Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Economy Sedans (~$16k-$20k)

1…1617192122…24

Comments

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    As a hatch, the Versa has a major problem IMO: the lack of a fold-flat rear seat. Not only doesn't it fold flat, but it's a two-level cargo compartment with the rear seat sticking up. That greatly reduces the utility of the Versa as a hatch, especially compared to the Fit but even compared to hatches where the rear seat folds nearly flat, e.g. Rabbit, Astra, and Elantra Touring.

    The Versa sedan doesn't have this problem of course, but I just can't warm up to the sedan's looks, particularly the C-pillar. It looks so dowdy to me. The hatch is kind of weird, but endearing.

    Then of course there's the lack of ESC on the Versa, a feature getting more and more common in the compact class, and it doesn't get great FE considering its size and relatively low power. But other than that it is a good value for the money.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I completely agree with you on your points against the Versa.

    The styling, while a little frumpy, has a European understated look that I like (in the hatch); the sedan just needs to go away. :)

    The economy isn't top-of-the-class, but when you consider that you basically have a midsized car as far as interior room goes, you can't beat the economy. The power/economy ratio is a little disappointing (considering I pretty much match the highway numbers people are reporting in my more powerful 166hp Accord.

    The lack of Stability Control is a point off as well, but seeing as I've never had it, I've never missed it. A bigger detriment against the Versa, to me, is the lack of standard ABS. D'oh Nissan!!

    For someone needing a high-quality, roomy, low-priced car, the Versa can't be beat in my humble opinion. If you need more cargo abilities, the Fit, Matrix, or Scion xD may better suit you.
  • no_oneno_one Member Posts: 29
    I don't think there is a best compact car, since everyone has different needs.

    It's interesting you bring up the paddle shifters, because each of the three cars has something unique to offer in the automatic transmission in this class.

    Fit: Paddle Shifters

    Rabbit: Sport mode (same idea as paddle shifters, just on the shifter rather than the wheel). 6-speed automatic. Also has some interesting technology that makes the transmission more efficient than most automatics.

    Astra: Snow mode. Causes the transmission to start in 3rd gear so as to reduce the amount of torque and not spin out the wheels on snow. Incidentally, paddle shifters and the like (at least the ones my dad has on his Avalon) won't let you do this and will still start off in the lowest gear until you get up to a speed at which it feels you should upshift.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    For someone needing a high-quality, roomy, low-priced car, the Versa can't be beat in my humble opinion.

    Well, don't forget the Elantra: more room than the Versa, low priced, high quality, more power but similar FE, and has standard ABS and (on the SE) ESC. And the sedan looks a lot better IMO than the Versa sedan... I know, I know, your parents can't stand how the Elantra looks. To each his own. :)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I don't think there is a best compact car, since everyone has different needs.

    Exactly. Although I think some are clearly better in general than others.

    FYI, the sport-mode shifter on the Rabbit is not unique in this class. The Mazda3 for one offers it, and the Elantra Touring will have it later this year. The 6AT on the Rabbit may be unique in this class though... although the Versa and Sentra trump it with an "infinite" number of ratios. ;)

    I'm not seeing the benefit of the "snow mode" on the Astra vs. the traction control that is offered on other compacts. Traction control acts when needed, automatically. Do you need to remember to put the Astra into "slow mode"?
  • no_oneno_one Member Posts: 29
    Heh. I forgot about traction control. It seems the Astra's "snow mode" is equivalent. It's off by default and has to be turned on by the driver.

    Yes, the Sport shift mode of the rabbit is not unique, but the DSG setup of the Rabbit transmission is, as far as I am aware.

    Nissan makes some pretty nifty transmissions. They offer the only six speed manual in affordable cars, in addition to the CVT.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I love how Nissan has put 6MTs into the Versa and Sentra. I just wish 6th gear were a little taller, to provide lower RPMs--and higher FE--on the highway. I wouldn't mind if I had to downshift while the cruise is on to maintain speed up a grade. It would be worth it to me to keep the highway RPMs down in 6th.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    It's interesting you bring up the paddle shifters, because each of the three cars has something unique to offer in the automatic transmission in this class

    And they are all pretty worthless IMHO.

