Midsize Sedans 2.0

nyccarguy

There is no way I'd get 47 mpg average in an Accord Hybrid.  The $350 in gas savings from an LX?  How many miles per year does that account for?

How much would I save in gas per year if I dumped my Infiniti which averages 19.5 mpg (19,500 miles per year)?

ab348

benjaminh said:

The 2018 Accord, as mentioned, has been a major sales disappointment—I think mainly because of the strange styling, front, side, and rear.

Remarkably, I still have not seen one on the roads here. That astounds me. I was able to see them on dealer lots - it is a very long car (or at least looks like it is) and the front end is not attractive. The bare aluminum A/C condenser peering through the large-grid black plastic lower grill is very unattractive too.

benjaminh

nyccarguy said:

There is no way I'd get 47 mpg average in an Accord Hybrid.  The $350 in gas savings from an LX?  How many miles per year does that account for?

How much would I save in gas per year if I dumped my Infiniti which averages 19.5 mpg (19,500 miles per year)?

Well, I don't know what Infiniti you have, but the Q60 3.0 is rated 22 mpg combined, and you probably would save c. $1300 a year in gas compared to that at c. 15,000 miles a year.

But you can find your exact car here and do a comparison....

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbsSelect

nyccarguy

It is a Q40 AWD w/ the 3.7L V6 & 7 Speed AT. I average 19.5 mpg.

stickguy

more than half your gas bill, doubling MPG and moving from PUG to RUG

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

more than half your gas bill, doubling MPG and moving from PUG to RUG

Which will result in an extreme reduction in SPM (Smiles Per Mile).

thebean

@benjaminh, I drove a 2018 Accord EX-L on Thursday. I found several things that might account for the slow initial sales. First off, it's noticeably lower than my 2015 Accord, hence harder for me to get into. The drivers seat was not as comfortable either, and I don't find my Accord's seat all that comfy. The 1.5 turbo 4 in the one I drove was a little bit more powerful on the low end than my Accord's NA 4 banger. But, the biggest thing I noticed was how close our 2017 Civic EX is in comfort and driving experience to the new Accord, for a lot less coin. The new Accord is larger inside, but I fit fine in the Civic. Ride was pretty darned close between the two. Back seat headroom was better in the Accord. Trunk room was better in the Accord, but I can fit enough luggage for a two week trip for two in the Civic's trunk.

Overall, they were not that far apart. I can see people driving both and opting for the Civic for the price. Honda knocked it out of the park with the Civic, but only hit a double with the new Accord, in my opinion.

benjaminh

nyccarguy said:

It is a Q40 AWD w/ the 3.7L V6 & 7 Speed AT. I average 19.5 mpg.

Then you might save as much as $1500 a year on gas by switching to an Accord Hybrid—that is if you drive c. 15,000 miles a year.

In terms of acceleration, as mentioned, the Accord Hybrid is an upgrade over the Accord 1.5 turbo. But you have a real sports car with a huge engine. The Accord Hybrid, which has a 0-60 time of c. 6.9 seconds, might seem slow to you.

But since I have a 2016 Accord EX 2.4, which takes almost 8 seconds to get to 60 (which works just fine for me), the Accord Hybrid would be a significant upgrade in terms of acceleration.

Mr_Shiftright

Too many people making buying decisions bsed strictly on that attractive "MPG" number, that's not the best way to figure it. They should be thinking about "gallonage", or the variation in gallonage from their present car to the new one. Going from 35 mpg to 47 mpg--not such a big deal. Going from 17 mpg to 47 mpg---big deal.

berri

Also, Accord doesn't have the incentives Camry does. They are often shopped together.

backy

Honda dealers are asking for help on incentives to move more Accords. Even the Altima outsold the Accord during the first two months of 2018. I see lease prices (the only prices ever advertised on Hondas in the Twin Cities area) on Accords dropping recently. Today I saw an ad for $299/month on an LX CVT sign-and-drive for 36 months, about $30 less than a recent ad from the same dealer. Unfortunately for Honda, some very good mid-sized cars are available for much less.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/dealers-seek-help-selling-2018-honda-accord/

explorerx4

Goes to show how many of those cars are leased. Can't get a good number with one brand, just switch to another.

