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.
Options

Midsize Sedans 2.0

19394969899544

Comments

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    LED are bright, illuminate faster, and should last ten years,or more. Looks OK to me.

    And that entire array consumes considerably less energy than a bulb (especially of similar brightness). This means fewer and smaller wires running to the back of the car, which means cheaper, lighter and easier to build assemblies. It also means a lighter vehicle (you wouldn't believe how much a fully dressed wire harness weighs) and better mpg.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    I think you were trying to reply to me and not yourself? Anyway, my post was not talking about destination charges at all but was more about what the OP should be looking to pay for a Mazda6 based on what discounts I'm seeing in my area.

    I suppose all costs that a dealership puts on a car are negotiable, but how much wiggle room there is in destination charges is a complete mystery to me. Sounds like the car companies would prefer it that way too. Personally, my negotiations circled around the discount off of MSRP and not about dealer documentation fees or destination charges. Sorry for the confusion and I'll be going back to my world now.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    You seem to move well enough until up in the high speeds, when asked to pass. It is then where the SOHC or DOHC seem to shine. That said, they both have their good side to them. Not everyone will enjoy hearing a higher revved up engine. And there is limits to everything no doubt. You would not want to have to max the engine every time just to move across town.

    It had been some time, say around a decade of i4 engines for me, but I am back to a V6 again. Really do enjoy the extra power, and it comes in for safety in some cases when entering freeways, which seem more and more crowded these days here in California. There is just something smooth too about the not having to really work to get things going. I tell ya, the PT Cruiser it is really revving up the i4 and rowing the gears just at the right time, if you want to get anywhere in less than a snails pace. This is not to say I am not going to consider another i4 with a stick, and be doing the clutch and stick routine again, as another sports car is a possible in the near future. As for another sedan, one fine day, I guess it depends on how the cost of gasoline goes. They keep upping the HP for the i4 engines, so they are closing in on the at least the older V6 engines. Believe it or not, my current 244HP V6 is the most HP I have ever had, including the early 70's with my Mustang 289 at what, say 200HP? So this time I just thought I would go for the power. It's all good though, be it 100HP little i4 or having a 430HP Corvette, as it is the car in total which makes the difference. Those, less than powerful little Miatas can be a kick to drive. It's all good - just enjoy the drive! L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I have never driven the AWD cars. Seems like they all would be good for snow conditions. But then again, I rarely am faced with snow, other than a once in a blue moon during a vacation or two. Got caught in snow coming back to CA from Las Vegas. I had a FWD Achieva, with new tires, and it did well indeed. There was enough snow, they closed the freeway at Baker that day, minutes after I reached the town. So I guess the FWD was a good thing. Nowadays, the computers can help sort things out though to keep you moving and upright, so I guess it is slightly less an issue. And wouldn't the 50/50 weight distribution be better in some cases, even in snow travel ?

    I can see most premium cars moving to RWD / AWD. I take most AWD cars like the Subarus are mostly FWD driving the wheels, with the occasional kicking in of power to the rear, or what 15% ? Never really researched the AWD cars based on FWD, as it doesn't seem an issue on the left coast USA. I do know that many Subaru owners seem to be fans of the cars, somewhat like those SAAB owners. Is this a cult car? Loren
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I have never driven the AWD cars.

    Me neither, except for a test drive of a legacy. The salesperson wanted to show off the AWD, had me accelerate with two wheels on snow/ice and two on pavement. It did fine, but then I later tried the same thing with my wife's jetta that has ESC and it did just fine too. I think subaru is full-time AWD and it's the Volvo system (also used by Ford) that just occassionally sends power to rear.

    I also have not driven a RWD car at all since about 1985 and that was a 1977 model. I suppose things may have changed a bit in 30 years :) . I had a Ford salesman one time telling me the mustang would be fine in winter as long as you get traction control, never tested that claim though as I decided it was too impractical anyway.

