Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I think you would like it to be but it is not. It's just a different environment than pre-2000.
I'm not sure about the recall numbers - I've seen different websites report different numbers for Toyota for 2006. But if you're suggesting that the reason Toyota has had so many recalls the last 2 years is because the rules changed, you're mistaken. Transmission failures, engines dying at highway speeds and steering failures are not a result of a changing environment. These would have been recalled prior to 2000.
Again, I'm not saying it's terrible, just that Toyota's reputation for stellar quality is a bit tarnished and they're not bulletproof like they used to be.
I can make do with less horsepower because it is actually accessible.
We have been thru this before and don't see any need to rehash this but I really think you need to buy a diesel and then wonder why getting from 0-60 (or passing that semi) has suddenly become a real problem.
In terms of the safety value of things like handling and a good set of brakes, you are right they don't matter much (I guess because none of us do much swerving around telephone poles) - UNTIL, of course, you need them, and that could only be a difference between life and death.
With some exceptions, I think a number of cars today can go a long time or way without major maintenance, if - and, only if - they are maintained correctly from a normal preventive maintenance point-of-view.
300K+(estimated) 1975 Cutlass Supreme
235K - Volvo 164E
270K - Volvo 240
180K - Buick LeSabre
170K - Buick Park ave(sister's)
365K - Toyota 4Runner(current commuter vehicle for me)
All are still registered and running in California except for the 164E.
Now, as for power, it's useless if it comes at the price of a massive weight increase. Check out the BMW 3 series weight versus what it was 20 years ago. 800 lbs difference. There's a real reason many peolpe prefer to find a late 80s/early90s M3 instead of the boated mess we have now. Mustangs are simmilar. The old mid 90s model was small, fast, and cheap to modify. The new one - is a joke. Way too heavy and too much money for what you get.
What I want to see is a 2800-3000lb sedan with a decent I6/V6 engine in it, RWD, and stickshift.
But it is precisely what I'm saying. There was a Highlander safety recall last year for carpeting! There was a Durango safety recall last year for cupholders! I'm not denying that serious problems like the Sequoia/Tundra ball joint issue are not occuring, they are.
But the environment has changed. The NHTSA is not going to be blind-sided again like it was with Ford/Firestone. If there is a risk - recall everything. Let the manufacturers sort it out.
That article from the Detroit News referenced the NHTSA numbers for each of the last 3 years.
Yeah, I think BMW E30/E36s have the lock on that with RWD. A 90-93 Accord with an H22 would be a lot of fun. If you just want a RWD with an I6/V6, there are a number of 70s domestic products with your name on it.
Also, let's get away from the recent personal insinuations while we are getting back on topic. No one has to read nor respond to any post that seems senseless, out of line or otherwise inappropriate. It would be a good thing for keeping this discussion open to keep that in mind and there are a number of posters here who need to think about that. Seriously.
Responding in another forum to stay on topic..
recall response
The whole point here is someone CHOSE something other than the same old same old Camry/Accord.
I added a sunroof deflector and a rock guard to the front. I will probably switch to a high quality bra when they become available. :shades:
4 MPG is 4 MPG (which translates into 400 extra miles every 100 gallons - substantial to me), and a car capable 8.0 seconds to 60 MPH is more than enough to move along safely, regardless. Today's so-called "tougher time" are yesterday's top-of-the-line.
Ok... most driver's do this. I guess I didn't realize it warranted a post. I guess I should've posted that my father bought something other than an Accord, eh? Or my boss, or my aunt, or my best friend, or his girlfriend, or...
C'mon scape, we know you hate the Accord and Camry, but do you have to constantly make attempts to deride them? It'd be different if it brought something new to the conversation, but can you honestly say that it did by posting that?
Anybody can physically open their eyes in a parking lot and see that people DO choose vehicles other than Camry and Accord. You don't have to force your hate of HonYota on us AGAIN. We get it, man! :shades:
Exactly. Faster, more fuel efficient while being heavier, safer and easier to maintain.
We've added numerous air bags, ABS, VSA (et al), TPMS, 100 mile engines, emissions reducers, safety cages etc to already great cars. They can handle the added weight.
and a car capable 8.0 seconds to 60 MPH is more than enough to move along safely,
I agree. Extra power, in less capable hands, can be more dangerous than simply adequate power. More power does not mean safer.
1995-2000 M3 - 3.2 L S50B32 I6 321 hp
(Europe)
1995 M3 - 3.0 L S50B30 I6 286 hp
1996-1999 M3 - 3.2 L S50B32 I6 321 hp
(U.S. - some overlap in years and styles between Europe and the U.S.) That's plenty, considering.
And the car weighed 2950lbs.(lighter version - stock it was 3175). It's not too surprizing that many people feel that the current 3 series is a let-down from the older models. Many purists feel that even 2950lbs was bloated, since the original M3 was no slouch, either:
238 bhp 0-60 mph - 6.2 s. Top Speed: 150 mph
Weight: 2850lbs. And this, from a sedan. Not much slower than the current models.(the mid 90s lightweight version did 0-60 in about 5.6 seconds and handled like it was on rails)
The current 3-series is over 3500lbs. That's um... gotta hurt performance. And stuffing 400 or 500hp in the next M3 isn't going to fix the problems of it just simply weighing too much.
