requires TWO shifts before 60 mph apparently.

andres3

stickguy said:

I probably would, but it would trash the trunk space, so defeats the purpose.

I remember looking at a Volvo S60 (used) a couple of years back, and checked the trunk. It had a spare in a bag like that. Reminded me of a 1970s domestic, with the giant spare in the middle of the trunk.

At least in the Acuras (TLX and ILX) the spare well is still there, and they offer an actual option to add a spare and jack kit. Hyundai Elantra has the same deal.

My guess is, for a number of reasons, I would end up considering the Civic EX-L instead, with the CVT. But will certainly try them both!

Are you thinking full-size spare or what I call the Frisbee spare. Certainly the tiny temporary spare wouldn't "ruin" the trunk space. Now a full-size, yeah, that would be an invasion in anything smaller than a mid-size SUV.

stickguy

A donut. And you would be surprised how much trunk space one of those takes up.

andres3

DSG's are hard to compare to manual transmissions lately. For example, in my previous S4, I believe the EPA said the City mileage was 1 MPG better in the DSG than with the manual, but the 6-speed stick managed to lose to the 7-speed DSG by 2 MPG on the highway.

However, that's nothing compared to the acceleration advantages. With the S4 and the Golf R, it seems that you may lose about half a second to 60 MPH if you choose to go old school with your transmission. .1 seconds is negligible, but half a second is enough to discern I think.

ab348

I think one of the reasons for cars losing spare tires (aside from savings to the manufacturer) is that the growing popularity of large brakes means that larger wheels are needed to clear calipers, and I haven't seen too many donut spares that large.

akirby

ab348 said:

I think one of the reasons for cars losing spare tires (aside from savings to the manufacturer) is that the growing popularity of large brakes means that larger wheels are needed to clear calipers, and I haven't seen too many donut spares that large.

18s will clear most rotors and they certainly have plenty of those available as temp spares. We have 22s on our MKX and we have a temp spare.

roadburner

Three of my cars have no spare but only one of them is equipped with RFTs. I don't worry about it. That said, If the lack of a spare bothers you I'll note that BMW is beginning to offer temporary spare tires as an option or as an aftersales accessory.

andres3

My S4 came with a 19" spare donut, 18" OEM wheel. TTS OEM is 19", but dealers always order them with the 20" upgrades, and the donut is 19".

Came in super handy when I had to drive 300 miles back home from Nowhere, CA on a Sunday afternoon/evening.

berri

Aren't those donut spares designed for 50 miles? Whatya gonna do

stickguy

One of the car mags I think (or maybe top gear?) tested them, and they can go way more than that. 50 is just what they tell you for liability reasons. Plus, makers are smart enough to know that 98% of the donuts in trunks today are under inflated.

berri

Funny you mention that about under inflated. Awhile back I had a rental that had the low tire pressure warning come on. Messed with the 4 tires and couldn't get it to go out. Finally I thought could the spare be tied into it and it actually was. I don't think that is usually the case?

andres3

berri said:

Aren't those donut spares designed for 50 miles? Whatya gonna do

Yeah, supposedly 50 miles I heard or read somewhere at sometime. However, the spare is a Hankook so I trusted it at < 70 MPH on a cool and partially wet/rainy day (on the rear of the relatively light car).

You are supposed to stay at 50 MPH, but I take that to mean when it's 110 degrees out, your car is heavy, and you don't know how to drive or turn a car with skinny tires; similar to the tire associations idea that your bald tires should be in front with the new ones on the rear. Might make sense for novice drivers, but kind of silly for advanced drivers.

benjaminh

Car and Driver says the 2017 Sonata is "good enough":

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-hyundai-sonata-quick-take-review

"2017 Hyundai Sonata
It's good enough.
MAY 2017 BY GREG FINK PHOTOGRAPHY BY ALEX CONLEY

Overview: The 2017 Hyundai Sonata sings a familiar family-sedan tune. Spacious, relatively fuel efficient, and not especially fun to drive, the Sonata aims at the masses of mid-size-sedan consumers who care more about comfort and convenience than driving engagement. In short, the Sonata is the South Korean brand’s take on the Toyota Camry...."

More at the link.

Sonata sales hit an all-time high in 2012, but have been drifting downward.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/hyundai-sonata-sales-figures.html

2012 230,605

2013 203,648

2014 216,936

2015 213,303

2016 199,416

It looks like 2017 might be around 150k? Sedan sales in general are falling, but Sonata is falling faster than some others, perhaps because it's now even more bland than the Camry?

benjaminh

Honda is now claiming to have the best selling car in America at the retail level with the Civic:

http://hondanews.com/releases/american-honda-reports-april-sales-with-record-for-honda-trucks

"With another strong sales month of 31,211 units, Civic was easily the best-selling passenger car in America on a retail basis for the first four months of 2017"

YTD Camry has sold 114,887, while the Civic has sold 112,865.

But iirc c. 20% of Camry production is sold to rental fleets, while almost all Civics are retail.