    I guess if you got ESC in a RWD, that'd probably do just fine in winter. Also I'm sure real snow tires can help a lot, but I would not want the bother of tire switching twice a year. Since things get plowed and salted quickly all season tires and FWD work good enough to suit me 99% of the time.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >Over on the Honda Accord boards, everyone is beating the "LED Tail Light" drum

    The LEDs look like a connect-the-dot puzzle and that they were too cheap to fill in with enough dots of light to give a full, bright display. Check the Cadillac DTS and STS taillights. Those are LEDs. Gimme full taillights.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >This means fewer and smaller wires running to the back of the car, which means cheaper, lighter and easier to build assemblies

    Are you sure about the wiring? I'll check a wiring diagram but I see one wire for running lights, one wire each for left and right turn signal capability, and then a ground. I doubt the wire size is different on the Accord, e.g., nor fewer in number. As for the cheaper I suspect LEDs cost more and the weight of the taillight assembly would be the same.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    You would be correct, LED' are much more expensive to use. unlike a conventionl light, it doesn't use a signle bulb. I had a thrid brake light in the spoiler of a car that had a few of the small LED's burn out. the whole piece had to be replaced, and I want to say it ran a little over $100
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    >This means fewer and smaller wires running to the back of the car, which means cheaper, lighter and easier to build assemblies

    Are you sure about the wiring? I'll check a wiring diagram but I see one wire for running lights, one wire each for left and right turn signal capability, and then a ground. I doubt the wire size is different on the Accord, e.g., nor fewer in number. As for the cheaper I suspect LEDs cost more and the weight of the taillight assembly would be the same.

    The wire gauge is smaller, LEDs us much less current than a bulb, and the in-rush current is low to non-existent (the part where it pulls enough current to get the thing to start to glow). Believe me, they will run a smaller gauge wire if they can, especially now. Copper prices had a really rough year.
    Also, when the lights are more efficient it means you can use a smaller battery and alternator, and they need to work less of the time, freeing up weight from the battery and horsepower from the alternator.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >when the lights are more efficient it means you can use a smaller battery and alternator, and they need to work less of the time, freeing up weight from the battery and horsepower from the alternator.

    Can you edify me about how much of a reduced current load occurs from a fully-populated LED array of taillights, ala DTS/STS vs a 1056 tungsten bulb (whatever the right number :blush: )? The brake lights work only a tiny fraction of the time the lights are on. The running taillights are only on at dusk to dawn; that's a tiny percentage for most drivers out of the total time driven. I have trouble believing it's a meaningful reduction in load for the battery. Now if all bulbs on the car became LEDS including headlights I could believe there's a meaningful/measurable reduction.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    As you can see, over 2 amps is pulled by the regular bulbs. Less than 1/8 of that power draw is pulled by the LED’s. Even more shocking is the actual brake circuit of the 1157 bulbs (not listed in the table). Each bulb pulls 2.08A when braking, while the LED’s pull 0.12A. In this case, the regular bulb pulls 17 times as much current as the LED.

    Regular to LED Power Savings

    Some caveats - the tests were done a vehicle not designed for LED lighting, he talks only about steady-state measurements, and he doesn't list the specification of the LEDs he is using.
    He also says something about the brightness, which is odd since there is a FMVSS standard for the output. I know the housings for LED lamps are different than those for incandescent, and since he was retro-fitting perhaps that was his issue.
    I find the brakelights on the Caddy and the G35 to be brighter than those on their non-LED counterparts.

    As far as replacing all vehicle lighting with LEDs, its on its way. Trailer lights have gone to LED to reduce the load on the towing vehicle's electrical system, etc.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Ah one of those people with enough lights on the Christmas tree to break the branches. :D The Accord has enough bulbs, and it looks fine.

    Never liked the STS in the latest form. Just looks like they took CTS stretched it out, then took out the best of the character style, and left it as a larger and blander looking CTS, at a much higher price. Yuk!
    The DTS redo is kinda interesting. Not sure it is better, but it is different. I liked that Euro, more minimal and smooth style to the predecessor. Since Mr. D has the Euro lettering and is now nameless, why did they not keep the Euro look? Someone is confused. Oh well, bling is in. L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I heard Santa Claus was considering replacing Rudolph this coming foggy Christmas eve, with LED lights. Perhaps it is only a rumor. L
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "I take most AWD cars like the Subarus are mostly FWD driving the wheels, with the occasional kicking in of power to the rear, or what 15% ?"

