Midsize Sedans 2.0

dash5

I agree 100%. My old 2004 Infiniti G35 coupe had about that time 0-60 and while not a supercar by any means, it was certainly considered sporty and performance oriented. The Sonata/Optima have the same HP and torque as that car, weigh a bit less and have much better fuel economy.

thepieguy

As a guy that has been researching which midsize to get for a very long time now I can say that "enthusiast" car magazine reviews are so wildly inconsistent that they are pretty much only good for entertainment value. Not to mention some of them smell a little bit tainted by $$$ (just my opinion). They sure do love to compare 0-60 times as if it is a critical issue, yet it is something that varies significantly by driver, environmental conditions, etc. Annoying.

dash5

I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.

tlong

I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.

Have you ever noticed that, almost without fail, in car magazine reviews the new model of a car is always "30% stiffer chassis than the previous model"? I've not found flexing a big problem in my cars. :surprise:

thegraduate

Flexing, no. Squeaks and rattles are big tellers of weak chassis/platforms, though.

mickeyrom

Great post! Who cares how fast off the line a car is,unless you plan to take it to the drag strip.My Optima with it's 4 cylinder engine was something like 8 or nine seconds to 60,yet I have no problem passing.(on the rare occasion I need to)My Optima,it's 4 years old,has around 50 more HP than my first car,a 50 Ford V8.How much power does one need?I'll take the slower 0-60 times and 30-35 MPG thank you very much.

acdii

It depends on where you live. In the city, 0-60 doesn't mean squat, if you need to do 60 MPH on a 30MPH road, move! If you live in the country though, 0-60 times can be important. A few years back I owned a Prius, 0-60 13 seconds sometimes more if a tire slipped. I live out in the country and daily had to take a road that intersected a highway, with traffic moving at 60MPH. I need to make a left to get into traffic, and this is where 0-60 times can be important, either find an opening you can zip into , or wait 10 minutes for a big enough opening, and hope your tires don't slip in the gravel from other drivers cutting the turn short and driving across the shoulder. I went from the Prius to a Camry, and while a little better getting into traffic, it still left a lot to be desired. I finally got a car that gets me into the traffic stream quickly, the Ford Fusion Sport. It gets good MPG, comfortable, fun to drive, and handles great. It has the 0-60 times I need, without being obnoxious, for that I have my Flex Ecoboost, obnoxiously quick.

thegraduate

These days you can pull 250hp AND 30-35 MPG.

m6user

Exactly. Why not have both? I use the 0-60 times as a relative measurement. Like acdii was explaining, there are plenty of situations where some oomph off the line or from 30-60 is very much appreciated. I live in the Chicago area and they are always working on the expressways. Some of the entrance ramps during construction have virtually no merge lane and having some power is not just a convenience but can be a safety factor. I'm not saying you can't drive at all without a decent 0-60 time but it gives me a sense of security knowing that I can pull out and get out of someone's way if need be.

0-60 times are just another measurement among the many that can be considered. Personally, I look at stopping distances with a more critical eye. As long as 0-60 times are generally in line with other cars I'm considering, it matters little if one car is a few tenths of a second faster or slower to 60. However, if there is a 2 second spread +/- that wold be something that I would want to look at strongly either from having enough power or how it might affect MPG.

thepieguy

Yeah I didn't mean to sound like I don't think acceleration is an important issue. It is. I have a Fusion SPORT on order. Many people don't drive for "fun" but those rare occasions where you need that power make the sacrifice of a few MPG's totally worth it. You can consider it a safety issue. My peeve regarding car reviews would be more like... "Car A went 0-60 in 6.2 seconds when we tested it 2 years ago and Car B went 0-60 in 6.4 when we tested it just now, therefore Car A is more sporty so we like it better". So many things wrong with that kind of logic.

thegraduate

I agree there. When talking the difference in less than, say, a second (especially when we get below 7 seconds) it becomes negligible. I have a 249 horse Sonata. It's a few tenths slower than the 268 horse Camry, or torquier Malibu, but the difference in 6.8 versus 6.3-6.5 for the others is something that can't be felt in the seat of the pants, to me.

