Midsize Sedans 2.0

explorerx4

If 0-60 is your criteria, my pickup will probably beat both of them. It most likely weighs at least as much as both of them put together.
I still enjoy driving my Fusion with a 1.5 4 cyl turbo, even if it can't compete with those numbers.

m6user

Not my criteria.... just information. And we enjoy driving our slower Mazda6 as well mainly because of the way it handles and the mpg it gets.

explorerx4

My criteria post was also just general information.
Magazine numbers don't mean a lot to me.

andres3

m6user said:

Not my criteria.... just information. And we enjoy driving our slower Mazda6 as well mainly because of the way it handles and the mpg it gets.

You'll be happy to hear that my brother in law somehow chose a new '17 Mazda 3 Grand Touring sedan when he was cross shopping a GTI and said he was interested in a hot hatch.

It seems the salesman used several "tricks" on him. He test drove the snail hatchback with the 2.0 Mazda motor, and then a 2.5 sedan, so he liked that the sedan had some guts, and thought the hatchback lacked them (but it is available with the better 2.5 too).

I noticed another trick used on my wife was used on him. These dual dealerships (in my wife's case it was a Subaru/VW dealership), and in my Brother-in-Law's case it was a Mazda/VW dealership. That tactic is to badmouth one of their brands when your comparing 2 vehicles. Most likely they'll praise the car paying the higher commissions with heaps of lauding, while being negative to the cross-shopped brand that they also sell. I think the idea is it builds credibility if their willing to be negative about something they sell (but it is a shallow thing).

On my wife they bad-mouthed the Alltrack while heaping praise on the Outback.

On him they bad-mouthed the GTI as overpriced and not worth the $30K sticker for the sport model. I told him if I was there I'd have retorted "that's why your selling it to me for $25K today" They also mentioned bad resale value (again, same line). However, I'd have been dealing with an Internet manager if I'd have gone with him so we would have never heard a line involving "sticker" in the first place. Amateur car buyers get taken advantage of!

m6user

I don't know why I would be "happy to hear" your BIL bought a Mazda3. I like Mazda but don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I don't associate dealer dirty tricks with any particular brand. Although, over the years I have noticed that every time I've test driven VW the sales experience was unpleasant. But that may be just in the Chicago market. The best experience was with Infiniti. Again, probably dealer specific. Not good to generalize without data.

suydam

When I test drove the Mazda hatch the dealer was pretty upfront (for a dealer). Of course I was pretty specific about what I wanted. The base engine is plenty fine for me. It's my favorite small hatch (don't shop VW). Lease terms were not good which is why I passed eventually.

Mr_Shiftright

Mazda 3 is a pretty old platform by now isn't it?

stickguy

It came out for MY 2014. Could stand a refresh, though it was a clean sheet design at the time.

andres3

I didn't mean to imply Mazda dealers use dirty tricks. I think it is the car sales industry in general.

As I mentioned, the Subaru/VW dealership pulled similar stunts. They'll really push the Subaru 2.5 motor because 97.5% of their inventory is that engine.

benjaminh

m6user said:

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.

C & D says:

"We just clocked the turbocharged 2016 Civic at 6.8 seconds to 60"

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-honda-civic-sedan-15l-turbo-test-review

andres3

stickguy said:

It came out for MY 2014. Could stand a refresh, though it was a clean sheet design at the time.

according to edmunds review, the '17 is refreshed with new fascias and suspension/ride tuning (much improved). Sounds like they dialed it in finally.

Interior is also said to have improved in the 3 to Mazda 6 level. 18" alloy wheels. I don't know what it stickered for or what he paid yet though. Seems to me not that much cheaper than a GTI potentially.

Quoting Edmunds:

2.0 L Mazda 3 sedan 8.3 seconds 0-60 (155 HP, I think 2800 lb?)
2.5 L Mazda 3 hatch 7.5 seconds 0-60 (3,100 lb. curb weight ; not bad for 184 HP).

Edmunds clocked the Civic Turbo at 6.9. Yeah, the Honda's will embarrass Mazda at your local drag-strip.

m6user

My error on the Civic 0-60 speeds for the new turbo. That is quicker than I thought. Maybe I was remembering tests of the 2.0?

stickguy

Next time you see a 3 vs. a Civic stock racing at the drags, let me know. I always like to see something that has never happened before.

benjaminh

m6user said:

My error on the Civic 0-60 speeds for the new turbo. That is quicker than I thought. Maybe I was remembering tests of the 2.0?