    To set the record straight at least on my Subie it is full-time AWD. When accelerating from a dead stop the rear wheels have the torque, while accelerating torque shifts to the front-wheels and eventually settles in to a front to rear ratio.

    My Subie has an LSD for the rear diff. Slippage will shift torque left to right and then to the front if needed. The Subie AWD automatically adjusts front to rear ratios as needed.

    The above information is from owners manual.
    This doesn't apply to the STI.

    Here is a link that talks about part of the story.

    http://www.autoworld.com/news/Subaru/Subaru_All-Wheel.htm
  • oldcemoldcem Member Posts: 309
    Olds actually lost it in 1977 when they started putting Chevy 350's in the B bodies instead of the Olds Rocket engines. My last Olds was a 1978 Custom Cruiser 9 passenger wagon - needed it to haul around the growing family. However, with the help of a friendly dealer, I ordered it with the high altitude package - which equipped it with the Olds 403 CID engine and stronger tranny. I also equipped it with the F41 suspension, positraction, and the biggest wheel option available. I basically had a 9 passenger police car, and, it was the ultimate sleeper.

    Regards:
    OldCEM
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well my '76 Starfire was no great work of automotive engineering. :P But I had fun with it, drove it I guess it was maybe six to seven years, then sold it as junk for $299 wholesaler. No one wanted to buy it. Wasn't high mileage or anything, just unwanted and it looked a bit tired. Bought a used Datusn 510 which ran great and looked A-OK, without parts falling off. Replaces a headlamp $17 and a hood prop clip for something like 50 cents a pair, and an inline fuse $1, but it took an hours labor to find the problem, as I had made the mistake of not going to a dealer and went to a service station for the repair. Anyway, not bad for a used car over a 2 1/2 years of service. Only lost $800 when I traded the car in. Dad then bought the next Olds, a station wagon, V8 with all of 140HP, I think it was for 1984. Not a great car, but it ran. His next car was a Camry, which he really liked. This car was impressive with zero defects in 9 years of service.

    Fast forward to today, GM has some better stuff to sell no doubt, but I am wondering how they are going to sell cars like the Epsilon series as being somehow all that better than buying a brand X. What is to set them apart from the rest. Way back when, one could argue that gee that new Datsun 510 say in 1968 sure has some features and gas mileage, but look we have this better styled car, with more steel and wouldn't it be more comfortable and safer than your 510. Or you could say, we have nicer seating, or more dealerships, and well you get the point. What now is the main selling point for GM, and Ford if the car is a much the same as car? How would you market the car. I see GM likes the All American Theme. But the old cars looked so much different than did the competition. You had a VW bug, a Subaru lighter steel little egg thing, a Honda with paper thin doors, and well some really lightweight contenders. I think back then, I would be more stylin' in a Chevy Nova II or a Falcon, or Fairlane 500. Will there be any attempts at style for cars in the mid-size or smaller? L
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I saw the Accord on Motorweek and it looked better on TV than in pics. That said, the rear end is terribly unattractive and the car is more inoffensive than good looking. Its not ugly by any means, but they could've done better.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    However, with the help of a friendly dealer, I ordered it with the high altitude package - which equipped it with the Olds 403 CID engine and stronger tranny. I also equipped it with the F41 suspension, positraction, and the biggest wheel option available.