    Fit: Paddle Shifters

    For 18 year olds that spent too much time playing Grand Tursimo and never bothered to actually learn to drive stick (live in your world, play in ours?)

    Rabbit: Sport mode (same idea as paddle shifters, just on the shifter rather than the wheel). 6-speed automatic. Also has some interesting technology that makes the transmission more efficient than most automatics.

    The GTI actually has them on the wheel. Its interesting, this is the most like a true manual.

    Astra: Snow mode. Causes the transmission to start in 3rd gear

    Thats interesting, most of the "snow modes" start in second, but I guess since that engine has so much torque (sarcasm, for those playing along at home) it needs a still higher gear.

    I don't know, I just can't get my head around the idea of spending an extra $1000 for something that gives less control and higher maintenance costs than the standard system.

    If I want to be in 3rd, I push this pedal on the right and move this lever on the left into 3rd and whoomp, there it is.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I was thinking of hatches, but yes, the Elantra is another good buy. And, while my parents think the Elantra is unbearable, I have to say the current Elantra is easily the worst-looking Hyundai on sale. The Accent looks great in comparison.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Worse than the Tucson? :surprise:
  • poncho167poncho167 Member Posts: 1,178
    I have read some pretty good write ups in magazines on the Astra. Yes, Car & Driver said it could use a little more punch in the engine department to be at the front of the pack but overall it was rated better than some competing models.

    Face it people are spoiled with this horse power thing and in reality most don't drive like a lunatic. Any car that does under 10-seconds 0-60 is pretty quick. I would be more than happy with the Astra's 138 hp or whatever it is. I actually could go with much less because I drive for mileage and have been so for over 10-years.

    I drove a Mazda 3 four door rental a couple months ago while my truck was getting some body work and it was real nice except there were too many blind spots when looking out the passenger side. For my money I would take a Cobalt over the Mazda because it is a more roomy car than the Mazda 3 which has a tight drivers seating area and the blind spots as mentioned. The Mazda 3 maybe sharp looking for the compact class but that is not enough for me.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Along with the Touring version (hatch, yay!) there's supposed to be a slight reskin of some sort. Haven't seen it yet, because I've been busy staring at the Touring.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Member Posts: 804
    "Worse than the Tucson?"

    Hey, I resemble that remark! :P ;)

    By the way, I drive an 05 Tucson. Best vehicle I have ever owned from a maintenance and warranty standpoint. Remember Backy, it is loosely based on the previous gen Elantra. :D
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "Face it people are spoiled with this horse power thing and in reality most don't drive like a lunatic. Any car that does under 10-seconds 0-60 is pretty quick."

    So by extension you're saying that anybody who isn't satisfied by the anemic power of the Astra drives like a lunatic. Hmmm. Sorry, not buying, I mean geez, our two Grand Caravans can get to 60 faster than 10 seconds, and we use that power all of the time. Why? Well, given the preponderance of winding two lane roads (with very limited passing opportunities) around here, the power is often necessary to safely pass. Then there's our local ramp to the closest Interstate, it features an eight percent grade with a very short merge lane; you're taking your life in your hands trying to merge into 80+ mph traffic unless you're able to get up to speed before you attempt the merge.

    "I would be more than happy with the Astra's 138 hp or whatever it is. I actually could go with much less because I drive for mileage and have been so for over 10-years."

    Geez, 138 HP in a car the size of the Astra is significantly less than what many cars of the same size had over twenty years ago, in the meantime, speeds have increased and so too has the weight of the cars. So, in my mind, 138 HP is more than just a bit underpowered. As for mileage, just because an engine is capable of making lots of power in no way means that it gets crummy mileage. Case in point, my two previous BMWs were considered to be quite powerful for their day and age (1999 328i and 2002 530i), and yet both cars routinely delivered over 30 mpg and were able to go over 500 miles on a single tank of fuel. As for our Caravans, last summer I was able to drive one of them from eastern Michigan to Albany, New York (a distance of 504 miles) on a single tank of gas, and was rewarded with 28.2 mpg in the process. Funny thing though, all three of those cars are larger, heavier and much more powerful than the Astra. Said another way, I drive for mileage too, however, I don't need an underpowered Astra to get good mileage.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Afraid so. The Elantra Sedan has no surface that has any edge to it whatsoever; its blobtastic.

