Midsize Sedans 2.0

benjaminh

explorerx4 said:

It's not like the 17 Accord is obsolete, still could be a good choice.
Some people are afraid of turbo engines.

True. Also many are currently getting $4000+ off of msrp on the last of the 2017 Accords, while for the first month you'll probably be lucky to get $1500 off of the 2018 Accord.

Here are a few ways in which the 2017 Accord will arguably be better than the 2018 Accord....First, the current Accord has a CD player. It's true I rarely use mine, but I sometimes do. Anyway, no CD player as far as I can tell on the 2018 Accord. Second, no LaneWatch side camera on the 2018 Accord, which is a feature I like on my 2016 Accord. Third, the best-in-class rear visibility of the current Accord will be gone for 2018.

But, in most other ways, the 2018 Accord looks like it'll be better than the 2017.

suydam

The '17 still HAS a CD Player? How quaint! I had Lane Watch on my '13 Accord and for me the BLIS system is so much better. I'm glad Honda is ditching Lane Watch. Visibility is the area where Honda really stood out and it will be interesting to see how the new Accord fares in that area. I loved my '13 Accord but finally wanted a smaller car.

stickguy

I won't miss the CD, so no worries there. And yeah, the BLIS is preferable to me over lanewathch.

benjaminh

One of the good things about the 2018 Accord is the weight. Currently the lightest of the midsize sedans is the Altima, while the heaviest is the Fusion. Other things being equal, lighter weight is obviously better for both mpg and acceleration. Here are some current weights for 2017 base-model midsize cars compared with their mpg ratings....

Altima 3197 pounds/31 mpg combined

Accord 3239/30

Camry 3245/27

Sonata 3250/29

Mazda6 3250/29

Passat 3263/27

Fusion 3431/25

The 2018 Accord is supposed to drop by more than 100 pounds, which I assume will let it equal the new best-in-class mpg of the 2018 Camry, which is 32. But just as important, it should help acceleration as well. The optional turbo engine on the Fusion has 181 hp, while the 2018 Accord's new 1.5 turbo is rated at 192 hp. So the Accord has a little bit more power, but probably the more important thing is that the engine will be pulling around 300 pounds less weight. The Fusion is overall a good car, and I see some possible influence of its 5-year old design on the 2018 Accord, but the weight of the Fusion hurts its acceleration, according to Motor Trend:

"In the 2017 Fusion, the 1.5-liter turbo-four is rated at 181 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque, and it comes mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. Competitive numbers, but due to its 3,442-pound curb weight, the Fusion takes 9.1 seconds to hit 60 mph and does the quarter mile in 16.8 seconds at 81.3 mph. Below 3,000 rpm you get prodigious turbo lag, and above 4,500 rpm, all the engine is doing is making noise."

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/fusion/2017/2017-ford-fusion-ecoboost-first-test-review/

sda

I may be an exception, I really like lane watch. It really provides a broader view on the right and is very helpful when changing lanes. When I drive the Pilot I find myself unconsciously looking for it. I think a great combination would be blind spot combined with lane watch. I still listen to CDs and will miss not having that feature. Most CDs sound better than the compressed audio media.

benjaminh

The 2018 Camry LE's weight is 3296, while the mpg as mentioned is 32. Kind of surprising that the Camry actually gained a little bit of weight for this new generation.

explorerx4

I find the Fusion to be perfectly adequate acceleration wise with the 1.5 turbo.
In a few weeks, I'll see how it does on a long trip to Indiana, which involves crossing PA which has lots of hills.

thebean

sda said:

I may be an exception, I really like lane watch. It really provides a broader view on the right and is very helpful when changing lanes. When I drive the Pilot I find myself unconsciously looking for it. I think a great combination would be blind spot combined with lane watch. I still listen to CDs and will miss not having that feature. Most CDs sound better than the compressed audio media.

I agree.  I love the LaneWatch on both my Accord and the wife's new Civic.  It gives such a better view and is helpful when parking next to the curb.

imidazol97

The Malibu is missing from your list:
Malibu 3126/30

From Edmunds.com data.

benjaminh said:

One of the good things about the 2018 Accord is the weight. Currently the lightest of the midsize sedans is the Altima, while the heaviest is the Fusion. Other things being equal, lighter weight is obviously better for both mpg and acceleration. Here are some current weights for 2017 base-model midsize cars compared with their mpg ratings....