backy

I read that C/D issue today and it was the typical inconsistent journalism from C/D and other auto mags. In their short take on the Sonata 2.0T, they make it seem as if it's a big deal that the 2.0T can run 0-60 in "only" 6.2 seconds while the V6 Camry is 0.4 second quicker and the V6 Mazda6 V6 is 0.1 second quicker. Then turn back a few pages, to the comparo of the Regal Turbo, the TSX V6, and the VW CC, and their tune changes. While explaining why the CC was their top pick even though it was not as quick as the TSX, they said the CC was "only 0.4 second behind it (the TSX) to 60 mph". So 0.4 second is only important when driving... a Hyundai? They also emphasized in the Sonata review how the two V6 cars are quicker in the 5-60 street start test. Interestingly, the Sonata 2.0T is 0.5 second quicker than the CC in that test. And the TSX blows the CC away there. But no mention of that.

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

stickguy

you really can't compare those magazine numbers to real world use. Only CR comes close.

the car mags do whatever they have to for the best #. clutch dumps, brake torquing, etc. All things that normal people driving sedans don't do, even when they are trying to merge. At least CR does the run from idle, and just floor the gas (not sure what form they use for a stick, but nothing brutal).

I think 5-60 (what C&D calls street start) is much more illuminating. That and 30-60. Both are much more realistic, and reflect what you are going to do even when merging onto a highway.

m6user

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

Your last sentence explains why they didn't include it in the comparo.....it isn't considered(by them) to be in the same class. My question is why didn't they use the TSX 4cyl as both other cars had 4cyl engines and pricepoints would be a lot closer. The v6 in the TSX adds a big premium to the price. If they had the Sonata would have blown it out of the water.

mz6greyghost

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

Your last sentence explains why they didn't include it in the comparo.....it isn't considered(by them) to be in the same class.

And they're right. Chances are CC and TSX buyers won't consider the Sonata. Based on current Acura owners I know, this holds true. Based on sitting in the interiors of the TSX and CC, then the Sonata, I'd also agree.

m6user

I agree as well. Things that are graded more subjectively is where the differences lie and can be hard to quantify. Some people want to think a vehicle with the same equipment and stats are equivalent but IMO they are not. There are different grades of leather, switches, suspension parts, etc. not including the engineering experience to make everything work together in a cohesive manner.

Sonata is great for what it is(a leader in the midsize family sedan class) but it is not in the premium, luxury or sports sedan class. Reviewers should keep that in mind when they review the turbo Sonata and not try to compare it to true sports sedans where it will come up short. If they stick to comparing it to it's immediate competitors it should come out with flying colors. They downgrade because of a couple of tenths of a second 0-60. If that's the case, they should also be downgrading the V6s in the class for only getting 26-29 mpg.

Please everyone, don't reply with "my v6 gets 31mpg all the time on the hwy". I am referring to EPA as that is the about the only reliable comparison. I realize that most everyone can beat the EPA hwy numbers on a hwy trip but the turbo Sonata will probably beat it's EPA of 33 hwy mpg as well so it's all relative.

thegraduate

They downgrade because of a couple of tenths of a second 0-60. If that's the case, they should also be downgrading the V6s in the class for only getting 26-29 mpg.

These are car enthusiast magazines, not Consumer Reports. Most gear-heads won't get thrills from whether they get an extra 30 miles on a tank of gas versus the other guy. They get off on having the faster vehicle.

If you're most interested in values a consumer values, pick the mag with consumer in its name. If you're into how quick your family-hauler hauls... your family you're going to be more interested in something like Road & Track / Motor Trend.