    image

    image
  • mort4371mort4371 Member Posts: 27
    I thought the same at first about the Elantra when it came out, but it kind of grew on me over time. Now I own one. lol

    I'm happy, though. Liked the 3 better, lookswise, but paid a good bit less (apples to apples) for the Elantra and expect slightly better mileage to boot.

    $14.3k + TTL, for a well-equipped SE 5sp, 5/60 warranty plus 10/100 powertrain. First 1100+ miles of mixed driving, I got 32+ mpg overall. Prolly do a bit better once the engine is broken in and loosened up. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Don't get me wrong here (and I don't think you did ;)); I think the Elantra is a fine car at heart. If it had some sharper edges and less of its overall puffiness, it'd just look so much better!
  • no_oneno_one Member Posts: 29
    Your post contains a number of factual errors.

    1. "...our two Grand Caravans can get to 60 faster than 10 seconds..."

    Consumer Reports puts the time at 10.3 seconds.

    2. "138 HP in a car the size of the Astra is significantly less than what many cars of the same size had over twenty years ago"

    This is also mistaken. The 1988 Ford Taurus, which weighed in at a bit over 3000 lbs with a comparable 4 cylinder engine would have 90 HP. Even the six-cylinder engine from the same era would only have 145 HP. The 1988 Honda civic had 70-90 HP depending on engine choice. Even the BMW 325e's 4 cylinder was only 121 HP (source: wikipedia).

    3. So, in my mind, 138 HP is more than just a bit underpowered.

    Edmunds.com, our gracious host, gets a 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds for the Astra, which is more than adequate, by your own standards of under 10 seconds.

    Lastly, my own experience. I used to drive a 2000 Ford Contour (0-60 in 11.8 seconds) with 4-cylinder engine w/ an automatic and I never had a problem passing on windy two lane roads, nor crossing mountain ranges, nor merging on freeways (except when it was having malfunctions). I agree with the earlier poster that I don't see the need for high-horsepowered vehicles.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    The new design for the 2009 Elantra should help it be less blobby, but imho, it still sucks compared to a lot of the better compacts. I liked the older Elantra design prior to 2007 personally...that and I got that car for 11.1k + TTL. If they made the new elantra for 12.5k + TTL, it would still be worth it, but I would definitely prefer a Civic, Mazda3, Rabbit, Impreza, Fit over it without price considerations.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    They haven't improved. It's really sad because the main reason I will not buy any VW right now is the terrible quality. I actually would love to have some of their future diesel cars. Also the rabbit would have been on my radar if VW had good quality. In the 2007 jdpower study, they were 5th from LAST ahead of such awesome companies as Land Rover, Hummer, Mazda, and Jeep.... Such terrible pedigree :(
    The only reason I considered a Mazda 3 even was because I know a ton of people who own that car without problems. Supposedly it's one of the few in their lineup with good quality. Maybe VW has improved for 2008, but I wouldn't trust them until they're in the better than average category.

    The quality/reliability arena is where luxury cars and asian car makers have had a big advantage until recently. Some of the american makers have finally gotten close, but I doubt anyone will notice. Reputation takes decades to make or break. And I'm not sure about the general public opinion, but european cars certainly have failed in the quality arena. At least the VW(both short and long) and Mercedes(long term) have been very bad recently. This is why the Civic/Corolla still collect all the sales. Quality rep built up over 20 years. It'll take forever to kill that without a big scandal like Mitsubishi. Also it'll take forever for other companies to get the rep.

    Speaking of quality, another observation I've made. Hyundai's actually gone backwards recently. They went from 102 PPM(Ridiculously good) to 125 PPM(Industry Average). Hopefully this is just growing pains and it'll trend back downward. I'd like to believe their quality lust is as real as they say.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    For my money I would take a Cobalt over the Mazda because it is a more roomy car than the Mazda 3 which has a tight drivers seating area and the blind spots as mentioned.

