Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I agree.
For these cars in 4 cylinder versions, 1 mpg saves about $400 in 100,000 miles. That would mean $40-80 per year for most people, based on 10,000-20,000 miles per year. I think in CR tests almost every 4 cyl is within maybe 2 mpg of every other. So in most cases you are talking about a difference of $80-160. For me this is not enough difference to have any significant impact on my car choice.
Anyway, the differences in purchase price can be more than enough to make up for any mpg deficiency, in some cases. I believe I would have had to pay $3000-4000 more to buy an Altima or Accord, rather than my Mazda6. If fuel costs me $800 more over the first 100,000 miles, I am still way ahead. As always, the calculus is different for frequent traders.
Now that's an odd thing to call an advantage
Multiply a factor (say .001 or whatever) by the amount of miles driven or any other criteria like the cost of the vehicle (.001 x 20,000 to come up with some "cost." You could do this for everything... that way 19,999 dollars won't differentiate more than it should from 20,001 dollars.
While a good set of brakes is probably #1 on my list of REAL (and useful) active safety features, it is still only a part of what makes a dynamically 'safer' car, those other parts being power and handling. The trick, of course, being able to avoid an accident so that you don't end up with 538 airbags giving you chemical burns....
Do you have a link for that captain? When I checked MT's site I found their test of a 2004 V6 Mazda6 and it did 60-0 in 127 feet.
My experience with my former 6 agrees with what zzzoom is saying. It stopped hard and fast and did save my butt a couple of times. Once from an idiot and once from a deer on a highway. Both were panic stops where the brake pedal went as far as I could push it and the ABS didn't even have to kick on either time. The only time I experienced ABS in that car was in the snow or when braking going down a hill and hitting a pothole or bump in the road if anyone knows how that goes.
Oh they were panic stops all right. I credit the lack of ABS activity to a combination of hot asphalt and summer tires. The ABS worked just fine as I told you in the previous post (came on in snow quite often). I would wager that those same summer tires (technically they were all-season OEMs but that was a joke) increased my stopping distance in the winter. However, being that it was a stick I used engine braking a lot during those months.
I know for sure that the ABS did not come on when the car pulled out in front of me but it might have come on for the deer. It was dark and cold and my family was in the car so a lot of other things went through my mind and the ABS could have slipped my mind. I don't recall it coming on then though.
Believe what you want but I'd wager that all Mazda6 owners who participate here will back me up on the great brakes that car has.
I intend to buy within a year. Thinking of buying slightly used and would keep it for 5 to 10 years. Being that the case, even one mpg difference might mean a lot one day soon.
Definitely want something with 4 cyls. Camry hybrid is out of my price range. The Sentra's size is just enough for my needs, but don't want smaller than that. No other small sedan with an A/T that size has 177 Hp, uses regular fuel, and has a new government mpg rating as high as 24 city/ 30 highway.
My other car is 06 V6 Rav4 with 3rd row. Mother-in-law just bought the 07 V6 Camry. Took it for a spin. Great ride!
I was impressed by the 07 Altima because it showed better performance with improved fuel economy, even if it's only a 1 or 2 mpg difference, you have to admit, it's still impressive. According to Consumer Reports, the 4 cyl Accord 0-60 was 9.0 seconds, the Altima's 8.1, V6 Rav4 0-60 in 6.7 (same engine in the Camry). The new government mpg rating for the Accord city is 21, the Altima's 23 city.
Not saying that one car is better than the other, but the new improved Altima has caught my attention.
One other thing...if you're going to have a driving style where your 0-60 times are important to you (in other words gunning it when you have a chance), you can pretty much ignore the EPA estimates cuz you'll probably end up getting much less than that.
Since you liked the Camry, it sounds like you like a soft-ish ride. I've heard the Altima is on the firmer side so make sure that this is ok for you on the type of roads you'll be driving on.
I never said it didn't did I? - if you want to consider a few feet of stopping distance the difference between 'great' (there are a number of primarily European cars that can get into the 110s 60-0) and merely 'good' then all the more power to you - keeping in mind of course that your 4 feet translates into about 1/20 of a second in time reduction it supposedly takes you to stop (from 60) as opposed to the other cars in this group. You do point out a real difference maker in both handling and braking prowess, however, those summer tires you are talking about. Or you could go even further and put in a good set of 'softer' ceramic pads, cross drill some rotors, and maybe rival those BMWs in brake performance.
Brake performance has a lot to do with fade resistance and ease of modulation and much less to do with somewhat subjective tested stopping distances, which will vary from car-to-car (and driver-to-driver) in any case.
I never compared the brakes of the 6 to the other car's brakes because I haven't driven any of them recently. So I'm not sure why you keep asking me to validate which brakes are good and which are great.
You also keep comparing test results like they are some kind of fact and a 6 will always stop 4 feet shorter than an Accord, or whatever else, just because the tests show that. Unless two vehicles are tested on the same day at the same location then the numbers need more information attached to them. C&D now publishes weather data in their test results now, which helps decipher the performance data, but I couldn't find any for any of these cars. Environmental factors can vary results such as stopping distance by several feet. You can start getting into the measurements that equal lengths of cars when that happens and that IS significant.
I'll probably be increasing my following distance on the way home...
Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com before 4pm Eastern on Friday, August 3 with your daytime contact information and a few words about your experience.
I don't think those adjustments apply to braking and I'm pretty sure MT still does the same thing too. I am rather certain that they won't do a braking test in the snow or rain though. That would be unfair because they probably couldn't do both for all makes/models, although it would be useful to the consumer.
Summer tires work well on wet and dry pavement, in most places it rains during the summer and they are designed for that. They are not designed for cold temperatures, and will become very brittle and hard and not grip the snow and ice. That is why 'summer tire' cars require dedicated snows in winter in cold climates, or switch to all seasons.
If you use an all season ultra-high treadwear rating tire, you are already used to that since it is hard and doesn't grip particularly well all year round :P
Its interesting as "traction" is stamped on the tire with a letter grade, but what it really represents is wet weather braking. It has nothing to do with how well a tire can start on something slippery or how well it corners, just wet braking. Whats more is like all the information printed on the tire, it is tested by the tire manufacturer, not any independent organization (at least for FE, the EPA does the testing).
oddly enough, the interior room of the sentra is not much less than the altima, it might even be bigger. When nissan rolled out the versa, they bumped up the size of the sentra quite a bit.
I don't know why you keep talking about reaction times...my reaction times are the same if I'm driving an Accord or Mazda6, so the distance it would take me to stop would be higher in the Accord than the Mazda according to the car magazines that tested both cars on the same day on the same track with the same driver. Perhaps you're right about some cars slowing down my reaction time... the average midsize sedan would be a bit soft and boring to me and my senses might be dulled as a result and leaving my a bit sleepy and bored, thus a bit slower. Another argument for engaging cars like the Mazda6!!!
Just out of curiosity, have you actually measured a panic stop from 60. Your car might be in a condition where as an Accord might handily stop sooner.
DING DING DING we have a winner. I am almost positive the somewhat below bar brake ratings on the Accord are due to tire choice.
Aftermarket tires will yield better stopping results, I bet.
On street tires, I could invoke ABS at freeway speeds in a panic stop.
I don't know what I am going to do with the Accord yet, since Honda put an oddball tire size on the the '07 EX, making upgrades more challenging with a 16" wheel.
I get in the Explorer with my wife and we both get to work 10 minutes late. Only in very deep snow though. I drove the 6 in an inch or two of snow a few times and only had trouble getting moving on hills. The T/C helped but at times I had to start in 2nd gear.
Braking was never a problem because, as I mentioned before, it was a stick and I used the engine compression to supplement the wheel brakes.
That is one big reason why I always like to buy a stick equipped car. It's very nice to have in the wintry weather which lasts anywhere from 5-7 months around here.
I like the fact that all Honda automatics that I know of allow you to lock into second gear, avoiding first altogether, just by selecting "2". All autos should have this option!
Possible? likely? whatever. Sure, other cars may have better brakes. Will it change the mind of someone who wants to buy an Accord? I seriously doubt it. The differences are not that great.
the following is quoted from motortrend in a midsize comparo (note the mazda6's lack of significant brake fade after repeated 60-0 stops):
"We all agree the 6 has the most well-balanced, confidence-inspiring chassis--especially for navigating the canyons--of our group. It neither understeers nor oversteers when pushed to the limit, and its tires never scream "mercy!" While it may lack the brutish punch of the Altima, it more than makes up for it with quick reflexes and sure-footedness. Everything works together in harmony: the supportive seats, good driving position, broad gear ratios, quick steering, and unfailing brakes.
We had a suspicion the Mazda 6 would be up to the task at the test track--and it was. The V-6 Mazda ran a 6.67-second 0-60 time with only a mild case of front-wheel hop. We just barely noticed the variable-valve timing and negligible torque steer kicking in somewhere in the upper-rev range when the quarter mile flew past in 15.13 seconds at over 94 mph. Standing on the brake pedal at 60 mph produced an impressively short 121-foot stop that grew only slightly after the fourth or fifth attempt. In the 600-foot slalom, a 63.9-mph pass puts it at the top of this test, as well as near the top of the sedan segment."
they also tend to be a bit cheap. I think its one of those things where most buyers won't notice the difference, and the manufacturer can save a couple $$$
Kind of irritated me that my brand new shinny altima came with $80 continentals on it.