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

Too many people making buying decisions bsed strictly on that attractive "MPG" number, that's not the best way to figure it. They should be thinking about "gallonage", or the variation in gallonage from their present car to the new one. Going from 35 mpg to 47 mpg--not such a big deal. Going from 17 mpg to 47 mpg---big deal.

When gas prices spiked a few years ago I considered trading my MS3 on a Mini Cooper; I think the delta was 6-7 mpg. I calculated that I would have to drive the car for 5 years just to break even.

nyccarguy

benjaminh said:

It is a Q40 AWD w/ the 3.7L V6 & 7 Speed AT. I average 19.5 mpg.

Then you might save as much as $1500 a year on gas by switching to an Accord Hybrid—that is if you drive c. 15,000 miles a year. In terms of acceleration, as mentioned, the Accord Hybrid is an upgrade over the Accord 1.5 turbo. But you have a real sports car with a huge engine. The Accord Hybrid, which has a 0-60 time of c. 6.9 seconds, might seem slow to you. But since I have a 2016 Accord EX 2.4, which takes almost 8 seconds to get to 60 (which works just fine for me), the Accord Hybrid would be a significant upgrade in terms of acceleration.

Under 7 is decent.  8+ would be slow for me.

stickguy

I agree about the Civic. I find it to be a better sized package. And plenty roomy inside. same way I am fine with my Elantra instead of the Sonata (purely from a size standpoint). Only real issue I had with the Civic is the drivers seat was too small (short cushion). That and the level I would want was a bit pricey for a compact. At least for us, there is really no reason to go "super sized" with a sedan.

Mr_Shiftright

roadburner said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Too many people making buying decisions bsed strictly on that attractive "MPG" number, that's not the best way to figure it. They should be thinking about "gallonage", or the variation in gallonage from their present car to the new one. Going from 35 mpg to 47 mpg--not such a big deal. Going from 17 mpg to 47 mpg---big deal.

When gas prices spiked a few years ago I considered trading my MS3 on a Mini Cooper; I think the delta was 6-7 mpg. I calculated that I would have to drive the car for 5 years just to break even.

Oh, a Mini lifespan!

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

I agree about the Civic. I find it to be a better sized package. And plenty roomy inside. same way I am fine with my Elantra instead of the Sonata (purely from a size standpoint). Only real issue I had with the Civic is the drivers seat was too small (short cushion). That and the level I would want was a bit pricey for a compact. At least for us, there is really no reason to go "super sized" with a sedan.

Speaking of Civics, the current generation packs a serious punch.  As I was stopped waiting to merge onto the highway this afternoon, there was a Civic Hatch (not a type R) that was moving with traffic.  He opened it up and squirted ahead pretty easily.  It took me a while to catch up to him.  I'd love to take an Si for a spin.

stickguy

an Si was fun to drive. I tested one a couple of times.

Michaell

stickguy said:

an Si was fun to drive. I tested one a couple of times.

I tried to test drive one today, but the dealer I stopped in at deemed it too "special" and wouldn't allow it.

Mr_Shiftright

Bad News for the new Honda Accord

benjaminh

Mr_Shiftright said:

Bad News for the new Honda Accord

Yeah, I think Honda made some questionable design choices with the new Accord. First, for a family sedan often purchased by older buyers, the lower stance of the car—which makes getting in and out a little more challenging for some—is not a plus. Second, the styling is just strange from pretty much every angle. Third, the outstanding rear visibility that has been a signature of Accord for decades has been lost.

In terms of features, performance, interior materials, etc. the new Accord probably deserves that North American Car of the Year award that it won. But Honda seemingly forgot about a core part of the Accord's market in going after a "bold new look."

Back in 2012, Honda had problems with the then-new Civic, which was overly "cheap" in several areas. Honda realized they'd made a mistake, and went into a crash program to fix it. Amazingly, in just a little over a year, a significantly refreshed and enhanced Civic was introduced, and starting in 2013 the Civic got better reviews and did quite well.