Just consider the sources, friends. :shades: Don't get mad because they don't judge by your standards.

m6user

These are car enthusiast magazines, , not Consumer Reports. Most gear-heads won't get thrills from whether they get an extra 30 miles on a tank of gas

Maybe they should stick to reviewing cars that only your so-called "enthusiasts" would be interested in then. I say if you are going to review family sedans, at least consider data points that the average family sedan buyer considers important. But that's just my opinion.

jeffyscott

Even if you are interested in "how quick your family-hauler hauls... your family", you may be more interested in CR's 0-60 acceleration numbers, unless you are also interested in abusing your family hauler.

thegraduate

I rather enjoy seeing the "fun-side" of these cars. This is going to sound rude, and it isn't my intention I assure you, but it isn't your (or my) place to tell writers what they can or can't review. This isn't a goverment-run publication - nobody's forcing you to buy and read the magazine. Who does it hurt to write reviews from a "fun-to-drive" perspective?

thegraduate

I agree; the car mags are known for writing reviews that are entertaining to read, offering anecdotal and editorial opinion that you may or may not value. Reading CR is informative (very much so) but it's like reading the nutrition facts label on your box of cereal. Dull.

Some of us read for the entertainment value of the article, not for the chart at the end of the article.

m6user

What, we can't express opinions in here anymore? I wasn't telling them they can't do something. Does something have to be run by the goverment before we can complain about how they are run? I didn't say they were violating my civil rights as a citizen, I was expressing my opinion as a consumer that they could do a better job of reviewing these type of vehicles. I read them and like the sport side of their commentary as well but I think they could be more objective.

If you think they are doing a great job then it is certainly your perogative to praise them and I promise I won't tell you that it's not your place to do so.

smarty666

Guys, you shouldn't let this car mag business get to any of you. The best advice I can give to any of you is to read the reviews, test drives, etc from multiple car mags and test drive the vehicle yourself if your considering it. Then you can take the opinions of not only the mags but your own and compare them and see if the car meets your driving needs/style.

Car magazines, as someone else pointed out, are no substitute for your own and other people's real world driving experiences!

backy

Yet we've seen folks shopping the Sonata vs. the Regal right here. And if a mag can compare one car that's $5k more than another, why not go $5k in the other direction?

The auto mags had no problem comparing the Passat to much less expensive I4 mid-sized family sedans (MT). Guess what? The Passat won the comparo! What a surprise! But a much less expensive Sonata took 2nd. So is comparing a Sonata turbo to a Regal turbo and CC turbo relevant? I think it is. But use the TSX I4, as was mentioned. It's not VW's, Buick's, and Hyundai's fault that they offer turbo power for the same price (or less) as the normal I4 in the TSX.

kaliforniak

I think you hit the nail on the head there. None of us or 99% of the driving population will do what car magazines do to get those 0-60 times. What's important to me is how fast the car goes when I just floor it to get on the free way and from 30 to 50/60 to pass someone on local streets. If the car can go fast enough without the driver having to do something crazy, then that's the car for me.

Think about it, let's say car mags are getting 0-60 for a car at 6.5 secs, that's going to be the best number they got from numerous runs. These numbers should only serve as a reference. For example I test drove a V6 Mazda6 and the thing has more than enough power to do anything I want it to do.

mz6greyghost

So is comparing a Sonata turbo to a Regal turbo and CC turbo relevant? I think it is.

But to the general public, it really isn't.

The Passat example you pointed out only furthers my point, that certain cars fit into certain types to 99.9% of buyers and car magazines. The Passat, despite being more expensive, is considered a "midsize family sedan" to the general public, as well as the Sonata that it was compared to. Conversely, the Regal, TSX, and CC are considered "premium sport sedans" (also known as entry-luxury to others), to which the Sonata isn't.

Personally, I don't agree with it either, since IMO the Mazda6S GT is more of a premium sedan (with it's high-tech options and excellent interior fit-and-finish and materials) than a plain-jane midsize family sedan, but it is what it is.

plekto

Isn't that the truth, though.