    I dunno about that. The Mazda3 sedan is larger then the Cobalt in almost ever interior dimension. The Cobalt has more front leg room by only .7in and rear hear room by a slim .3in. The Mazda3 is larger, by far, in every other category

    Mazda3 Cobalt
    Front Headroom (in.) 39.10 38.50
    Rear Headroom (in.) 37.40 37.70
    Front Legroom (in.) 41.10 41.80
    Rear Legroom (in.) 36.30 33.70
    Front Shoulder Room (in.) 54.90 53.00
    Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 54.00 51.40
    Front Hip Room (in.) 53.80 49.60
    Rear Hip Room (in.) 52.50 46.40

    Now, if the blind sports were a concern, then I guess it is how you are looking out the car. A blind spot for you might not be there for me.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I find JD Power to be quite useless, especially their "initial quality survey" That is based off of the first 90 days of ownership, and does not denote reliability at all. I have found that the best in a judge of quality and reliability is CR, although they are not perfect, they do tend to be more accurate then most.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Well VW is also back of the pack in the 3 year long term reliability ratings too. I'd definitely crossreference to consumer reports as well, but I don't have any recent articles right now.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Your post contains a number of factual errors.

    Sorry, like it or not, my facts are correct.

    "Consumer Reports puts the time (of the Caravans) at 10.3 seconds."

    Both of our Caravans do the 0-60 sprint in the mid nines. This is verified by our GPS.

    "This is also mistaken. The 1988 Ford Taurus, which weighed in at a bit over 3000 lbs with a comparable 4 cylinder engine would have 90 HP. Even the six-cylinder engine from the same era would only have 145 HP. The 1988 Honda civic had 70-90 HP depending on engine choice. Even the BMW 325e's 4 cylinder was only 121 HP (source: wikipedia)."

    You didn't read what I wrote, I said, "...many cars of the same size...", not "...all cars of the same size...". You then went out and chose a bunch of underpowered pigs, not a very convincing argument. IIRC, a 1985 Dodge Daytona had 150 HP, a 1989 LeBaron GTC had 175 HP as did the 1987 Omni GLH-S and the Shelby Lancer of that same era (just name a few 4-cylinder models from twenty or more years ago that would embarrass the Astra of today).

    "Edmunds.com, our gracious host, gets a 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds for the Astra, which is more than adequate, by your own standards of under 10 seconds."

    Ten seconds is the absolute bare bones minimum, I consider six to seven seconds to sixty far more desirable and drivable.

    "Lastly, my own experience. I used to drive a 2000 Ford Contour (0-60 in 11.8 seconds) with 4-cylinder engine w/ an automatic and I never had a problem passing on windy two lane roads, nor crossing mountain ranges, nor merging on freeways (except when it was having malfunctions). I agree with the earlier poster that I don't see the need for high-horsepowered vehicles."

    Maintain your earlier statements all you want, slow is still slow, and that Contour of yours would have been completely incapable of making safe passes in the short spaces we have around here. As for merging, sorry again, a car that slow would have thirty ton semi-tractors crawling up your back side if you tried to merge after climbing our local ramp.

    So, [non-permissible content removed]-for-tat, I stand by my earlier statement that effectively said that the Astra is completely outclassed by many of the cars in this segment. Me, I'll happily suck the doors off an Astra with a new Rabbit, and get pretty darn mileage while doing it. :shades:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    VW does seem to be making a comeback in the reliability department. Not the boosted engines, though. I believe the 2.5L's have been Ok. However, frequent issues with VW's has been related with the electrical system. The newer models have not been around enough to see if these frequent problems will pop up or not.

    Bottom line, are they getting better? It seems so. Would I buy one? No
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I find JD Power to be quite useless, especially their "initial quality survey" That is based off of the first 90 days of ownership, and does not denote reliability at all. I have found that the best in a judge of quality and reliability is CR, although they are not perfect, they do tend to be more accurate then most.

