Midsize Sedans 2.0

fushigi

Yeah, I'm in the snow belt.

andres3

fushigi said:

andres3 said:

fushigi said:

andres3 said:

nyccarguy said:

@andres3 - have em take a test drive in an Infiniti Q50 3.0t Premium.  They won't be dissapointed.

I think it's worth a test drive! What kind of OTD cost do you think would be a good deal on a new '17? (doubt any leftover '16 remain). They probably do want and could use the safety nanny bells & whistles, so figure a loaded trim-line but they have no need for "sport" options.

My local Infiniti dealer (Chicago suburbs) has web pricing posted that reflects about 14% off MSRP without haggling. 2017 Q50 3.0t Premiums with MSRP over $49K have web pricing around $42K.

Yeah, that's still going to be too much. Would have to be a leftover '16 or lightly used CPO. I have to say, I think Audi is going to sell a lot of these detuned 190 HP 37 MPG Highway 2.0T FWD A4's. Better to de-tune a fine 2.0T engine than put in a cheaper 1.8T VW unit! Of course, I saw a Mexican plate Audi with the 1.8, but in the US, that engine is not allowed in Audi's anymore My Audi snobbery is on display

And for the people that want a fast A4, the 252 HP 272 lb/ft of torque tuning on the 2.0T will satisfy many, and if that doesn't do the trick, then the 350+HP S4 is for you.

Well, if a 2.0t is fine, the Q50's 208HP/258lb-ft 2.0t is around $36-38K. That's with AWD; FWD should be less, of course, but my dealer doesn't have any stocked.

Even with the 2.0T in RWD the fuel mileage is only 23/31 though. Essentially a gas guzzler compared to the A4 Ultra. I'm sure it partly has to do with the old heavy chassis on the Infinity that weighs about 250 lbs more than the new German-engineered A4 Not a knock on the Infinity, the previous generation A4's weighed nearly as much, but the new ones have been put on a much stricter Aluminum diet.

stickguy

I was shopping leftover TLXs. and was impressed by the mileage ratings. The 290HP V6 was almost the same as the 4, at 21 city, 34 highway. not at all shabby for the level of performance. Plus it sounds good!

sda

Local dealers are listing new '17 Sonata Sports with the popular package (sunroof and more) for around 19k. That is a solid buy.

andres3

stickguy said:

I was shopping leftover TLXs. and was impressed by the mileage ratings. The 290HP V6 was almost the same as the 4, at 21 city, 34 highway. not at all shabby for the level of performance. Plus it sounds good!

That is impressive; I thought I just looked a 4-cylinder TLX yesterday and the sticker said 24/33! Fuel Economy.GOV verifies that number for 2018 models. Guess Acura overstated mileage before. V6 mileage is down too, and interestingly, the A-Spec further reduces mileage (as does SH-AWD).

stickguy

I think the 4 is 24/35.

andres3

stickguy said:

I think the 4 is 24/35.

See my revised and now researched and verified figures in my post above.

stickguy

I was looking at 17 my leftovers. Maybe he various tweaks for 18 account for the change.

benjaminh

Midsize sales for June

Accord 29,791 +3.4%

Camry 29,463 -9.5%

Altima 28,042 -8%

Fusion 18,139 -31.6%

Optima 11,252 +8%

Malibu 10,812 -33%

Sonata 9,547 -24%

Passat 5,267 -12.1%

Legacy 3,834 -23.7%

Mazda6 2,360 -44.1%

stickguy

dang. Sonata really cratering. Hard to believe 3x as many people will buy an Altima instead.

andres3

stickguy said:

dang. Sonata really cratering. Hard to believe 3x as many people will buy an Altima instead.

Sonata has the Optima twin to boost sales past Ford. However, Mazda 6 has fallen off a cliff.

ab348

It's actually hard to believe that (1) Optima outsells Sonata given Hyundai's desperate attempts to shove them out the door and (2) Mazda 6 sales can fall so much considering how few they actually sold in the past.

andres3

ab348 said:

It's actually hard to believe that (1) Optima outsells Sonata given Hyundai's desperate attempts to shove them out the door and (2) Mazda 6 sales can fall so much considering how few they actually sold in the past.