As far as I can tell, the only thing Honda can try to "fix" on the new Accord is the styling, since in terms of features, quality of materials, etc., it's already very good. I could see potentially a new front grill and new tail lights helping a little....My guess is even that won't show up until the 2020 model year. In the meantime, the Accord will apparently go from being a close second to the Camry in sales, to a distant second, or maybe even third?

Mr_Shiftright

I wonder though why Camry wouldn't suffer the same fate for its controversial styling

benjaminh

Mr_Shiftright said:

I wonder though why Camry wouldn't suffer the same fate for its controversial styling

Well, some actually like the Camry better. The LE model certainly looks somewhat more "normal."

But perhaps the main thing is that Toyota has great financing and lease deals, and Honda so far hasn't done that for the Accord.

Mr_Shiftright

I bet Honda is planning some aggressive incentives.

ab348

I just saw a Camry ad an hour or so ago, with Expecting Jan, offering a Camry on a 3-year lease for $199/mo with $1999 down.

Michaell

Mr_Shiftright said:

I bet Honda is planning some aggressive incentives.

Nothing yet. Perhaps that will change in April. 

explorerx4

April. In other words, next week.:)

Mr_Shiftright

ab348 said:

I just saw a Camry ad an hour or so ago, with Expecting Jan, offering a Camry on a 3-year lease for $199/mo with $1999 down.

So really $254 + tax and fees.

Michaell

explorerx4 said:

April. In other words, next week.:)

Actually, April 3rd is when the new programs start.

akirby

Because Toyota is willing to cut prices.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

ab348 said:

I just saw a Camry ad an hour or so ago, with Expecting Jan, offering a Camry on a 3-year lease for $199/mo with $1999 down.

So really $254 + tax and fees.

Is that for 10K or 12K miles per year?

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

roadburner said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Too many people making buying decisions bsed strictly on that attractive "MPG" number, that's not the best way to figure it. They should be thinking about "gallonage", or the variation in gallonage from their present car to the new one. Going from 35 mpg to 47 mpg--not such a big deal. Going from 17 mpg to 47 mpg---big deal.

When gas prices spiked a few years ago I considered trading my MS3 on a Mini Cooper; I think the delta was 6-7 mpg. I calculated that I would have to drive the car for 5 years just to break even.

Oh, a Mini lifespan!

Our 2009 Clubman is running fine; I even enjoy driving it- FWD and all...

benjaminh

Toyota has a new CVT with a "launch gear." It not only accelerates faster, but it's more fuel efficient too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HanImTejIVM&t=252s

andres3

benjaminh said:

Toyota has a new CVT with a "launch gear." It not only accelerates faster, but it's more fuel efficient too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HanImTejIVM&t=252s

Great idea, I guess I better watch out for those Corollas I see at the drag strip all the time.

benjaminh

2019 Altima revealed.

Overall, I like the styling of the next Altima better than the Camry or Accord. I'm still getting used to the "no front bumper look," but I think it works somewhat better here than on the Accord. Rear visibility also seems better than the Accord. And unlike the Accord, where AndroidAuto/CarPlay isn't available unless you move up from the base model, apparently it's going to be standard on the 2019 Altima....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZK5I2jD79o

ab348

When I first saw the refreshed Altima I initially thought it was a Mazda 6.

ab348

This doesn't happen very often - Honda is taking 2 weeks of Accord production away from Marysville over the next while due to an oversupply caused by sagging sales.

http://www.autoverdict.com/honda/honda-halting-accord-production-for-two-weeks/

berri

This may be a situation where Honda, and Toyota for that matter, moved to lower cars and rooflines to attract younger buyers. But younger buyers don't seem all that hot on sedans right now. Meanwhile. the older sedan buyer is put off by egress and the lowered driving position. The older segment often buys the more loaded sedans with a plumper margins. I'm thinking these sedans will come with bigger wheels and tires next year or so, to raise their height from the ground?