    I think the survey is very important but people confuse terms. Quality and reliability are not synonymous. They are correlated to be sure, but they are not one and the same. Quality includes design. Are the controls easy to reach? Is the car easy to park? Can you work the radio without the owner's manual? These are things that come up in the JD Powers initial quality survey. This is also why European cars can ace this without necessarily having the long-term reliability of their peers.

    Just my $0.02 :P
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    "Consumer Reports puts the time (of the Caravans) at 10.3 seconds."

    Both of our Caravans do the 0-60 sprint in the mid nines. This is verified by our GPS.

    Hmm how old were the Caravans and how old was the GPS? What was the accuracy rating on the GPS unit? Who manufactured it? When was it calibrated?

    Perhaps we should use your GPS and measure the 0-60 in the Astra.

    You didn't read what I wrote, I said, "...many cars of the same size...", not "...all cars of the same size...". You then went out and chose a bunch of underpowered pigs, not a very convincing argument. IIRC, a 1985 Dodge Daytona had 150 HP, a 1989 LeBaron GTC had 175 HP as did the 1987 Omni GLH-S and the Shelby Lancer of that same era (just name a few 4-cylinder models from twenty or more years ago that would embarrass the Astra of today).

    And all of those cars got approximately 2/3rds the mileage of the Astra (about 20). And required premium fuel.

    And if he was picking underpowered pigs, he would've picked a 528e automatic, we called it the love turtle.

    Me, I'll happily suck the doors off an Astra with a new Rabbit, and get pretty darn mileage while doing it.

    Except you will have to breath all the diesel smoke from the flatbed tow truck your Rabbit is sitting on ;)
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    - DGCs: 1998 & 2003 (both with 3.8 liter engines)

    - GPS: 2008 Garmin 680, very accurate

    - Old blown Chryslers: I had a 1985 Daytona and a 1989 LeBaron GTC. The Daytona would routinely get mid 30s on the highway and twice got over 40 (at high altitude), the LeBaron was typically about 3 mpg lower.

    - Yup, the 528e was a dog with fleas, even with a stick.

    - Well, so far I've had two VWs and two Audis, and while they each had an issue or two, they never left me stranded, and as the 2.5 liter mill enjoys a good reputation for reliability I'd expect no less from a Rabbit. FWIW, I'll gladly trade a little reliability for a more fun to drive car, that said, I've routinely bought cars that ranked poorly on the various reliability indices, and not one of them ever turned out to be a problem child. Hmmm, in fact, the only "problem child" I ever had was a Mazda 6, a car that got great reliability reviews at the time, go figure. ;)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The power isn't the issue with the Astra, for me anyway. 138 hp is plenty. It's that the Astra doesn't get better FE given that it has only 138 hp. I listed before (so I won't repeat it) several compacts that have comparable or better power than the Astra but better FE.

    The Cobalt has a very tight rear seat, which knocked it off my list the first time I drove it. Plus I think its driver's seat isn't very comfortable, and the center stack reeks of cheapness. And its FE isn't that great for the class either. I think there are better choices in this class.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I was just opining that I don't think the Tucson is Hyundai's best styling effort, especially with what they did with their other SUVs.

    The Tucson with Hyundai's 2.4L, 175 hp I4 would be a real nice ride I think. But speaking of economy sedans.... :blush:
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    DGCs: 1998 & 2003 (both with 3.8 liter engines)

    - GPS: 2008 Garmin 680, very accurate

    - Old blown Chryslers: I had a 1985 Daytona and a 1989 LeBaron GTC. The Daytona would routinely get mid 30s on the highway and twice got over 40 (at high altitude), the LeBaron was typically about 3 mpg lower.

    Wow you were snapping off sub-10 second 0-60 runs in a 10 year old Chyrsler minivan? Would you go over the "buying American" forum and chime in with that?

    I think you would also agree that a single data point for MPG doesn't change the whole picture. My Reliant and Lebaron GTS/Lancer both sucked fuel and a prodigious rate.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Member Posts: 804
    The Tucson with Hyundai's 2.4L, 175 hp I4 would be a real nice ride I think.