    "Special Packages" like the "heavy duty," "high altitude," and fleet packages are kind of the way to go with the full size domestic vehicles. My folks '89 Grand Voyager had the $400 tow package which got them much larger front and rear brakes, larger tires and wheels, a real spare, a large auxiliary radiator and trans cooler, and heavy duty suspension with a higher payload.
    I think that did a lot to help that vehicle, as the transmission was fine, it never had a brake problem (their friends were having warped rotor issues) and the cooling system was great (there was a head gasket problem on some of their friend's vans). Of course, it should've been standard, apparently, but oh well.
  • robbiegrobbieg Member Posts: 350
    I agree. Things are different in Pittsburgh as opposed to SoCal. A house here in nice neighborhood will cost you well less that 200,000. There are a lot of, mostly older, Pittburghers that only buy American. The fact that domestics are much cheaper than Hondas is a bonus or maybe the reason for American made preference. Then again, in my Pittburgh neighborhood I rarely see v4 Accords but I see plenty of V6 Accords.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Prices are relatively unchanged! My 2006 EX 4-cyl (cloth, Auto), stickered for $23,800. The new 2008 model is $23,860, for reference.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Honda has really increased the pressure on the competition with the pricing of the 2008.
    Sorry Malibu!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Don't look for Chevrolet to be out-priced. Most GM vehicles have a very solid history of having cash on the hood of every car they sell. It has happened so much, people now expect it.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "Actually, the Classic Malibu, you know the rental fleet one, looks similar to the New Malibu. Both look OK. It was the steering, handling and drive-train which needed improvement. Did not expect any really hot styling to be done, and they didn't. Just a pleasing looking car. If it is more than that, I guess one has to see it in the metal, and not just in photo. "

    The two cars look nothing alike. They dont even have the same overall profile or dimensions. As for the steering, the Malibu has electric steering on all but the SS model. The new car has hydraulic steering on V6 models just like the Aura/G6. The electric steering is the one that got a lot of criticism.

    I have seen the new Malibu in the flesh, it looks good in person. Better than in pics. and the pics arent too bad themselves.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    They mainly put the pressure on Camry and Altima. The new Accord makes the camry look even more overpriced than it does now. The Altima also seems too expensive now. The Malibu is right in this same range. A Malibu LTZ with every option should be around $28k. The base Malibu starts at $20K + destination which is about $1000 less than 2008 Accord LX with 5 speed auto.

    A camry equipped like the Accord EX-L V6 model is probably around $34k. Way too much money for a Camry.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    Is is just me or is Honda charging about $2200 for the V6 engine? That seems a little ridiculous to me in spite of the 268hp available.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,543
    Yeah, I think they are charging about 2k more for the cylinder engine. It probably costs about that much more to make the 3.5 with VCM than the 2.4—which is already a great and quite sophisticated engine.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    Honda's prices seem high to me. Then again, they always have. That being said, our 2007 3.0-liter V6 AWD SEL Ford Fusion with moon roof, heated leather seats and ABS had a MSRP of $27,105, that's without Sirius radio, without navigation and without the eight-speaker Audiophile radio system.

    My wife and I love almost everything about the Fusion except for its horrific 14.8 mpg in all-city driving. The revised EPA estimate for this power train combination is 17 mpg city; 24 mpg highway.

    Boz
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    My wife and I love almost everything about the Fusion except for its horrific 14.8 mpg in all-city driving. The revised EPA estimate for this power train combination is 17 mpg city; 24 mpg highway.

    Go rent an Accord for a week. Record your mileage under your actual driving conditions. Then see you will have a basis for comparison.
    Also, while the fuel economy is poor, given the number of miles traveled, it sounds like the financial impact is negligible.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I have an '07 Accord SE V6 cost around $22,500 and gets about 20 MPG around town, usually 24 MPG in mixed driving, or most highway with rabbit starts, and 29MPG for freeway cruising. Not bad for 244HP.
    Never understood the moonroof thing. With an Accord it would mean a loss of over 2" headroom for something I would be using anyway. Now a convertible hardtop may be a neat item. :shades: Navigation is not needed, as I am never lost. Have taken a couple of interesting side trips along the way however. If I was a salesman on the road, then yes - navigation system. AAA gives me those neat maps -- good reading. As for Sirius radio, I don't need that. I listen to free radio some of the time to see what is playing or what they are talking about in the area I am at, then I have the 6 CD changer for music. CDs are getting cheap. The good music is cheaper, as you find the old names in rock and such for a better price, instead of the current pop tart trash and rap bad poetry. Never owned leather seats. They look kinda neat, I guess. Maybe I will on a sports car some day. L
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I have an '07 Accord SE V6 cost around $22,500 and gets about 20 MPG around town, usually 24 MPG in mixed driving, or most highway with rabbit starts, and 29MPG for freeway cruising. Not bad for 244HP.
    Never understood the moonroof thing. With an Accord it would mean a loss of over 2" headroom for something I would be using anyway. Now a convertible hardtop may be a neat item. Navigation is not needed, as I am never lost. Have taken a couple of interesting side trips along the way however. If I was a salesman on the road, then yes - navigation system. AAA gives me those neat maps -- good reading. As for Sirius radio, I don't need that. I listen to free radio some of the time to see what is playing or what they are talking about in the area I am at, then I have the 6 CD changer for music. CDs are getting cheap. The good music is cheaper, as you find the old names in rock and such for a better price, instead of the current pop tart trash and rap bad poetry. Never owned leather seats. They look kinda neat, I guess. Maybe I will on a sports car some day.