Altima 3197 pounds/31 mpg combined

Accord 3239/30

Camry 3245/27

Sonata 3250/29

Mazda6 3250/29

Passat 3263/27

Fusion 3431/25

/

benjaminh

Unfortunately, LaneWatch is almost dead. The 2018 Civic might have it, but after that....

suydam

It's just better to have it on two sides rather than just one.

brian125

Bliss is by far a game changer in safety especially for young drivers. Every vehicle should have it as a standard feature. Any vehicle I buy today must have Bliss, Cross Traffic and FCW. Might save my life one day.

brian125

Interesting list of safest 2017 vehicles

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/safest-cars-of-the-year

brian125

thebean said:

sda said:

I may be an exception, I really like lane watch. It really provides a broader view on the right and is very helpful when changing lanes. When I drive the Pilot I find myself unconsciously looking for it. I think a great combination would be blind spot combined with lane watch. I still listen to CDs and will miss not having that feature. Most CDs sound better than the compressed audio media.

I agree.  I love the LaneWatch on both my Accord and the wife's new Civic.  It gives such a better view and is helpful when parking next to the curb.

I also enjoyed lane watch on My 2013 Accord. The V-6 @278 H/P was a nice touch on Honda's part .

What annoyed me was Honda did nothing with the drivers mirror!!!

akirby

Isn't the issue with lanewatch is that it takes your attention away from the road? With Blis you can easily glance at the mirror and see the yellow dot, but it seems you'd need to look more closely at the side camera view in the center console.

m6user

Lanewatch was a gimmick. Good riddance. It was for people infatuated with video screens or who either couldn't comprehend how to use their side mirrors correctly or just too stubborn to.

andres3

suydam said:

The '17 still HAS a CD Player? How quaint! I had Lane Watch on my '13 Accord and for me the BLIS system is so much better. I'm glad Honda is ditching Lane Watch. Visibility is the area where Honda really stood out and it will be interesting to see how the new Accord fares in that area. I loved my '13 Accord but finally wanted a smaller car.

My '95 Neon had a cassette player. My '16 Kia has a CD player which I like that it has.

My '16 Audi also has one, but I don't like that they hid it in the glove box! Sort of like how BMW used to make terrible cup holders, they are probably telling me something by delegating the CD player to the glove box!

stickguy

My 2000 Acura had a cassette still. Came in handy, since I used a cassette adapter to play he XM roadie.

brian125

akirby said:

Isn't the issue with lanewatch is that it takes your attention away from the road? With Blis you can easily glance at the mirror and see the yellow dot, but it seems you'd need to look more closely at the side camera view in the center console.</blockquote



One quick glance when making a right turn I found no issue with Attention. I used to drive NY to Boston and S.C. with lane watch on and not just when car was making right turns only. I do agree bliss on both mirrors is a better feature.

akirby

I used to drive a high cube van delivering furniture in college with NO rear visibility other than the side mirrors. All this "poor rear visibility" complaining is amusing.

ab348

stickguy said:

My 2000 Acura had a cassette still. Came in handy, since I used a cassette adapter to play he XM roadie.

My 2002 Olds Intrigue came with both cassette and CD players from the factory.

berri

A lot of people have some bucks tied up in cd's

andres3

berri said:

A lot of people have some bucks tied up in cd's

And are way too lazy to take the time to transfer it all to a memory/storage card/thumb drive! I have to admit, I'm in that camp... will take too much time; easier to just keep using the CD's! lol!

Also, I'd want to transfer with lossless format, so that would take a ton of GB.

benjaminh

Nice review of the GTI....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=010lIEzqEks

benjaminh

A refresh of the GTI is coming up for the 2018 model year....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4twbI3PLxQQ

roadburner

akirby said:

I used to drive a high cube van delivering furniture in college with NO rear visibility other than the side mirrors. All this "poor rear visibility" complaining is amusing.

Agreed.

berri

One thing about USB music files, or a USB insert in general, if there are any virus or other issues on it or any of its files, you may open your entire vehicle to interception or hacking. Sometimes dumb, as in dumb cd user, isn't as dumb as you think

stickguy

I simplify the whole thing by just listening to sat radio instead.

berri

Also, I'd want to transfer with lossless format, so that would take a ton of GB

Digital already loses some sound compared to analog, but mp3 dumbs it down a lot more. Probably doesn't matter if you've got a lot of road noise or mediocre speakers though. But I'm with you Andres3, I'd want to leave those cd files as WAV.

suydam

roadburner said:

akirby said:

I used to drive a high cube van delivering furniture in college with NO rear visibility other than the side mirrors. All this "poor rear visibility" complaining is amusing.

Agreed.

Some of us are --ahem! -- older than we used to be.

benjaminh

stickguy said:

I simplify the whole thing by just listening to sat radio instead.

Yeah, me too. What are some of your favorite stations? In addition to the decades channels, I like...

28 The Spectrum
32 The Bridge
33 1st Wave
35 SiriusXMU
59 Willie's Roadhouse
68 New Age
72 Broadway
74 BB King's Bluesville
76 Symphony Hall

Preston Trombly on Symphony Hall is probably my favorite classical music DJ of all time, although Martin Goldsmith is also very good.