    That would be nice. It has nearly the same power as the current 2.7 V6 but better FE. Or Hyundai could bring over the turbo 2.0 L diesel they use in other markets. That diesel only has 140 hp but gobs of torque. And the average FE according to members of another board I frequent are in the 30-35 MPG US range. That would be nice! ;)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Just shows how car styling is very personal. I think the Elantra sedan's lines are pretty nice. I especiallly like the side character line. No, it is not sharp-edged. But few compacts have "sharp edged" styling when you think of it--most are pretty rounded. The sharpest creases in the class now are on the Focus, Forenza, and Sentra. With the Focus, you have to live with those chrome, uh, what are those things on the front fenders? Exhaust ports for the impulse engines, maybe?? I like the Forenza's styling (somewhat reminiscent of the 2001-6 Elantra, especially in back), but other than the interior room and the 8-way drivers seat, that's about the only thing I like about it. And I think the Sentra looks like the previous-gen Altima, but viewed through Fun House mirrors.

    There are many other cars that have swoopy lines... Jaguar, for one. Some people don't like that kind of styling. I'm OK with it. I even like the lines of the 2002-5 Sonata. Kind of old-fashioned, but in a classic kind of way. I think the Elantra looks better with the 5-spoke 16" alloys (SE) instead of the plastic covers on the GLS, as in your photo. Silver with the plastic covers is about as boring a color combo as you can find (vs. the high-end trim Tucson that you compared it to in your photos, with the dark cladding, alloys etc.). I think the Elantra looks a lot better in a darker color like grey, blue, or red (look to the right).

    I've seen photos of the 2009 Elantra sedan from the Beijing auto show, and they show a sharper-edged grille and rear lamps. So maybe you'll like that better. But probably not. :) Personally I think the new grille looks weird on the car--doesn't fit the rest of the car.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Yeah, the 1998 is surprisingly quick, it also gets pretty good mileage when I keep my foot out of it (I managed 504 miles on a single tank last summer that yielded a 28.2 mpg calculation), and that with over 150,000 miles on the clock.

    FWIW, both of my 1980s vintage Chrysler turbos were equipped with 5-Speed transmissions, my business partner's 1986 LeBaron GTS was a slushbox and it got crap mileage.

    BTW, I didn't know that there was a "Buy American" forum, and while I admire a number of American cars, most of them aren't on the horizon for me simply because I like 5 person sedans with stick shifts and decent power. As such, I may not be the best person to advocate American cars.

    I'll go over and take a look. :shades:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I actually thought the 2002-2005 Sonata was decent-looking. The best Hyundai has had in awhile was the 2006-2008 Sonata. Unfortunately, the 2009 is a little bit softer looking (I'd only want the SE with the 5-spoke alloys). There are lots of more rounded cars as you say, and maybe I wasn't fair about that; but the round charater lines, with the round-ish headlights, rounded taillights, and I think the biggest offender, the rounded greenhouse, give the car a hint of 1996 Taurus.

    Now that I look at it again, the greenhouse is what does it for me, or rather, ruins it.

    image

    Looking at the sedan competitors, the Civic, Corolla, Focus, Cobalt, etc, they all have a greenhouse that is squared off at the bottom, unlike the Hyundai.

    Oh well. Hey, I'm sorry I've been babbling about the Elantra for awhile; I guess I didn't have a lot to talk about. I really don't dislike the car as a whole, just the styling. It certainly wouldn't be at the bottom of my list, but styling keeps it from the top, for me. Otherwise, I really like the products Hyundai is coming out with; I especially like that they keep improving what they put out there (Sonata powertrains, for example). I like Hyundai as a whole, though, and that's saying something coming from a 20 year old Honda afficianado (or is it? haha).

