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
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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
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,
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,
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.
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
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
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.
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
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
Regards:
OldCEM
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
"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.
Sorry Malibu!
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.
A camry equipped like the Accord EX-L V6 model is probably around $34k. Way too much money for a Camry.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!