With AndroidAuto it's also easy to play audio books, which is nice on longer drives.

akirby

Ours is mostly stuck on 70s and 80s with some occasional Highway, Garth, Y2K country, 2000s and Hits 1.

I have all my songs ripped to a tiny usb stick that I leave plugged in. It works great and 256 kpbs mp4 sounds good on the Lincoln MKX Revel Audio system. Sirius usually sucks by comparison but the wife won't let me turn it up much anyway.

Ford's sync 3 system does support some lossless formats but I don't think you'd be able to tell much difference in a moving vehicle.

suydam

In addition to Symphony Hall and Bluesville, we listen to Springsteen, The Grateful Dead, Jam On, Pearl Jam, and Deep Tracks.

roadburner

PopRocks
Underground Garage
1st Wave
Lithium
Alt Nation
Backspin
Soul Town
No Shoes Radio
Outlaw Country
Watercolors
Spa

My wife listens to The Coffee House almost exclusively.
My son likes 1st Wave and Lithium because he says it reminds him of what we used to listen to when I drove him to school.

andres3

berri said:

Also, I'd want to transfer with lossless format, so that would take a ton of GB

Digital already loses some sound compared to analog, but mp3 dumbs it down a lot more. Probably doesn't matter if you've got a lot of road noise or mediocre speakers though. But I'm with you Andres3, I'd want to leave those cd files as WAV.

Road noise or not I don't want mp3, and I do have great speakers in the Audi; not so in the Kia.

However, Apple does have a good "lossless" format for their AAC type system, and it seems the industry leader in lossless is FLAC. My '14 Audi couldn't play FLAC I was told by my salesman the '16 TTS couldn't either , however, when I opened up the manual for the first time recently, and read a bit, I saw that indeed Audi had entered the 21st Century and I can play FLAC files!

On my to do list is converting all my music to FLAC...... I think there's probably some free software out there that'll do it, and you can buy new music in FLAC format (but not from I-Tunes).

One of the only reasons I upgraded my HK receiver beast at home to the Denon beast is that the newer Denon can read FLAC! Probably would have been cheaper to buy a "reader/decoder to USB device" if one exists.

andres3

akirby said:

Ours is mostly stuck on 70s and 80s with some occasional Highway, Garth, Y2K country, 2000s and Hits 1.

I have all my songs ripped to a tiny usb stick that I leave plugged in. It works great and 256 kpbs mp4 sounds good on the Lincoln MKX Revel Audio system. Sirius usually sucks by comparison but the wife won't let me turn it up much anyway.

Ford's sync 3 system does support some lossless formats but I don't think you'd be able to tell much difference in a moving vehicle.

Do you know how MP4 differs from MP3? Maybe it has improved? I know even at 256 kpbs MP3's still sounded "dead" to me even in a moving vehicle.

I do think processors/chips/decoders can make a difference. Sirius/XM sounded pretty terrible in a "GOOD" sound system in my '14 S4, however, in the TTS Sirius/XM actually sounds pretty good in a "GREAT" sound system. But not all of the improvement can be attributed to the better sound system in the TTS vs. S4. It must be the processor/decoder/service.

berri

I don't think FLAC is yet widely available. There is software to convert FLAC to WAV, but I don't know of the opposite. Not sure how you can upgrade music like that other than giving it more presence I suppose. I may be wrong, but I think that once the soundbites are gone, they are gone and can only be artificially reinstated.

berri

I've had satellite radio, but never renewed it. Some of the channels had too much DJ blabber for me. But on Oldies channels I think some people like that and jingles because it can sort of recreate the spirit of old day radio for them.

andres3

Getting back to mid-size sedans, any explanation why Kia/Hyundai de-turned the 2.0T or did they just start rating them more accurately for HP? It seems they've gone backwards since years ago. Is it just a lie they corrected, or have they really been tuned slower for more MPG?

js06gv

andres3 said:

Getting back to mid-size sedans, any explanation why Kia/Hyundai de-turned the 2.0T or did they just start rating them more accurately for HP? It seems they've gone backwards since years ago. Is it just a lie they corrected, or have they really been tuned slower for more MPG?

I think what I remember reading was that the changes were made for better drivability/smoothness and better torque at a lower band. Having had a 2014 with 274 hp and now a 2016 with 245 hp, I can confirm that there is a slightly noticeable drop in power. At first I think I had convinced myself that there was no difference, but as I got more seat time I could tell. I'm sure the engine is smoother, but then again the entire package is much more refined than before so don't know how much I can really attribute to the engine alone. From about 0 to 40, the old car was a real screamer but you also heard every bit of it.