backy

The new Altima looks like a very competitive offering, and Nissan was selling a lot of the old models. Might give Toyota and Honda a fight for #1 in the shrinking mid-sized market. I like that the base model is pretty well equipped, except the good safety stuff isn't even available :@ and AWD is available at every trim level. Not sure if offering AWD will do what Nissan hopes it will (lure away some CUV buyers to the Altima), but it is a differentiator vs. Camcord.
But it's no mystery why mid-sized sedan sales are falling. Families need their vehicles to do more, and a CUV can simply do more than a sedan. When I compare something like the Niro to a mid-sized sedan, I can get more rear-seat legroom, more storage capacity (and more versatile capacity), higher fuel economy (at a similar price point), smaller size (easier parking), and higher seating position than a sedan. Then there's the alternatives of "compact" sedans, some of which are as big as the mid-sized sedans of a few years ago and have plenty of interior room.
And if I wanted something sporty, it wouldn't be one of the mid-sized sedans trying to look sporty.

ab348

The 2019 Malibu gets a new front end with no more scowly face (hooray!) and a CVT (boo!).

http://www.autoverdict.com/gm/chevrolet/2019-chevrolet-malibu-restyled-and-rsed/

thebean

ab348 said:

The 2019 Malibu gets a new front end with no more scowly face (hooray!) and a CVT (boo!).

http://www.autoverdict.com/gm/chevrolet/2019-chevrolet-malibu-restyled-and-rsed/

ab, what do you think would get Malibu sales to increase? I'm genuinely curious. I'm of the age where I remember when a Malibu was a cool car to have (albeit the two door version). Are those days gone forever?

ab348

thebean said:

ab, what do you think would get Malibu sales to increase? I'm genuinely curious. I'm of the age where I remember when a Malibu was a cool car to have (albeit the two door version). Are those days gone forever?

I don't know. The dealers around here tend not to stock them (or Impalas) so they are not big sellers here. There are some in fleets. I had one for a day as a loaner a year or so back. It was fine and drove well but I would never buy one. For me it is too big without the utility you expect for a car that size. I guess if you had a family of 5 it might make some sense but those people are buying SUVs these days. I thought the base engine was marginal and a little more power wouldn't hurt. I found the interior unappealing as it was all shades of black without anything to contrast. I remember not liking the stop/start but that is pretty universal now. It seemed too long, low and swoopy for what is a family sedan and I didn't care for the design, but I guess that is the same formula Honda followed with the new Accord. I didn't like the styling of the previous Malibu much either but that seemed to have better proportions and not seem as big though I guess interior space wasn't as generous. I almost bought a 2009 Malibu new, actually probably should have looking back. With the V6 it drove well, I liked the dash design better than either of the two models that came after it, and I thought it looked decent on the outside.

thebean

@ab348, thanks. Interesting observations. The styling of the current one seems generic to me, but I think the same thing about the Jetta and Sonata. But then again, I think the new Accord styling is horrible. Start/stop would be a showstopper for me. I hate every one I've driven.

stickguy

I still like the next size down. The Elantra (or Jetta) are a perfect size for me. Plenty of room, but more maneuverable. I don't really need the extra space of the Sonata at this point. If I did, like many people, would likely go to a mid size CUV instead.

benjaminh

midsize/large sales for March....

Camry 35,264

Accord 24,171

Altima 23,518

Fusion 16,103

Malibu 14,707

Sonata 11,098

Optima 8,010

Passat 4,292

Legacy 3,889

benjaminh

compact/midsize sales for March....

Civic 32,584

Corolla 31,392

Sentra 23,518

Elantra 17,323

Focus 16,137

Cruze 16,122

Forte 9,381

Impreza 5,973

Jetta 5,512

backy

Amazing that the Mazda3, a great compact car, doesn't even show up on the list!

ab348

The Sentra numbers are what I cannot fathom.

m6user

According to Mazda North America, Mazda 3 sales were 7,760 which was 8.7% more than last year. Total sales for March were 35% better than March of last year. Mainly CX-5s.

akirby

ab348 said:

The Sentra numbers are what I cannot fathom.

Fleet sales