    It sounds like different strokes, features and options for different folks. I haven't had a car without a sunroof in...eh I can't remember the last time I didn't have a sunroof. I love the thing. My last 2 cars had leather, the current one doesn't. I miss it. Easy to clean, feels nice to sit on, and looks nice to me. You can keep satellite radio, I don't need one more thing to pay for every month. But for the love of whoever, put in a decent iPod interface. As the cost of a navigation system drops, they will become more and more appealing. Add in real time traffic information and dynamic routing and you are starting to look pretty convincing.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    As has been pointed out many times, your "horrific" mpg has little to do with the Fusion and much to do with how and where you dirve it.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    interesting reading - the comparo won by a nose by the new Accord apparently because of size and styling evaluations. The Camry SE(V6)is quicker with apparently a little harder edge on the ride/handling, FE is a wash despite Honda's use of variable displacement system. Actually surprised that 08 Accord doesnt 'blow away' the 07 Camry - although it certainly sounds like the Accord to buy might just be the one with the new 200hp 4 banger! Of interest to those who want the best?
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    I am not surprised that the '08 Accord didn't blow away the '07 Camry in the MT comparo due to:

    1. The new Camry is a pretty decent performer in the SE form, and that's in both power and handling. I had a rental Camry SE for 3 days earlier this year and came away impressed. The only downside is cheap hard plastic can be found all around the interior.

    2. MT did select the '07 Camry as NA Car of the Year so they really can't make the Camry looks too bad right? :P

    Now I am looking forward to see what will C&D say when these two go head-to-head in their comparo. Keep in mind the Accord is on C&D's top 10 car list for only the mighty one knows how long.

    I am a little surprised that the Camry SE actually rides harder than the Accord. It's too bad that Honda doesn't offer a sports edition for the Accord, otherwise it should be a real performer and a legit sports sedan within all the FWD sedans.

    On a second thought, Honda actually does, it's called the Acura TL... :P
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    As has been pointed out many times, your "horrific" mpg has little to do with the Fusion and much to do with how and where you dirve it.

    Yes and no, Jeff. Our terrain is as flat as a fritter. The climate is mild. The tires are over inflated slightly, 35 psi, and we are both conservative drivers.

    Over the same route of travel, our 1997 3.8-liter V6 Thunderbird with four-speed automatic transmission -- a larger, heavier car -- gets 13-15 mpg while our compact 2000 2.0-liter I4 Ford Focus station wagon gets 17-20 mpg.

    Given that this is 2007, I would expect the mid-size Fusion to be closer to the revised EPA estimate of 17 mpg for this power train and I'm very disappointed that, after nine months and 4,600 miles, it doesn't.

    I suspect the all-wheel drive is the mileage culprit. It's not something I would have specifically ordered, it's just how the car was equipped on the lot.

    Styling, handling and a good previous experience with the dealer weighed heavily in our decision to go with the Fusion, which is only available in three models: the S, SE and top of the line SEL.

    In retrospect, we should have shopped around more, taken more time. I was also under the impression that a four-cylinder mil would not be adequate but I now believe that is not the case.

    We still believe the Fusion is by far the best-looking mid-size in the marketplace and its features are top-notch, too. The fit and finish on our Fusion is perfect.

    Still, I have this nagging feeling that a four-cylinder Fusion, or even a four-cylinder Accord, would have made me happier nine months after the fact.

    At least the leather interior still smells good after nine months. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    In retrospect, we should have shopped around more, taken more time. I was also under the impression that a four-cylinder mil would not be adequate but I now believe that is not the case

    Now that you've got the car, just enjoy it; you can't turn back time!