Still, it seems like to be called the best-selling car in America it needs to be won in terms of all sales, retail and fleet. The Civic is close, but not there yet, and my guess is that Toyota will put as much cash on the hood as it takes to keep the Camry number 1. The lease subsidy is already impressive on the Camry. The ad right next to this as I'm writing is advertising a 2017 Camry lease for just 179 a months for 36 months with only 1500 due at signing. And i think they have 0% financing for 72 months.

m6user

Civic just had its major remodel(well done) which has really increased sales. Camry is coming out with its major remodel soon which also appears to be well done from what I've seen and heard. Should pick up sales.

benjaminh

m6user said:

Civic just had its major remodel(well done) which has really increased sales. Camry is coming out with its major remodel soon which also appears to be well done from what I've seen and heard. Should pick up sales.

Yeah, the new Camry seems like it will be pretty impressive. Might even topple the Accord off of C & Ds top 10 list. Looks like that's what Toyota is trying for.....

stickguy

I like civic. Was building one last night. An EXL (turbo) is pretty loaded, and is still MSRP UNDER 25k. Before discounts. So lotta car for money if buying new. Pretty quick, nice tweener size, fantastic MPG. Realistically, all the car I would need. ExT is even better value, but I really need the power drivers seat. One of these says I need to drive one. Will be getting my daughter to look at them next year too.

Michaell

stickguy said:

I like civic. Was building one last night. An EXL (turbo) is pretty loaded, and is still MSRP UNDER 25k. Before discounts. So lotta car for money if buying new. Pretty quick, nice tweener size, fantastic MPG. Realistically, all the car I would need. ExT is even better value, but I really need the power drivers seat. One of these says I need to drive one. Will be getting my daughter to look at them next year too.

I suppose as long as you are on the inside, it will be OK....

stickguy

It looks ok in white, and pretty good in cosmic blue. And I spend more looking out from it than looking at it. I will soothe my eyes with all the money I save on gas

Michaell

stickguy said:

It looks ok in white, and pretty good in cosmic blue. And I spend more looking out from it than looking at it. I will soothe my eyes with all the money I save on gas

Don't think I've seen either of those colors on the road.

With all the, ahem, busyness to some of the styling cues, some colors work better than others.

As I noted in my write up of the Nissan Maxima, the 'floating c-pillar' is muted when the car is a darker color. The car I test drove was white, so pretty noticeable.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

It looks ok in white, and pretty good in cosmic blue. And I spend more looking out from it than looking at it. I will soothe my eyes with all the money I save on gas

You would save on gas, but the Sonata is already pretty fuel efficient. The Civic is rated 36 mpg combined, which is great, but the Sonata is also a fairly good 28 mpg combined. Over a year, depending on how much you drive, you might save (according to the EPA) only $250 or so on gas...? Now, if you traded in the AWD RDX, you might be saving c. $1400 a year in gas. But I realize that's owned by your wife, so....But in addition to saving fuel, you'd also have a faster and sportier drive.

In spite of the naysayers here, I think the Civic sedan looks really good, inside and out. And as I keep saying the navigation on AndroidAuto works like a dream. So much easier than built-in navi. But the Civic Hatchback is rather garish and extreme—even though apparently it's a very good performer with a very functional design.

nyccarguy

benjaminh said:

stickguy said:

It looks ok in white, and pretty good in cosmic blue. And I spend more looking out from it than looking at it. I will soothe my eyes with all the money I save on gas

You would save on gas, but the Sonata is already pretty fuel efficient. The Civic is rated 36 mpg combined, which is great, but the Sonata is also a fairly good 28 mpg combined. Over a year, depending on how much you drive, you might save (according to the EPA) only $250 or so on gas...? Now, if you traded in the AWD RDX, you might be saving c. $1400 a year in gas. But I realize that's owned by your wife, so....But in addition to saving fuel, you'd also have a faster and sportier drive.

In spite of the naysayers here, I think the Civic sedan looks really good, inside and out. And as I keep saying the navigation on AndroidAuto works like a dream. So much easier than built-in navi. But the Civic Hatchback is rather garish and extreme—even though apparently it's a very good performer with a very functional design.

With the amount of driving @stickguy does, gas mileage is irrelevant to him. He needs to get himself a Scat Pack Challenger with a Shaker Hood & 6-Speed Stick:)

stickguy

Way too big of a barge. But an Si could work! Or one of those ram express monsters.

Android auto runs google maps. One annoyance having iPhone is Apple car play won't. Get stuck with apple maps, which is considered inferior. Unless they have improved it recently.

nyccarguy

During month 2 of my Infiniti Q40 ownership (which will be up on 5/27), so far I have driven 1,960 miles and have spent about $275 in gas, averaging 20 mpg. I should be able to get one more fill up in by the 27th.

stickguy

I plan to test drive one of them too. Along with some sort if Q50. Because, why the heck not?

m6user

The RDX is faster than the Civic. I have about 40k on my 2013 AWD RDX and it has averaged over 24mpg since new. It's about 6.5 to 60. I think the Civic is more like 7.5.

andres3

Civic Type R?

m6user

Hardly. The 1.5 turbo or the 2.0 that the vast majority will buy.