    Good night all!
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    I drove a top of the line 2008 cobalt sport pretty recently for over a week in hawaii and it had pretty similar features to the Sonata I got. In fact that cobalt really spoiled me and made me no longer want my elantra. However, it really felt like a not quite refined car still. The steering and pedals were a lot heavier than I was used to and the car's interior was just moderately good at best. Also the 4 speed auto totally wasted the pretty decent engine. I didn't feel like it was a smooth and smart car, more like a rough and sporty. I could never imagine buying it without a ton more refinement first. Also a fun nitpick, the steering wheel audio controls were terribly placed. I accidentally hit mute like 10 times ;)
    It's sad when I can say the best features were the cruise control and the sunroof.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    I could say the same for the Elantra. Hyundai badly needs to put their new Theta-II engines into all their lower end vehicles. Elantra and Tucson being the biggest culprits. An Elantra GT with a 2.4L Theta-II would be a killer car mated to a 5 speed auto. It would basically push itself far closer to the Sonata territory that's it has fallen way behind of. That would have quelled at least half my objections of the current Elantra.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It would basically push itself far closer to the Sonata territory that's it has fallen way behind of.

    And I'm pretty sure that's why Hyundai hasn't done it--it would grab too many sales from the Sonata. Except from people who like squared-off greenhouses. ;)

    I'm not sure though why Hyundai hasn't dropped their newer I4 engines, e.g. 1.8 or 2.0, into the Elantra yet. Maybe they figure they'll milk the Beta II engine as long as they can; the tooling must be paid for by now. Also it's competitive in power and FE in the class, although not class-leading in either. At least it's clean, with PZEV available. Maybe also Hyundai figures they'll leave their ol' reliable Beta II engine in the Elantra here in the Land of the 10/100 Powertrain Warranty.

    Have you noticed, Elantra sales have picked up lately? They actually topped the Sonata's in April. Pretty good for a car that has fallen "way behind" the Sonata. ;)
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Ya I know, it's bizarre how people just buy elantras. Well no wait, it's not. Look at how many people buy corolla's, which pretty much aren't much better. There's a little bit of the blind leading the blind in the car world. Same reason why people buy so many Toyotas. You're right though that the Beta-II has held up amazingly well though, but it doesn't really make a difference which engine they have to support. It's not like the Theta-II doesn't get the 10 year warranty also ;) I'm sure one of the main reasons is saving money though.

    I compared prices and it only cost me about 2.5k more for the Sonata. Far too small a difference imho.

    Another silly observation:
    I see some interesting levels of features and refinement between the compact vs midsize models for each car brand.
    The Civic and Mazda3 are pretty close to the Accord and Mazda6.
    The Impreza is also pretty close to the Legacy.
    The Corolla is a little farther behind the Camry.
    The Elantra and Cobalt are both pretty far behind the Sonata and Malibu.
    The Focus is wayyyy behind the Fusion in refinement/features, however they both have that silly(but cool) sync toy ;) I guess that, the price, and the mpg are enough for most people with those hot sales!

    I honestly am not sure how far or close the Sentra/Spectra/Lancer/etc really are to their upper partners. From basic information, it seems the Astra is pretty close to the Aura too.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    The Cobalt, despite it's faults, gets reasonable FE given the size/power of the engine (and better than some manufacturers smaller engines...Suzuki, for example).

    However, there are MANY of those other faults in the car...in fact pretty much anything besides the engine. :shades:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Uhh, how is the Elantra behind the Sonata? Other than Navigation, name one thing on the Sonata not available on the Elantra?

    Heated Seats? Available on Elantra
    ESC? Standard on Elantra SE
    Leather? Available
    Satellite radio? Yessir

    Maybe it's the fact that the Elantra's Beta engine has a 4-speed while the Sonata just got a 5-speed for the Theta? I have to admit that the Theta is impressive...it's off by 1 MPG highway from the Elantra/Beta. But those Betas have been real reliable, and it's just as advanced as many other engines (CVVT) but they didn't bother replacing the iron block. Why? It works fine.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Maybe the thing of it is that you are not interested in the cars in the class we're discussing here?
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Nope, I'm a compact shopper generally. Also the Sonata actually is in the range between 16-20k also :) Anyways I think I just made a pretty large amount of commentary into compacts as noted above. It should be noted that I had an Elantra before, that's why I have so many complaints now :) Of course most of it is really regarding minor issues and lack of major improvements.
  • bprendersonbprenderson Member Posts: 99
    Backy,

    What do FE mean again?