Here's what the manufacturers generally do(and why the auto magazines generally don't come close to their silly claims, even):
1 - Get the weight down to as low as possible. Spare tire, and so on are generally left out. As are most options. Often the car has only 1-2 gallons of fuel in it as well.
2 - Tires are the largest that they can fit/recommend. Max pressure, too.
Think every little drag strip trick and you'd be about right. And, yes, they generally fit the vehicle with slicks or high-performance rubber as well.
3 - Transmission is manually locked in 2nd gear after launch. TC is off, stability control is off, and winter mode is enabled if possible.
4 - Engine is reved to nearly redline and the transmission is dumped into 2nd gear at full throttle. As a reference, Top Gear did this type of launch and ate a new transmission in about 30 such launches. Only idiots would do this move.
5 - Car is driven to nearly redline, which coincidentally is geared to 65mph or so in 2nd gear.
6 - Result? Awesome bragging rights! But totally unrealistic and the result of more skulduggery and bending the rules than anything else.

Real-world tests? Fifth Gear(Top Gear's more consumer-geared brother show) did a test on a drag strip with a normal mash the pedal in three different road-worthy/typical optioned out cars and the best that they could do was 20% worse than the manufacturer's claims. We're talking 4-5 seconds on average worse than claimed. And these guys test vehicles for a living. They came up with the conclusion that simply put, the manufacturers have to be making it up.(didn't say "lying" on the air but you could tell that they were thinking it)

I mentally add 50% to their claims and it's always been about right. Still, most people aren't going to complain or notice about a 0-60 time of 8-9 seconds, as it IS quite fast.

note - 0-60 in in 5-6 seconds in reality is about as fast as the typical roller modern coaster accelerates out of the gate. We really don't need vehicles that can do that and most people would get in a lot of trouble if your average car actually could do that in daily driving conditions.

m6user

I think it's kind of funny when people put the CC in whole class above the Passat when the CC base price is less than $2k more and has the same drivetrain and warranty. That's kind of like putting the Sonata Ltd. in a different class than the GLS or SE.

One of the things that sets the "premium" or "near luxury" class apart is warranty. To my knowledge they all offer 4 or more years of warranty. Plus the entry levels are usually closer to $4k difference versus less than $2k. I think the CC gets lumped into a category above because it just looks so different(great IMO) compared to the Passat upon which it is based.

Like I've said before, I consider the Regal to be an "in-betweener" even though Buick is marketing it upscale. The old Regal was always just a gussied up Malibu and firmly in the class we talk about here. The new one is a step up but at entry points in the mid twenties and soon(when they start offering the base model) in the lower twenties, I think they are going to have a hard case in selling it as a premium class auto. I kind of hope I'm wrong but it seems like it's trying to be two different cars entirely.

maxamillion85

I read the comparison test and for the most part I agree with the results but I like some others in here would have liked to have seen the TSX I4 used verses the V6 model and I would have liked to seen the Optima in the comparison test...not the Sonata. Optima will be slightly sportier and it will offer more premium feature content (memory seats, cooled front seats, Xenons, LEDs etc.)

It would have been real nice to have seen the Optima SX up against those cars. I'm pretty excited about the new Sonata and even more excited about the Optima.

As far as the Regal, I just don't see it as a premium sedan. The Regal, at least in the last generation was nothing more than a "sportier" Century, it was never luxurious at least not to me. The current one is much sportier and nicer looking, though the Regal was never a bad looking car. The Regal is lacking in feature content as well, no memory seats, no xenons (at least not on the 2.4 model) or LEDs if anything the Regal is no more luxurious then say a Mercury Milan or a Sonata LTD...its a slight step above the Malibu as far as feature content is concerned...and even the Malibu (LTZ) and the Aura had LEDs. So in a sense if the Regal could be included in the comparison test, why leave out the Sonata? Sonata actually has it beat in feature content, power and price though it may be lagging behind it somewhat material-quality wise. Buick can advertise the Regal as a more upscale car all the want too, but honestly its really not all that upscale considering the price and lack of feature content compared to the TSX and the CC.

backy

The old Regal was always just a gussied up Malibu ...

Aren't the Regal and Malibu both based on the Epsilon II platform? If so, that would reinforce your statement... but for the NEW Regal.