Yeah the 2.0 is definitely slower, over 8 seconds.

stickguy

1.5 is a nice motor. a lot quicker, and supposed to get better MPG too. If I get one, definitely will be the toib-o

benjaminh

stickguy said:

Next time you see a 3 vs. a Civic stock racing at the drags, let me know. I always like to see something that has never happened before.

Yeah.

But the bottom line is that many people (and I include myself) need to accelerate onto the freeway with a short merging distance, going 0-60 in a short amount of time and space. You'd think almost all cars in the 21st century would have plenty of power for that, but honestly my 2008 Accord was a bit sluggish in that Dept. I think that car was about 8.5 seconds 0-60 even if you pushed it—and it was kind of uncomfortable to keep it in second and run the rpms up to 6000 or whatever. With my 2016 Accord, which C & D says with makes it to 60 in about 7.5 seconds, I feel like I have plenty of power for this. That one second may not seem like a lot on paper, but when merging onto the freeway you can really feel the difference. It's not just more pleasant—it's safer too imho.

stickguy

well, I need a short soapbox visit. To me, car mag 0-60 times are relatively meaningless. First of all, other than CR, they are not obtained the way people drive on the road (clutch dumps, brake torquing an AT). Plus, it is not something that you do often. 30-70? 40-60? Yeah, that happens. Even merging onto a highway, you are normally moving, not peeling out from a dead stop! (though sometimes in westchester on the parkways, you just might!)

and not every car that has "flashy" 0-60 numbers excels at that, and some cars that don't look great at 0-60 are really good in the mid range, passing, etc.

benjaminh

Well, I go from a dead stop to 60 almost every day when I go to work, and when I return, because of stoplights right before the merging lanes to the freeway. 0-60 is not meaningless to me, or to some other people, which I think is one of the reasons it's one of many ways to measure a car.

I learned to drive on a 1969 VW bus. Merging with that was a nightmare. 0-60 in about 25 seconds. Yikes. Most cars were slower back then, but still, it was a bit of a thing.

stickguy

do you max it out though? Drag starts like the car mags do, and run it to redline?

power is nice to have of course. but I still don't believe that a half second or a full second on that measure is crucial.

explorerx4

C&D posted some quick 0-60 for their long term Accord. It needed a new clutch before 30k.
My Fusion(1.5 turbo) is not considered to be a fast car, but from a stop, it has no problem getting up to speed.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

do you max it out though? Drag starts like the car mags do, and run it to redline?

power is nice to have of course. but I still don't believe that a half second or a full second on that measure is crucial.

Only rarely do I max it out. But once-in-a-while with heavy traffic I need to floor it for a second or two.

As I said, a second difference in 0-60 can make a difference in that situation. If it doesn't matter to you—fine. But it does matter to some people.

sda

Though the CVT in the Accord is not my favorite, I can't fault its smoothness in bumper to bumper traffic, its ability to handle hilly roads without bogging, actually feeling quite neutral as if the hill wasn't there and not having the general indecisiveness of a typical automatic. It can have a kind of rubbery feeling, a kind of subtle back and forth motion sometimes when given a quick press on the accelerator but not flooring it. I do miss the familar sound and shifts of a conventional automatic when accelerating 0-60, etc but even though it may sound different, droaning somewhat, it accelerates surprisingly briskly. I have really been impressed how quickly it can accelerate from 50-70+. It just scoots.

stickguy

in some ways, better than a normal AT that jumps into top gear by about 30 MPH, and is loath to leave it!

explorerx4

Traditional method is to brake torque if you need extra oomph from a start.
Maybe it doesn't work that way with a CVT.

Michaell

I've done the brake torque a few times with the Jetta, to keep the engine on boost when I pull away from a dead stop. Fun, but not something I'd do all the time.

On the occasions where I take the highway, the merge ramp is nice and long, but uphill. Speed limit is 75 and there usually isn't much traffic (toll road). Last week, I took the MINI to the dealer for service, and was behind a Cayenne Turbo on the on-ramp. I didn't see any brake lights, so I know the driver was just using the loud pedal, but man, there must have been an egg under it, they were accelerating so slowly. As soon as it was safe, I booted the MINI and got around that rolling road block in a hurry.

roadburner

Michaell said:

I've done the brake torque a few times with the Jetta, to keep the engine on boost when I pull away from a dead stop. Fun, but not something I'd do all the time.

On the occasions where I take the highway, the merge ramp is nice and long, but uphill. Speed limit is 75 and there usually isn't much traffic (toll road). Last week, I took the MINI to the dealer for service, and was behind a Cayenne Turbo on the on-ramp. I didn't see any brake lights, so I know the driver was just using the loud pedal, but man, there must have been an egg under it, they were accelerating so slowly. As soon as it was safe, I booted the MINI and got around that rolling road block in a hurry.

I was driving my old Pathfinder down an on ramp one drzzly morning and came up on a car just crawling along. It was a WRX STi. I marvelled at how terribly incompetent its operator(calling him "driver" is way too generous) must be.

nyccarguy

If they are going THAT slow, then I have already jumped on the highway and across 3 lanes of traffic while they are slowing down praying for someone to let them in at the end of the on ramp.

backy

Another sign of the decline of the Mid-Sized Sedan in favor of smaller cars: in my local paper today I saw an ad from a car dealer with side-by-side sign-and-drive lease deals for the 2017 Civic LX AT sedan and 2017 Accord LX AT sedan. 36 month leases, 12k miles/year. The Civic is $225/month. The Accord is $209/month. I guess Honda is doing that because the Civic is outselling the Accord, and they want to pump up Accord sales/leases. Another local Honda dealer advertised the $209 sign-and-drive deal on the Accord LX in the same paper. (In my area, Honda dealers never advertise purchase pricing of new cars, only lease deals.)

On the facing page from the Civic & Accord ad, there's an ad from a Ford dealer with a $224/month sign-and-drive lease deal for a Focus with MSRP $18,745, and next to it there's an ad for a $229/month sign-and-drive lease deal on a Fusion SE, MSRP $25,700.

Honda and Ford must have a ton of money on the hoods of their mid-sizers. I'm sure others do also, especially Hyundai. And it will be increasingly difficult to move new cars over the next few years as there's a ton of cars coming off lease (see sample story below), depressing prices for both new and used cars. Good news for car buyers... bad news for car sellers!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/05/27/off-lease-used-cars-flooding-market-pushing-prices-down/102202664/

pensfan83

My brother got a very nice deal on his Fusion last month, they were very motivated to sell it. The Fusion Sport caught my eye and some of the dealers around here have them marked 10% off sticker before applying $2,500-$3,000 in incentives. Considering it comes loaded for around $40,000 with all of the tech gadgets getting one OTD for around $33K/$34K is pretty good for a twin turbo 300HP AWD sedan.

akirby

Ford has let the Fusion and Focus languish and they're paying the price now requiring big incentives to move them. I think they need to fire the CEO and regroup. Oh wait....

berri

I think Ford may have also gotten bit greedy on sticker price on some of their vehicles.

sda

I think the same about pricing on GM cars. 30k or so for not even well equipped cars, gripes.

suydam

Which ones do you have in mind?

sda

suydam said:

Which ones do you have in mind?

Malibu, Equinox. And a nice Cruze is $25k ish. These are sticker prices and not the typical discount that can be negotiated yet the sticker price is high enough to discourage me from considering them.

berri

...when you compare that pricing to a Camry I guess it isn't surprising that Camry way outsells them. Of course, the exaggerated sticker means exaggerated sales which I don't think is good for a brand over time. I also think it can hurt sales because when people are just getting started looking, the sticker can eliminate a vehicle before a potential sale negotiation even takes place. There is a lot of choice out there.

akirby

The AVERAGE cost of a new car today is over $33K. Cars today come with a lot more base equipment than in the past.

akirby

sda said:

I think the same about pricing on GM cars. 30k or so for not even well equipped cars, gripes.

Fusion starts at $22K. $30K gets you a very well equipped Titanium or a fully loaded SE. A $30K msrp titanium street price is probably $25K.

imidazol97

To be fair to all brands, the comparison of prices, list, needs to be made between models with comparable equipment. That's sometimes difficult to do because the packages may mean to get blind spot alert the buyer had to end up with a sunroof. In mainstream auto media comparisons, they often pick a price point as maximum price for all cars in the group which is a disadvantage to one and a good price point as far as equipment on another brand.

Comparing the base prices doesn't serve well. It's in the same category with putting a bunch of cheapo models into rental/lease fleets. People see cheap and assume it's true of all models within the line.

Reminds me of the days long ago where the base models didn't have an armrest on other doors except the driver's door and had only one sun visor just to keep the price lower.

thebean

imidazol97 said:

To be fair to all brands, the comparison of prices, list, needs to be made between models with comparable equipment. That's sometimes difficult to do because the packages may mean to get blind spot alert the buyer had to end up with a sunroof. In mainstream auto media comparisons, they often pick a price point as maximum price for all cars in the group which is a disadvantage to one and a good price point as far as equipment on another brand.

Comparing the base prices doesn't serve well. It's in the same category with putting a bunch of cheapo models into rental/lease fleets. People see cheap and assume it's true of all models within the line.

Reminds me of the days long ago where the base models didn't have an armrest on other doors except the driver's door and had only one sun visor just to keep the price lower.

Was that just after they quit having running boards?

imidazol97

It was in the 50's. That was the days of manual chokes, no power steering, no power brakes, and really cheap interior plastic on the seats. I don't recall any having running boards then. But I know pickup trucks some farmers had around did have running boards.

Sandman6472

Drove a couple new Honda Civic's today at work. They do their job well and look nice, inside and out. Would I buy another...not so sure. Also saw a new Hyundai Inquoiq(?), their hybrid this morning with temp tags in a white. Very very nice looking and hear the mpg's are pretty impressive. Will definitely be checking one of those out also when the time comes. There really is so much out there that one has to do a lot of driving and research to find what best suits their needs. Luckily we don't have to do this too often because always confusing to be sure we got the best deal possible. But most times feel the dealer still made out pretty good! But, I want to pay a price which is fair to both sides as they have to make a profit and I have to buy the best vehicle for my needs at the best price I can. A tough thing to sort out many times!
Right now, my Golf is safe on it's side of the garage...at least for a couple of more years!!

The Sandman

stickguy

I plan to take a serious look at the Ioniq when I am shopping in the fall.

I also never worry about "the deal". That is the easy part. Deciding what to actually buy, that is the tricky part!

Mr_Shiftright

imidazol97 said:

It was in the 50's. That was the days of manual chokes, no power steering, no power brakes, and really cheap interior plastic on the seats. I don't recall any having running boards then. But I know pickup trucks some farmers had around did have running boards.

I don't think any 50s domestic cars had running boards.

Sandman6472

That white Ioniq I saw on the road the other day looked pretty cool, think it looks better that the Kia counterpart, the Niro I think they call it. Do like the 5 doors though and one day will give them both a try. Love the mpg's but honestly, should be looking while I'm still working to take advantage of those mpg's. Once I retire again, not going to worry about how many miles I get and will be driving for the fun of it.
Saw a brand new dark blue Kia Soul at the airport check-in for new vehicles Hertz bought. They had every color parked in a row, must've been around 25 of them, but this blue color caught my eye right away. Not as light as mine, a dark navy blue which was dazzling in the sun. Looking back, probably should've gone with the Soul instead of that Tucson as they drove very similarly with the Soul being a more manageable size. The new 2017 I drove yesterday had the updated infotainment system which works quite well and looks fantastic. Hyundai and Kia do very nice jobs with their newer vehicles and would not feel bad about driving any of them now...they just do everything right like the Japanese did in the 80's and 90's. Great creature comfort for the price and also "cheap to keep" What more could any drive ask for?

The Sandman

benjaminh

Top 12 selling cars in the US for May:

Accord 33,547 +5%

Corolla 32,937 -10%

Camry 32,547 -11.8%

Civic 31,989 -9.6%

Altima 23,994 -15.5%

Fusion 21,603 -12.1%

Malibu 20,718 -14.4%

Sentra 18,371 -9.1%

Focus 17,244 -1.2%

Cruz 17,120 +2.7%

Elantra 16,407 -26%

Sonata 12,605 -20.6%

benjaminh

Optima 10,789 -1%

Passat 5,455 -23.5%

Legacy 4,628 -12.1%

Mazda6 2,708 -46%

Mr_Shiftright

Poor Mazda. Somebody needs a re-do.

nyccarguy

Mr_Shiftright said:

Poor Mazda. Somebody needs a re-do.

Give it some guts!

Michaell

nyccarguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Poor Mazda. Somebody needs a re-do.

Give it some guts!

Start with the 2.5T from the CX-9 - that would do wonders.

As long as it was offered with a stick shift.

andres3

Michaell said:

nyccarguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Poor Mazda. Somebody needs a re-do.

Give it some guts!

Start with the 2.5T from the CX-9 - that would do wonders.

As long as it was offered with a stick shift.

Skip that.... I think they should source Infinity's 300 HP+ motors and become a company that is "zoom-zoom" in a more substantial way than marketing commercials. Infinity motors in a Mazda makes more sense than the Infinity/Mercedes partnership.