    Thanks,
    Bubba :)
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    I'm really not talking about basic features per se as much as the driving dynamics and little perks and touches. There's an interesting amount of distinction between each vehicle in terms of that. Sometimes it's just something very subtle in the vehicles. I can only attest to those I've researched and been in. A Civic or Mazda3 just feels right imho. While an Elantra doesn't really compare to them on a level of driving and refinement on the road.
    Similarly, the Elantra's suspension, power, driving feel, really feel like a weaker compact. At least that's my take from driving it for a long time. The engine was rather loud and didn't sound smooth at all. It was a perfectly reliable car as everyone has said, you just don't get any wow factor at all. For a commuter it's obviously a perfect fit. But no car wants to be labeled a commuter/rental fleet vehicle. Which is why I'd really like them to make a major jump up :)

    Perhaps it's because I'm a big fan, that I'm also a big critic. I can see so many improvements that could be made to make it good or better than the compact leaders. Who wouldn't want a car to get better?

    Also a number of people I know have bought cars recently. They usually end up in either a Mazda3 or Civic it seems. A couple have gotten Elantras in the past, but just because they wanted something cheap. I can't recommend an Elantra in good conscience right now just based on being an awesome car. If anything it's only a price recommendation now.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Bubba, generally, FE = Fuel Economy, around here anyway. ;)

    Take care!
  • bprendersonbprenderson Member Posts: 99
    Thanks for the info...

    Regards,
    Bubba :):)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I can't recommend an Elantra in good conscience right now just based on being an awesome car.

    What kind of "awesome" do you expect for around $16k? The Elantra has the most interior room in its class, with an especially roomy/comfy back seat--you could even say it's "awesome" in terms of its interior room for this class. It offers the most standard safety equipment, including ESC on the SE, of any car in its class--pretty awesome, eh? It has a very smooth and quiet ride for its class, perfect for the rutted roads of middle America--a feature I find pretty awesome considering most of its competitors including the Civic and Mazda3 fall short there. It is a high quality and highly reliable car--like the Civic and Mazda3--but at a bargain-basement price. My budget finds that really awesome.

    People have different needs in an economy car. What is or is not awesome will be different for each buyer.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    Some of it is a difference in opinions as well. Everyone's got their own. But I've never found the interior of any of the recent cars to be "small". Even the Civic coupe wasn't terribly small. Most of them are roomy enough imho. It certainly does win on standard safety features, that's a plus over most other compacts, but it doesn't crash test quite as well as a Civic/Impreza. Mazda3's aren't so good in that category either though.

    I think the ride part is one place we majorly differ. I found it to be very lacking in feel and suspension. I didn't feel comfortable taking corners hard and in fact, I had an accident due to a cornering issue ;) I don't think I'd say the same for a Mazda3 or Civic.

    So yes, budget is where it wins for sure. But even that isn't as much as the past. It used to have a $3-4k advantage over other cars. Now it's been reduced to around 2k from what I've calculated. Also just remember, the Sonata I got was only $16.6k itself. We are not talking about a big price difference at all.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I've driven the 2007-8 Elantra several times over a variety of terrain and conditions, and can't imagine a situation where I would reach the car's cornering limits when driving at a safe speed for conditions. I've also driven the Sonata many times and don't see any advanage it has over the Elantra there. The Mazda3 is definitely a better cornerer (?) than the Elantra. But I'm not doing LeMans.

    CR will not recommend a car that does not have safe handling. Yet they rate the Elantra SE their Top Pick in this class.

    The Elantra hasn't had side crash tests by the IIHS yet, so I think it's premature to say it doesn't "crash test" as well as the Civic and Impreza.

    I know where I can get an Elantra GLS AT equipped comparably to the Civic LX for $12,430 + TT&L. If (IF) you could get the Civic for $1000 under invoice, that is a $3500 advantage over the Civic. So it's still a pretty big price difference, in real-world prices.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles