I'm pretty sure you have no clue what you are talking about. Before we go any further lets get one thing straight: ONLY Toyota has made significant investment in hybrid technology. ONLY Toyota is currently betting its future on hybrids. You are throwing all of the Japanese Big 3 into the same "Save the Environment" bag and that is not the case. Nissan has NO hybrids on the market and in the near future only plans to sell one that wont even be available nationwide. NIssan is basically a Japenese version of the BIg 3, it consentrated on performance, cheap interiors and trucks in recent years. If you thin Nissan wasnt making most of it's profit on trucks then you are crazy. Why do you think they investted billions in making new plants for the Titan/Armada down south? There were big profits to be had and they wanted a piece. The midsize sedan market isnt extremely profitable for anyone, especially not Nissan who discounts its products just as much as the Big 3.
Back to hybrids, you need to stop giving credit where it's not due. Toyota pushed hybrids to show it's technological leadership and to stand apart in a crowded market. Toyota doesnt lead in design, the quality gap is closing and Toyotas rarely lead in value. Their solution was to invest their heavy profits into hybrids and then pitch the idea as a way to save the Earth. Fortunately for them gas went through the roof and their timing was perfect. They did NOT start making hybrids because they predicted gas would be $3 a gallon in 2006. I have never even heard that Toyota claimed that was the case and this is from a company known to toot its own horn. Please stop worshipping the Japanese and face the facts. Just this week Edmunds reported that Honda isnt going to do any hybrid trucks or SUVs and it cutting production the Accord. MEanwhile the Big 3 are all planning a significant increase in hybrid models. GM will have two on sale this year and two or three more in 2007. Ford has a hybrid Fusion coming next year as well as other models.
I'd bet money that two years from now GM sells more hybrids than anyone except Toyota.
The highway mileage on the Altima 4 cylinder is worse than the Malibu V6.
Yes, but the 250hp 3.5 5speed auto combo in the Altima SE is rated for 20 city/30 hwy mpg, which if it's achievable is impressive, and easily bests a 3.9 powered Impala/G6 while putting out more hp & torque.
The 4-cyl Altima isn't so hot in fuel economy (23/29) because it's got the same affliction as GM cars...a 4-speed automatic! A few years back, when the V-6 Altima still used a 4-speed automatic, its EPA rating was 19/26. The 5-speed auto helped boost it to 20/30. I wonder, if Nissan put a 5-speed auto up behind the 4-cyl, if it would boost the Altima a bit to around 24/34, which is around what an equivalent Camry/Accord get?
The Altima 4-cyl is also pretty gutsy, a 2.5 with 175 hp. I think that's about 15-20 more than the 2.4's in the Camry/Accord.
Back to GM, I'm actually a bit disappointed in the economy of their 3.9. I think in most applications it's rated at 19/27. Back when the Impala had the Buick 3800, it was rated at 20/30. And the 3.9, while it has 240 hp versus 200 from the 3.8, I don't think it's much quicker in 0-60. Maybe something like 7.8 seconds versus 8 or so.
Now in base form, I think the 3.5 is a good improvement over the old 3.4, but with the midlevel engine, it seems a slight step backward. Maybe it's more refined and smooth and responsive, but that fuel economy is a sore spot.
They know their mind-numbed customers will buy a significant number of them anyway because they are well made and reliable, and most soccer moms have no clue what's under their truck
So now being well-made and reliable is a bad thing?? And for your information, sold axles are stronger than independent suspension, I know this through lots of off-roading experience, and while most people won't take their tahoes off-roading, it's nice to know that you have a nice solid strong rea axle to load your weight onto. And as far as the ride goes, every review I've read where their was a comparison between the two they say the Tahoe has a better ride. While I haven't riden in the new generation Tahoes yet, I can verify, based on my own experience that the tahoe rides better, although, the Expedition isn't uncomfortable by any standard.
the question is, what kind of mileage do these cars really get? my mom's malibu is rated at 33mpg on the highway. it has no trouble getting that on about a half a tank run from hartford to boston and back. i think it could do a lot better on a jacksonville to fort lauderdale run.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
". The Big 3 always have compact cars in their lineup and that was the case during the early 2000s when SUVs were still big. The Aveo gets 35mpg which is less than the Japanese cars, but still pretty good."
Yeah but Gm and Chrysler didn't have a challanger saleswise to the Civic or Corolla in the early 00's. Only Ford had a compact car in the early 00's that take buyers away from the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla saleswise. Gm and Chrsyler didn't have a compact car to compete with Honda and Toyota in sales.
And as far as the ride goes, every review I've read where their was a comparison between the two they say the Tahoe has a better ride
I've yet to read a review on the 07 Expedition, so it remains to be seen how Ford has decided to tune the suspension, I've read they have significantly redesigned it. Honestly, I don't really care about a solid axle vs. IRS in an SUV. All I know is GM's latest offerings, solid axles & pushrods and all have less tow capacity when compared to an Armada or Expedition which feature IRS and DOHC engines. That may not mean much to the avg buyer, but it does to me. A 3/4 ton Suburan will only offer an extra 300lbs of tow capacity vs. an 07 Expedition and will still be saddled with a 4 speed auto. No thanks.
If GM can offer a better ride/handling combo vs. the IRS competition, then that's great. The fact remains they are are behind in tow ratings in the 1/2ton category. The extra power of the DOD 5.3 is offset by more curb weight, and it's well known that the 5.3/4speed combo is far from the ideal towing combo. As I have mentioned before, when the going gets tough (i.e. pulling up grades) it falls flat on its face. I haven't driven an 07 Tahoe, or 06 Expedition. I have driven an Armada and while it has a firmer ride than my Suburban, it handles much better, and has lots more power and stronger brakes. Basically, I like the way the Armada drives better, the Suburban, while fine on relatively smooth surfaces, gets all out of wack quickly on any type of washboard surface. This maybe corrected in the 07 with its stiffer chassis, I don't know.
I find it funny that some GM fans will bash a Mustang for having a solid axle, but it's just fine on a $40k+ SUV.
"I also find that most publications are less than critical when evaluting the interiors of import cars. Nissans get a lot of harsh criticism (rightfully so) but thats where it ends. I can tell you that I saw the new altima at the NY auto show and the interior looked no better than the 2003 Accord."
So, the Accord has a pretty good interior its just the exterior of it that needs alot of spice.
"When GM does black plastic interiors they are blasted, when Nissan does one it is a revelation of sorts."
I don;t understand your point since all car manufacturers use black colored plastics. Nissan has gotten criticized alot for the cheap interiors in the 02-04 Altima, 04-06 Maxima, and current G35 so I don;t understand your point. Even Consumer Reports has been critical of Nissan interiors in their cars in the past few years.
"Hybrid technology is great, but the press seems to have forgotten words such as Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Armada, Pilot, Ridgeline, LX470, etc. when they are in the midst of theiri hybrid worship. Tne mileade on most import trucks/SUVs is terrible. The Germans are the worst, but the Japanese arent far behind. Import Suvs with V6s and 5 or 6 speed autos get worst mileage than GMs new OHV V8 equipped trucks. I have not read one single line in any article commenting on that fact or the fact that most crossovers (which are supposedly saving the world while GM is killing it with body on frame trucks) get mileage that is barely superior to old school SUVs like the explorer or trailblazer. The ML500 has a 7 speed automatic and gets about 15mpg in the City with a 5L DOHC V8. That's progress? As long as you throw around the word "crossover" you get a free pass from the press. 21mpg on the highway? Who cares, it's a crossover! 244hp but only 17mpg in the City? Who cares, it's a Honda and Honda loves the environment!"
You have a fair point that Japanese branded trucks don;t make good miledadge so what SUV does? I never even brought up SUV's mileadge type of issue. I was just saying how GM sells alot of SUV's but their mid-size and compact cars do not sell very well.
"Funny, I've never heard that mentioned by the media. All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars". "
I think because Toyota has been having sales success with their Prius hybrid this is why Gm gets backlashed by the media like they do. What the media is saying I think is that GM could have a seller like Toyota has the Prius but GM refuses to invest money into making a hybrid and putting it onto the market. I think the media is making it a GM vs Toyota thing how Toyota is doing something right in offering a hybrid like the Prius which is selling and GM doing something wrong by not offering a hybrid like Toyota does.
"All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars".
Well, you can;t argue with success the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and Mazda 3 sell very well. However I am not saying that the Japanese makes do not sell their share of SUV's because they do. I do wonder why Toyota and Honda were up on SUV's sales last month but GM and Ford were down. It did seem strange but than again Hyundai sold more cars than trucks last month so its not an Asian makes vs American makes issue. Toyota's sales of the new RAV 4 have been a great success for them which probably bring up their total SUV sales numbers up last month.
"When magazines review GM (or other domestic products) they are quick to point out what features are missing but fail to talk about exclusive features. Edmunds review of the Escalade is a perfect example (they do this all the time) because they made a huge deal out of features found on the GL450 but totally ignored Escalade features that cant be found on the GL. C&D and others do this as well."
C&D liked the Chrysler 300, and Ford Focus a couple years ago. The ripped the last generation Civic SI and the last generation Civic as well so I don;t know about bias. The Focus finished number 4 in 2003 in a 10 car compact comparo where as the Civic finished in 6th in the same comparo. I think C&d liked the Chevy Cobalt SS as well. They loved the Ford Focus SVT in 2002 as well I think.
"NIssan is basically a Japenese version of the BIg 3, it consentrated on performance, cheap interiors and trucks in recent years."