I have a feeling that Kia matches Hyundai's incentives.

explorerx4

Aren't Accord and Camry getting a redesign for 2018? They want to get the 2017's off the lot.

sda

Local dealers have new Sonata Sports with the popular package which includes a sunroof, leather wrapped steering wheel and more for just under $19k. That has to be a solid buy.

stickguy

Accord and Camry are both total redesigns for 2018. I saw the Camry at the Philly car show. really interested though to see the Accord when they finally release pictures.

m6user

I read somewhere that the new Camry 4cyl in both the reg and hybrid requires premium fuel. I pay .80 more for premium in Chicago area Shell stations. That would be quite the upcharge. The 300+ 6cyl uses regular. I haven't read it anywhere else so it's possible the article I read was wrong. Anybody know for sure?

stickguy

that is crazy. Can't believe Toyota would do that. Won't make their core clientele happy.

suydam

I'd be very surprised.

benjaminh

Compact sales for June:

Corolla 31,051 -4.5%

Civic 30,909 -2.8%

Sentra 22,042 +8.7%

Focus 15,575 -20.1%

Elantra 13,297 -68.6%

Cruze 12,828 -31.3%

Forte 11,387 +19.5%

Jetta 9,999 +16.1%

Impreza 7,858 +57.4%

Sonic 6,550 -13.6%

Mazda3 6,473 -22.9%

benjaminh

SUVs in this price range for June:

Rogue 34,349 +17.4%

Rav4 34,120 +24.7%

Equinox 29,182 +49%

CR-V 28,342 -4.3%

Escape 27,151 -6.4%

Forester 15,440 +28.4%

stickguy

Jetta doing good for an again model that is about to be replaced. Cheap selling helps I guess.

and I can't believe that many people buy the Sentra. Definitely an also ran in this class. Though again, plenty of people only care about the price, not how it drives.

explorerx4

Nissan's seem to have a lot of features, which people like.
Just remembered, my BIL who drives a 5 Series, rented a Sentra and said it wasn't bad.

Mr_Shiftright

stickguy said:

Jetta doing good for an again model that is about to be replaced. Cheap selling helps I guess.

and I can't believe that many people buy the Sentra. Definitely an also ran in this class. Though again, plenty of people only care about the price, not how it drives.

The Altima and Sentra seem to have a formula for success---"Do nothing very well but nothing too badly either".

If you think about it, these are cars that draw absolutely no attention to themselves.

pensfan83

Well now it makes sense why the dealer was willing to break open the vault for me on the Fusion. Probably just trying to move metal at this point...

akirby

pensfan83 said:

Well now it makes sense why the dealer was willing to break open the vault for me on the Fusion. Probably just trying to move metal at this point...

Mark Fields really screwed Ford the last couple of years. Fusion is going on its 6th year with no significant visual changes and will continue at least a couple more. Focus is on its 7th year with the horrible transmission. He tried to keep the current Explorer around a few more years even though a new one was already in development on a new platform. It will take Ford a few years to get back on track with new models.

ab348

Ford always seems to do that.

akirby

ab348 said:

Ford always seems to do that.

Yes but Mulally was reversing that trend. Fields basically undid all the good stuff that Mulally started and put Ford at least 2-3 years behind in product development. Seems Fields was trying to cut costs and maximize profits at the expense of long term market share and customer satisfaction. The frustrating part is they are solidly profitable - $7B-$9B per year with $27B in cash on hand - so they could have afforded to invest more in product development and quality control but he chose not to do that. Good riddance.

berri

That's the way corporate executive bonus packages are structured encouraging this short sightedness

akirby

I don't know - sounded like the board didn't agree with that approach either. Maybe he fell into the trap of trying to maximize short term stock price which is always a recipe for long term disaster.

explorerx4

On the other hand, the F Series is state of the art. That's where the money has been and is.

[Deleted User]

fushigi said:

We've become a sedan / SUV household. Wife likes smaller cars (currently driving a '12 Elantra) but I really like the CUV/SUV category. Easier entry/exit and higher driving seating position are, for me, much nicer than lowering myself to get in and having to basically climb out of a sedan. I've a bum knee so it takes substantially more effort - and some pain - to deal with a car v. something that rides at CUV height. I don't care much that fuel economy is worse as I average only 8K or so miles a year.

Even with a CVT my QX60 is plenty fast; C&D clocked it at 7.1 seconds to 60. For '17, Infiniti/Nissan bumped the 3.5 to 295HP/270ft-lb so there's power to spare. It's only turning around 2100 RPMs at 80MPH and 2400 at 90. With the 3rd row in use.

I am sorry, but I have become confused by Infiniti's naming system. I swore I saw a Q60 on the highway and it was a slinky sports sedan.

[Deleted User]

pensfan83 said:

Test driving a Fusion Sport on Friday...first step in determining whether I bail on a sedan and join the SUV crowd

Mustang Mustang Mustang!!!!

nyccarguy

cski said:

fushigi said:

We've become a sedan / SUV household. Wife likes smaller cars (currently driving a '12 Elantra) but I really like the CUV/SUV category. Easier entry/exit and higher driving seating position are, for me, much nicer than lowering myself to get in and having to basically climb out of a sedan. I've a bum knee so it takes substantially more effort - and some pain - to deal with a car v. something that rides at CUV height. I don't care much that fuel economy is worse as I average only 8K or so miles a year.

Even with a CVT my QX60 is plenty fast; C&D clocked it at 7.1 seconds to 60. For '17, Infiniti/Nissan bumped the 3.5 to 295HP/270ft-lb so there's power to spare. It's only turning around 2100 RPMs at 80MPH and 2400 at 90. With the 3rd row in use.

I am sorry, but I have become confused by Infiniti's naming system. I swore I saw a Q60 on the highway and it was a slinky sports sedan.

Your eyes are playing tricks on you (or some dope re-badged his sedan), but the Q60 is a coupe. The dealer where I bought my CPO 2015 Q40 has this helpful guide posted on their website: http://www.pepeinfiniti.com/infiniti-model-name-changes.htm

If you take a look at my signature line, it says 2015 Infiniti G37X Q40 AWD.

stickguy

cski said:

fushigi said:

We've become a sedan / SUV household. Wife likes smaller cars (currently driving a '12 Elantra) but I really like the CUV/SUV category. Easier entry/exit and higher driving seating position are, for me, much nicer than lowering myself to get in and having to basically climb out of a sedan. I've a bum knee so it takes substantially more effort - and some pain - to deal with a car v. something that rides at CUV height. I don't care much that fuel economy is worse as I average only 8K or so miles a year.

Even with a CVT my QX60 is plenty fast; C&D clocked it at 7.1 seconds to 60. For '17, Infiniti/Nissan bumped the 3.5 to 295HP/270ft-lb so there's power to spare. It's only turning around 2100 RPMs at 80MPH and 2400 at 90. With the 3rd row in use.

I am sorry, but I have become confused by Infiniti's naming system. I swore I saw a Q60 on the highway and it was a slinky sports sedan.

Q is cars (sedan or coupe). QX is SUVs.

[Deleted User]

Seriously though, I have to think of the kids, and not about them fitting in the back seat of a new sedan, but by selling it to my mother in law for $3k ( just enough for a downpayment on a new car, whatever it is I decide). My car is worth around 12k retail...and it is for the kids. my 34 in a 25 ticket drops off in September, and GMeico quoted me less than $100 for either a Charger 392 R/T. or a 5.0.

The Optima is running like a top, but not being garaged is killing the finish. I still have 1500 miles left in the factory warranty, and my 5 years is up on December 23. If the extended warranty is transferrable then no problem, but if if it isn't, I will keep the car in my name until the extended warr is up, or one of my daughter's wrecks it, whichever come first! New brakes (slotted and cross drilled rotors) work better and better as time goes by. There was no choice in getting them slotted and not drilled, as one poster mentioned that "slotted I can see, but drilled is a bit much for a slow car". It has a top speed of 130mph. Not so slow to me.

[Deleted User]

andres3 said:

fushigi said:

andres3 said:

fushigi said:

andres3 said:

nyccarguy said:

@andres3 - have em take a test drive in an Infiniti Q50 3.0t Premium.  They won't be dissapointed.

I think it's worth a test drive! What kind of OTD cost do you think would be a good deal on a new '17? (doubt any leftover '16 remain). They probably do want and could use the safety nanny bells & whistles, so figure a loaded trim-line but they have no need for "sport" options.

My local Infiniti dealer (Chicago suburbs) has web pricing posted that reflects about 14% off MSRP without haggling. 2017 Q50 3.0t Premiums with MSRP over $49K have web pricing around $42K.

Yeah, that's still going to be too much. Would have to be a leftover '16 or lightly used CPO. I have to say, I think Audi is going to sell a lot of these detuned 190 HP 37 MPG Highway 2.0T FWD A4's. Better to de-tune a fine 2.0T engine than put in a cheaper 1.8T VW unit! Of course, I saw a Mexican plate Audi with the 1.8, but in the US, that engine is not allowed in Audi's anymore My Audi snobbery is on display

And for the people that want a fast A4, the 252 HP 272 lb/ft of torque tuning on the 2.0T will satisfy many, and if that doesn't do the trick, then the 350+HP S4 is for you.

Well, if a 2.0t is fine, the Q50's 208HP/258lb-ft 2.0t is around $36-38K. That's with AWD; FWD should be less, of course, but my dealer doesn't have any stocked.

Even with the 2.0T in RWD the fuel mileage is only 23/31 though. Essentially a gas guzzler compared to the A4 Ultra. I'm sure it partly has to do with the old heavy chassis on the Infinity that weighs about 250 lbs more than the new German-engineered A4 Not a knock on the Infinity, the previous generation A4's weighed nearly as much, but the new ones have been put on a much stricter Aluminum diet.

I just cant see paying for a car with a smaller engine (even though it is turbocharged it still has only 8 more HP than mine). If the 3.7 is available and you can talk him down then I think you will be far more satisfied in the long run.

[Deleted User]

nyccarguy said:

cski said:

fushigi said:

We've become a sedan / SUV household. Wife likes smaller cars (currently driving a '12 Elantra) but I really like the CUV/SUV category. Easier entry/exit and higher driving seating position are, for me, much nicer than lowering myself to get in and having to basically climb out of a sedan. I've a bum knee so it takes substantially more effort - and some pain - to deal with a car v. something that rides at CUV height. I don't care much that fuel economy is worse as I average only 8K or so miles a year.

Even with a CVT my QX60 is plenty fast; C&D clocked it at 7.1 seconds to 60. For '17, Infiniti/Nissan bumped the 3.5 to 295HP/270ft-lb so there's power to spare. It's only turning around 2100 RPMs at 80MPH and 2400 at 90. With the 3rd row in use.

I am sorry, but I have become confused by Infiniti's naming system. I swore I saw a Q60 on the highway and it was a slinky sports sedan.

Your eyes are playing tricks on you (or some dope re-badged his sedan), but the Q60 is a coupe. The dealer where I bought my CPO 2015 Q40 has this helpful guide posted on their website: http://www.pepeinfiniti.com/infiniti-model-name-changes.htm

If you take a look at my signature line, it says 2015 Infiniti G37X Q40 AWD.

Thanks. Maybe it was a 2 door. It was nice looking.Caught my eye in black and grey.

akirby

cski said:

I just cant see paying for a car with a smaller engine (even though it is turbocharged it still has only 8 more HP than mine). If the 3.7 is available and you can talk him down then I think you will be far more satisfied in the long run.

I disagree completely. I have a 2.0T Fusion and a 3.7NA MKX. The 2.0T has way more torque off the line and is much more fun to drive than the 3.7NA.

m6user

i found actual specs from Toyota and the required fuel for all engines is "87 octane or higher". Not real sure if that means you can use higher octane for grins or if it will increase performance. Kind of like some of Fords turbos recommend premium for better performance but allows for using 87. They increased combustion ratios quite a bit.

akirby

It all depends on the engine control logic. If it is programmed to advance timing as much as possible then using 89, 91 or 93 octane should improve performance. If it is not programmed to advance timing beyond the 87 octane setting then it won't do anything.

berri

We'll have to wait and see in the real world, but so far in reviews it sounds like the 2018 Camry reworked conventional 4 banger may outperform many of its turbo competitors while delivering better gas mileage and reliability.

stickguy

I am expecting a nice performance/MPG bump out of the new Accord too, if it has a fortified version of the Civic motor.

andres3

ab348 said:

It's actually hard to believe that (1) Optima outsells Sonata given Hyundai's desperate attempts to shove them out the door and (2) Mazda 6 sales can fall so much considering how few they actually sold in the past.