    BUT, if your Focus is adequate for you, a 4-cyl Fusion would have been as quick if not quicker.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    Now that you've got the car, just enjoy it; you can't turn back time!

    You are right, of course, Grad. The best part is it's paid for, too. No debt associated with it. Feature-wise, it's the nicest car we have ever owned. I just get heartburn every time I fill up the gas tank. :)

    BUT, if your Focus is adequate for you, a 4-cyl Fusion would have been as quick if not quicker.

    The problem is we once owned a four-cylinder Mustang in the late 1980s that was the pits, not enough power to get out of its own way. That was a bad memory. The Focus is fine, however.

    Today, a four-banger is probably adequate for 90 percent of the population, including me.

    Did I just read somewhere that Honda's new four is up to 200 horsepower? Our 3.0 Duratec V6 is only rated at 221 horsepower.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I suspect the all-wheel drive is the mileage culprit. It's not something I would have specifically ordered, it's just how the car was equipped on the lot.


    That is still pretty bad that you don't get atleast 17mpg around town even with the AWD. The AWD in the Fusion is reactive, rather then pro-active. My brother has a 2006 Mazdaspeed6, same AWD system, heavily modded running around 300hp, and he gets 21-22 mpg's around town and 25 highway, when hes not punching it.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    Things had certainly improved by the late 80's but a little refresher might be added here about the bad old days.

    http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z3859/Ford_Mustang/default.aspx

    "1975 brought the return of the 302 (5.0 Liter) V-8 however at only 122 horsepower."

    The eighties were better but the fours of that day were a far cry from what's available now.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    agree with you on the 'looking bad' contention. It would seem therefore that the new Accord will be the 08 COY as this award is largely based on significance. What is more significant in this or any other segment than a vehicle that will likely be sold 400,000 times or so. It may poach enough Camry sales to become #1 again. The TL-S is that 'harder' Accord you are talking about, but I persnally feel that it falls well short of being a real sports sedan along the lines of the 335 and IS350 - limitations of high HP in FWD (or even FWD biased AWD sedans)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Was that $23,800 sticker for the '06 EX with or w/o destination charge? With destination, the 2008 Accord EX sedan is $24,495. For someone who wants a really nice I4 mid-sized sedan, that is pretty good. However... it's only $250 less than a fully-loaded 2008 Sonata Limited V6 (after rebates available to all buyers). The Accord EX-L V6 is nearly $4000 more than the loaded Sonata Limited V6 (although the Accord V6 has the power advantage and a nicer interior). So the Accord is still relatively pricey, I'd say. The V6 model has moved into the next class up based on price, i.e. competing more with the likes of the Avalon, Lucerne, and Azera than the Camry and Sonata.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    if I remember correctly, isn't your one way commute to work in the Fusion like 5 miles or something short like that where the engine hardly has time to warm up? I mean, if he's getting 17 in a ford escort, flat or not, if a car can barely warm up you're gonna get bad gas mileage!
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I don't think the Azera can compete favorably with the 08 Accord. The new Accord is in a different league than the Sonata, IMO. Sure, the Sonata may come close, as far as features, but not in Class, Style, and Refinement. The advantage is more than just "power".
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Azera is very close to the Accord in power. It is roomier than the Accord (and interior room is something Honda touts for the new Accord). And it's thousands less than the Accord, in real-world pricing. Class? The Azera is just as "classy" in my eyes as the Accord, with much more attractive styling. Style? That too is in the eye of the beholder. Refinement? Depends on how you define it. The Accord will out-handle the Azera. But the Azera is likely the superior highway cruiser, with a very smooth, comfortable ride and hushed environment.

    It comes down to what someone is looking for in a car. In moving the Accord up-class in room and price for 2008, Honda is for better or worse bumping up against another crop of competitors. If someone is looking for a roomy, luxurious, powerful sedan, there are several other good options out there besides the Accord, for the same or less money. I mentioned but three of them earlier: Avalon, Azera, and Lucerne. Even the CTS is in the same dollar ballpark as the Accord now.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    200hp but at a mammoth 7100 rpm ... think most of us would have difficulty pushing any engine that hard. Would be willing to bet, though, that the Honda engine at 7 grand is smoother and quieter than the DT at 5, a point at which they are likely putting out near the same HP.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I am noticing a bit of tire squeal with my Michelin's on the Accord SE V6. When it comes to time to replace the tires, I may opt for less mileage and more grip, say something like a Yokohama or Kumho tire. Seems to me they are really favorably rated at the TireRack, yet low priced. Can not recall the rating professionals tests and consumer surveys on my standard tires, but I think they did OK. In interesting how you can get all season brand X tires which seem to do better than the expensive brands. That said, that too can be hype. One of those things you just have to test yourself. The Michi's should get me plenty of miles, and I would say seem to stick pretty good, though recently after 7K miles, they sure seem to squeal with more ease. Come rain season should be a good test.

    These tests done on new cars with stability control surely put the limits on those lateral g tests, don't they? And the slalom testing? I still call the Accord a sports sedan like ride, though I realize it can be taken wrong. Of course it is not a Bimmer, but compared to the slow, boat like handling, some of us old timer lived with, this nice cornering, with some good feedback to steering, without that one finger lightness, is so welcomed, I call it sports sedan like. And I am sure an Accord can be pushed through the corners, FWD - heavy nose and all, much quicker than most of the sports cars and muscle cars of days gone bye. I would not push my old pony, the 289 Mustang around a turn as fast as an Accord, or Camry, for that matter. And today's CTS vs, some old Caddy, is like night and day. Of course, there is more to life where it comes to cars, and we must honor the greatness of the old cruisers, or is that luxo liners, the wonderful ships they were.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    The CTS is starting at $34K now :( Got to be more costly than an Accord. Speaking of bumping up, there goes the size of the CTS too. They just can't leave these cars alone, where it comes to size. The CTS, with the 3.6V6 seems like a fair deal at $30K, but I guess they need some wiggle room for those massive discounting to come. The economy could change from challenging to down right ugly soon. Who knows? For the car industry, it is a most likely scenario however, as people tighten the purse strings. L
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Exactly; we've hashed this over before (i dont think you were here for that one). It's not the car, it's the commute.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Had a chance to drive a RX-8 and a Porsche Boxter this weekend (my uncle is looking for a fun to drive car to go with his lexus 430... don't we all feel bad for him :P ), and if you want to hear some sweet sounds from an engine, these two had it in spades though they sounded completely different. The rotary engine spins up soooo quickly but even at 8k, it does not sound stressed at all. And Mazda is really good at tuning the sounds in the cabin to make their cars sound pretty muscular, so the RX-8 sounded faster than it was. But as I drove it, I'm getting more and more impressed with how mazda tunes their suspensions and chassis. Although the ride is lively, it still dampens bumps really well. My 6 is very similar... though not as low as the RX-8, the suspension is a great balance of road feel and comfort that leaves you feeling engaged but not beat up.

    The Porsche was the same as far as suspension goes, but it's engine had a lot more testosterone to it... louder, rougher, deeper, but man, was it sweet! Definitely not as smooth sounding as the RX-8, but it's more raw sound was just as appealing.

    In some ways, the difference between these two cars is how I'd compare the sound of the Accord v-6 I test drove vs the Mazda6's Duratec. The Accord does sound really smooth and doesn't growl as much whereas the Mazda6 sounds more meaty, especially in the 3-5k rpm range. There is a rawness to the sound of this engine at 6k when the vvt is in full roar that still gets the hairs on my neck to stand up and all my senses are focused on the road ahead and the balance of the car... wonderful stuff!
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    So of course I'm excited about news about the upcoming Mazda6 that should be coming out mid 08 (as an 09 model), but I see that Honda is supposed to be coming out with an Accord Tourer... hmmmm, could this be the TSX replacement?!? Personally, I think the TSX is what the Accord should be, but I guess Americans like their cars soft and big. Just got to wonder what kind of styling they put on this one. I also wonder if they will put a turbo on it in a type-R version... combined w/ shAWD, that would be something to behold! Anyways, so much to look forward to... too much time to wait!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.