Every midsize car has done the same thing (gained weight). Why? you ask. Because the consumer wants larger, smoother riding cars (hence the kooshy Camry is tops in sales). All the midsize cars handled better 5-10 years ago. But they were lighter, and had smaller, lighter engines. If BMW tried to sell a car like the 97 3.0 (smaller, lighter) today, no one would buy it. They are actually forced to give the public what it wants. PSSSSSST.....It's all about sales, and profits.
http://www.autoworld.com/apps/news/FullStory.asp?id=5767&frame= :shades:
Rocky
regardless?? 99% of the time perhaps, but there remains a number of real life traffic situations, however infrequent, that the more powerful car might just save your butt. Whether that is worth the 4mpg in the Accord, or the 2mpg in the Camry - that would be buyer's choice.
Toyota marches on unstoppable it seems.
And the Accord seems to be the ever popular choice for buyers looking for the more economical 4-cylinder engines. So many Accords I see that are new are all 4-cyls.
Rocky
Actually, they do sell it but they had to call it a 1-series since the 3 had turned into such a huge barge.
I had even spoken to the guy (whom I bought the car from) at the dealership that I had gotten to know (when the car was in for warranty work AGAIN) about the poor gas mileage compared to the Accord V6 and his response was that basically Honda made the best fuel efficient engines out there and it didn't surprise him that an older Honda engine would get better mileage with more hp than a Hyundai engine!
The only positive thing about the whole Hyundai experience was the sales guy. Best most honest sales guy I have ever met. I just hope he moves to another brand soon so I can buy from him again.
Rocky, from which angle does it look like a clone to the IS? I didn't know that the IS line has spawned a coupe.
Maybe someone with the ability could post pictures of the two, side by side?
Here you go 03accordman, I honestly don't think these 2 look alike from ANY given angle.
Your Results May Vary (and I shouldn't have said "regardless" in my last post which you replied to, sorry)
I've never been in an accident because my vehicle was underpowered (and that includes 4 years in a 130 horsepower Accord). My grandfather went 15 years in his 70 horsepower Civic Wagon - commuted 40 miles to work daily, including a drive through downtown. That car was never ever wrecked (which is amazing regardless of engine power).
I say all that just to let you know where I'm coming from on this stance. I see the V6 as the more fun choice (unless you prefer handling, which I do) but at a high price ($2k or so + F.E.).
Light, same engines as the old 3 series, and a lot less expensive.
http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/bmw/bmw-1-series-130i-m-sport.asp
2006 - 130i: 2996 cc I6, 24 valves, 265 hp/195 kW, 315 Nm
Kerb Weight 1375 kg(3031 lbs)
2007 - will be 306HP. Essentially you'll get an IS350's power with 500lbs less weight. Expect 0-60 times in the 5.5 range and handling that is like a rally car.
The U.K. price includes massive taxes and such, so the U.S. price would be in the 30-35K range, most likely, for the 130 M(essentially a "M1", but they don't want to re-use the name)
The Accord 4, BTW, one of the very few, that it is difficult to tell that it is not a 6, at least until that point that you need to floor it. The 4 also should handle BETTER, less overall weight and better vehicle balance.
So the 4 cylinder models that are made in Japan are among the most refined and best values for the price. Take the Accord VP. Same exact trim level as a Civic LX, with only a couple of exceptions(alloy wheels and a better stereo are it, I think) - so it's not a bad car, considering. Add in two rear speakers and a couple of minor accessories and it's a decent car.(Honda alloys weight exactly the same as the steel wheels, so there's not much point in getting them - the handling's exactly the same)
http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USB70HOC011A0&restor- - e=false
$16,215 with manual transmission, before shipping. Honda routinely has $500 or $1000 off, though, on these - so it's possible to get one for under $16K including shipping near the end of the model year.
The NA Accord is designed to carry both the I4 and V6 engines from the ground up. There is no such thing as it was designed to carry a 4 in Japan and we just stuck a 6 in there for the NA market. That is totally nonsense.
So even the current model still drives very well with the 4. It's not like GM and Ford where they design around the bigger engine and offer a small one in the base model and the car is a slug as a result.(take the puny 4 they put in the base Caprice and simmilar) 3400lb car with 2.4L pushrod engine. Ack. Honda designs around the 4 and you get the 6 if you want more power than it was designed to need. Mercedes does this, too(as does BMW) - so the C36 AMG is a C with loads more power than it has to have(not needs to have).
And some Accords that are made in Japan make it over here - a few specific models like the VP.(roughly half are made in the U.S. and half in Japan). Get one if you can, as the QC in Japan is incredibly anal these days, as are the buyers.
I believe this is correct - the only thing you forgot to add is that is also built here 'ground up', the reason that the smaller European Accord even exists is for the tighter European roads and the engine displacement taxes they have over there that effectively precludes the use of any V6.
The last gen Japanese Accord was also different than the US Accord.
Same thing as the Fusion is DESIGNED in Detroit but BUILT in Mexico.
Another example, BMW Z4, X5 and X3 were all DESIGNED in Germany but were BUILT here in South Carolina.
If you need more example I'll have them ready for you.
while I'll agree with the first part of your statement - when (or where) could you ever buy a Caprice with a 4 banger? Maybe you mean that great new CHINESE automaker, General Motors?