I have a feeling that Kia matches Hyundai's incentives.

akirby said:

cski said:

I just cant see paying for a car with a smaller engine (even though it is turbocharged it still has only 8 more HP than mine). If the 3.7 is available and you can talk him down then I think you will be far more satisfied in the long run.

I disagree completely. I have a 2.0T Fusion and a 3.7NA MKX. The 2.0T has way more torque off the line and is much more fun to drive than the 3.7NA.

It depends on priorities. If your priorities are reliability, smoothness and quietness, the larger extra cylinders engine will usually win out. If your priorities are performance and fuel economy, the smaller turbocharged engine will usually win out over the V6.

For my parents, they like the Lexus IS 350, but they are afraid of the IS Turbo.

suydam

andres3 said:

ab348 said:

It's actually hard to believe that (1) Optima outsells Sonata given Hyundai's desperate attempts to shove them out the door and (2) Mazda 6 sales can fall so much considering how few they actually sold in the past.

I have a feeling that Kia matches Hyundai's incentives.

akirby said:

cski said:

I just cant see paying for a car with a smaller engine (even though it is turbocharged it still has only 8 more HP than mine). If the 3.7 is available and you can talk him down then I think you will be far more satisfied in the long run.

I disagree completely. I have a 2.0T Fusion and a 3.7NA MKX. The 2.0T has way more torque off the line and is much more fun to drive than the 3.7NA.

It depends on priorities. If your priorities are reliability, smoothness and quietness, the larger extra cylinders engine will usually win out. If your priorities are performance and fuel economy, the smaller turbocharged engine will usually win out over the V6.

For my parents, they like the Lexus IS 350, but they are afraid of the IS Turbo.

Not necessarily. The Buick Encore has a smaller turbocharged engine, and is very quiet. Depends on how much sound insulation is built in too.

berri

I'll be curious 5 or more years down the road whether the stress of these rather small turbo 4's compared to a less revving conventional 4 banger will cause drivetrain wear more quickly. It is a turbo charger, not a turbo engine, so it is still using a conventional internal combustion engine while spinning it faster.

nyccarguy

berri said:

I'll be curious 5 or more years down the road whether the stress of these rather small turbo 4's compared to a less revving conventional 4 banger will cause drivetrain wear more quickly. It is a turbo charger, not a turbo engine, so it is still using a conventional internal combustion engine while spinning it faster.

Modern turbos are designed to work in conjunction with direct injection engines.  The result is a smaller Turbo and an engine that produces power in its lower and mid range.

The engines are engineered and designed with the Turbos.  It's not just slapped on to see how much power it can make in the upper limits of the rev range.

berri

I understand that and also realize they have gotten most of the spool up lag out of them, but I believe the operating temperature is higher than a non turbo and a turbo normally has a higher rpm. Both of those can have an affect over time I think. Conversely, a pure turbine engine like an aircraft has fewer parts to wear in that environment than a car engine. What really surprises me is that those smaller turbo's aren't necessarily resulting in great fuel mileage advantage and Ford (eg Fusion) is an example of that vice a lot of its competition. I suppose they may be using less high tensile metal content on it making it heavier? I guess my main point is if Toyota can make a conventional 4 banger that that meets or exceeds someone like Ford's turbo, why does the company go through the added complexity of a turbocharger and its expense?

roadburner

berri said:

I'll be curious 5 or more years down the road whether the stress of these rather small turbo 4's compared to a less revving conventional 4 banger will cause drivetrain wear more quickly. It is a turbo charger, not a turbo engine, so it is still using a conventional internal combustion engine while spinning it faster.

I ran a 2007 MS3 with a mild tune from 2007 to 2016. I put over 158k on it and it was running as well as ever when I traded it in(verified by used oil analysis and timed in-gear acceleration runs).

brian125

Pine Belt Nissan in NJ was offering big discounts on most of there models before July 5th . The Nissan Rogue was being discounted $7800 below any models MSRP. No wonder I see so many on the road.