Yeah? Well it irritated me when I heard my replacement tires would be $700+ if I wanted the same kind.
Lucky for me, i don't. I have Bridgestone Potenza G009s on my 1996 Accord, and will put them on my 2006 Accord when these Michelins wear out. Interestingly, I have 23,000 miles on the '06 and have very little wear to show for those miles.
Key stat: Cost of non-scheduled maintenance = $0.00.
The report is not posted online yet, but here's a couple of quotes:
If the interior of a mid-sized U.S. sedan looked this good, the Detroit Free Press would hail it as a worldbeater. Fit and finish and materials are terrific.
Then there's that aluminum 235-horse, 3.3-liter V-6, which is as quiet at 70 mph and at wide-open throttle as a BMW 335i's and is way, way quieter at idle. It performs other BMW-ish feats, too, such as pulling the Sonata all the way to 144 mph, or, if you're caught on photo radar in Scottsdale, 147 mph... . All of that for a paltry $23,495 or $23,645 today.
That doesn't sound paltry to me. Where can I read the rest of the story? (Since I know you only copied the good parts).
Then there's that aluminum 235-horse, 3.3-liter V-6, which is as quiet at 70 mph and at wide-open throttle as a BMW 335i's and is way, way quieter at idle
A BMW is a sports car, not a lux-cruiser. Its supposed to be louder, more visceral, more raw. It would be kind of like saying car A Malibu offers more legroom and fuel economy than a Mercedes C350 sedan. Not really that impressive to me, since the BMW isn't going for the whole "quiet serene" thing, that is far from its purpose.
A car being quieter than a BMW does nota a BMW-ish car make. That's my opinion (right or wrong).
I like the Sonata and think it is a good automobile. That part of the article bugs me though.
2) Other cars will go pretty darn fast without a speed limiter. As for the 147 MPH, I guess it is all things possible, but I am not so sure that is accurate. Strong tail wind :surprise: I will take an inline 6 made by BMW any day over a Hyundai, thank you.
3) I paid around $22,500 for an Accord SE V6 and it should cost me less than a Sonata to own, should I sell it in three to five years time frame.
Just my take,
Loren
As for price, bang for the buck, we got an '07 Sonata SE w/ XM (& floor mats, big deal) for $16,651 plus $189 doc + TTL for a total OTD of $18,189. I don't know where the Accord SE fits in Honda's line up or how it is equipped compared to the Sonate SE, but based on your paid price of about $22,500 our Sonata was at least $4,300 less, assuming your "about" $22,500 was the OTD price. $4300 sure as heck covers a lot of the depreciation Edmuind's uses in calculaing TCO. (Our purchase price was a couple/few thousand less than Edmund's TMV at the time.)
Right now, the only place you can read the rest of the long-term wrapup on the Sonata is the September issue of C/D. Eventually they'll post it on their web site, www.caranddriver.com.
And yes, there is some negative stuff in the review, e.g. it doesn't handle like a sports car and it doesn't make the driver stand out in a crowd. But what mid-sized family cars do? Overall I think you'll see it's a very positive review. (There's a lot more than two positive quotes in there.)
As for the value of your Accord, Ecmunds.com says it's worth from $13.4k (trade-in) to $15k (private party sale). Original MSRP was just under $26k. Don't know what your price was, but it's lost about $10k in value. I don't think bhmr59's Sonata has lost $10k in value yet, and if it's worth less than your car right now, consider that he paid far less than you did for your car. I'll bet his car, if properly taken care of, will be worth more than $6500 when it's four years old, if it has only 48k miles on it then (it'll still have factory warranty to the next owner!). As you said, apples and oranges.
- My BMW, total outlay after 3 years was $250 for the dealer alarm system.
- Friend bought has Acura in for 7K service, cost $300 ouch, however $0.00 on non-scheduled maintenance to date.
- My Toyota cost $500 for 30K service, ouch, but $0.00 on non-scheduled maintenance.
So that fact that $0.00 was spent on non-scheduled is not very impressive and misleading.
doesn't impress me either. my 98 200sx total expense over 9 years has been about 400 in brakes + the scheduled stuff like oil changes and flushes. hasn't needed any unscheduled maintenance. My 2002 civic hasn't needed anything but oilchanges, cooling system flushes ect and a timing belt that was schedulded to be replaced at 110k, and I replaced it at 100k. didn't break or anything.
But yea, 3 years doesn't seem like much. most people haven't even paid for it yet
I certainly won't be spending $800+ on tires when it comes time to replace them, though.