MPG wise, the new car is up 2 on the city cycle to 22 and 1 on the highway to 32 and my calculations say this is legit. On all highway runs, the 2016 will easily get 32-33 while the best I ever saw in the 2014 was 29.

akirby

andres3 said:

Do you know how MP4 differs from MP3? Maybe it has improved? I know even at 256 kpbs MP3's still sounded "dead" to me even in a moving vehicle.

Apparently mp4 allows any codec and for itunes it's AAC. AAC is supposed to be better than mp3s. I know the 256Kbps AAC files that I listen to are close to CD quality. It's good enough that I don't need to go to FLAC or WAV files. I just rip or download to itunes and copy to a usb drive.

I do notice a bigger discrepancy with Satellite on the MKX with the Revel audio than on my Fusion with the cheap Sony system. And the amount of compression varies by channel and possibly by time of day as well. Also don't forget the source quality - most of those 60s and early 70s songs just didn't sound good out of the studio compared to newer stuff.

andres3

berri said:

I don't think FLAC is yet widely available. There is software to convert FLAC to WAV, but I don't know of the opposite. Not sure how you can upgrade music like that other than giving it more presence I suppose. I may be wrong, but I think that once the soundbites are gone, they are gone and can only be artificially reinstated.

FLAC can be both high resolution (similar to DVD-Audio discs; usually at 96KB/second or even more), and regular old CD WAV style at 48K/second. So if it can be converted, it isn't upgraded, just nothing is lost in the lossless compression format. How can you compress and still be lossless, well that is the magic of lossless formats (or at least the value to them) depending on how well they are implemented. I've pretty much liked all the lossless formats. You can definitely fit more than 14 songs per 700 MB (CD Disc Storage Limit) with lossless compression formats, but not 1,000 songs like MP3's.

Mr_Shiftright

suydam said:

roadburner said:

akirby said:

I used to drive a high cube van delivering furniture in college with NO rear visibility other than the side mirrors. All this "poor rear visibility" complaining is amusing.

Agreed.

Some of us are --ahem! -- older than we used to be.

So your windows shrunk as you aged?

andres3

js06gv said:

andres3 said:

Getting back to mid-size sedans, any explanation why Kia/Hyundai de-turned the 2.0T or did they just start rating them more accurately for HP? It seems they've gone backwards since years ago. Is it just a lie they corrected, or have they really been tuned slower for more MPG?

I think what I remember reading was that the changes were made for better drivability/smoothness and better torque at a lower band. Having had a 2014 with 274 hp and now a 2016 with 245 hp, I can confirm that there is a slightly noticeable drop in power. At first I think I had convinced myself that there was no difference, but as I got more seat time I could tell. I'm sure the engine is smoother, but then again the entire package is much more refined than before so don't know how much I can really attribute to the engine alone. From about 0 to 40, the old car was a real screamer but you also heard every bit of it.

MPG wise, the new car is up 2 on the city cycle to 22 and 1 on the highway to 32 and my calculations say this is legit. On all highway runs, the 2016 will easily get 32-33 while the best I ever saw in the 2014 was 29.

I would say the new 1.6T has strengths in power for its size, but a weakness would definitely be noise and exhaust sound (or lack thereof). It could definitely be more refined and smoother; those are not its strengths. It does have a pretty good power to size ratio, and it does deliver solid fuel economy (28-29 MPG in mixed driving).

stickguy

on XM, most of mine were listed, but I also like the Loft.

suydam

Mr_Shiftright said:

suydam said:

roadburner said:

akirby said:

I used to drive a high cube van delivering furniture in college with NO rear visibility other than the side mirrors. All this "poor rear visibility" complaining is amusing.

Agreed.

Some of us are --ahem! -- older than we used to be.

So your windows shrunk as you aged?

That's a better explanation than my aging eyes!

brian125

2018 Sonata -vs- 18 Camry

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/2018-hyundai-sonata-vs-2018-toyota-camry-head-to-head/ss-AAsehTH?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=UE07DHP#image=12

brian125

2018 Cars, Trucks and Suv's

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/new-cars-suvs-trucks-2018/2100000917/

benjaminh

Since the 2018 Camry is getting mixed reviews, my guess is that once the 2018 Accord comes out (on Oct. 18th) it's probably going to be best-in-class for the next year or so. Perhaps the truly stand-out model is going to be the Sport 2.0 turbo with the all-new 10-speed automatic. This model is going to have an engine similar to the Type-R Civic, but it'll take regular gas, plus you won't need to shift it. For an msrp of probably about $29.5k, this car will likely perform almost as well as an Audi A6 2.0T, but for about 20k less

john4545

The 2018 Accord will be a top rated vehicle but I'm pretty sure the people over at Audi aren't to concerned