I think what Nissan did on the performance end was for their cars to have higher HP numbers than Honda or Toyota to set them(nissan) apart from Honda and Toyota in the early 00's. Remember in the late 90's they tried to compete with Toyota and and they were a big time money loser. About Nissan interiors it was Ghson's cost cutting that led to cheaper interior materials that Nissan used in their newer cars vs the the high quality interiors that they used in their cars in the 1990's.
"If you thin Nissan wasnt making most of it's profit on trucks then you are crazy. Why do you think they investted billions in making new plants for the Titan/Armada down south? There were big profits to be had and they wanted a piece."
I suprisingly agree with you on this particular paragraph 100%.
"The midsize sedan market isnt extremely profitable for anyone, especially not Nissan who discounts its products just as much as the Big 3."
Nissan does not discount as much has the Big 3. No way. Maybe in the late 90's but now..no.
"Toyota pushed hybrids to show it's technological leadership and to stand apart in a crowded market."
Toyota can push hybrids because they have the money to spend to put out a hybrid. If it(the hybrid Prius)failed Toyota would still have plently left in the bank. The first generation Prius was not a huge success at all. It was the second generation that Toyota hit the sweet spot in the US market. Toyota is a very rich company. This statement is coming from a very hardcore Honda/Acura and Mazda fan by the way.
"Toyota doesnt lead in design, the quality gap is closing and Toyotas rarely lead in value."
I agree with two of your points in design and the quality gap closing. Mazda, Nissan, and chrysler lead in design as this current moment. Toyota has always struggled with design thus their average age buyer has went up through the 90's to till now. Quality: I agree the quality gap between manufacturer's closes every year. Value: Toyota's hold their value very well in the long run. I really do not base on what kind of car I am going to buy because of resale value but Toyota's hold their value very well(almost Benz like.)
"Fortunately for them gas went through the roof and their timing was perfect. They did NOT start making hybrids because they predicted gas would be $3 a gallon in 2006."
The current Prius just didn't come out in 2006. Actually, Prius sales were down last month vs April 2005 because Toyota has so much demand for the Prius they just can;t make them fast enough.
BTW, I don;t know I don't know about the whole hybrid trend but GM, Ford, and Toyota are investing alot of money so it could be the future or maybe its just a fad..time will tell.
I find it funny that some GM fans will bash a Mustang for having a solid axle, but it's just fine on a $40k+ SUV.
LOL
That was going to be my next argument. Said Mustang has been eating up IRS equipped BMWs in some racing circuits which is pretty impressive IMO.
I've yet to read a review on the 07 Expedition, so it remains to be seen how Ford has decided to tune the suspension, I've read they have significantly redesigned it.
If the new Explorer is any indication, the '07 Expedition should be quite a ride. I have driven an '04 Explorer and now own an '06. The difference in ride quality is very noticeable. Very smooth, quiet, and car-like and better than the minivans we drove while shopping.
>I'd bet money that two years from now GM sells more hybrids than anyone except Toyota.<
I'd bet you're wrong - but if you turn out to be right, it'll be because Toyota has found a better means of propulsion than the Hybrid - Ford will be in the process of following suit, and GM will JUST be getting their brand new Hybrid technology on the road!
Think I'm crazy? GM just this year put their Flex Fuel systems out there - Ford has been building, selling and using Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV in Fordspeak) now for 7 years or more......
GM is so late to the party, it's embarrasing for America...
1. The dual phase system GM/BMW/DC is coming out with (first GM product will be on the market this Fall, I believe) is different from, and arguably more advanced, than the Toyota system.
2. The Japanese have a head start on hybrids primarily because the Japanese government mandated their use, underwrote thier research, and provided breaks to early adopters in Japan. If the US government had done the same for the domestic industry, GM would probably have done the dual phase system on its own. Of course you all here would be complaining about GM needing to go to the government. A complaint Toyota does not get for having done the same thing.
By the way - the European, South American, and most of the Asian market other than Japan, have barely any hybrids at all. Is GM only embarrasing in Japan?
If the US government had done the same for the domestic industry, GM would probably have done the dual phase system on its own.
Given the Big 2.5's long history of fighting and lobbying against practically every single fuel economy, emissions and safety initiative, from seat belts to catalytic converters to CAFE to ZEV requirements in California, I seriously doubt that GM would lift a finger to spearhead a sweeping technology initiative without a team of government lawyers first shoving it down their throats.
GM is far from being a progressive company, it is a reactionary dinosaur that follows, without leading. There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that GM would be cutting edge if only it had received a handout from Uncle Sam.
Actually, in response to California request, GM spent almost a billion dollars and was first to market with a commercially viable electric car.
Toyota and Honda, on the other hand, started in the program, but midway through got the California government to change its stringent requirements and allow hybrids.
As opposed to Japan, where the government provided financial and r&d aid, California imposed regulations, made GM pay to meet them, then allowed the Japanese to change course.
Male, early 30s, married, no kids yet but soon, wife has family oriented vehicle. He wants something sporty, 4dr with a manual transmission (hence sporty), less than 25k. The car may see autocross or HPDEs. Accord v6 w/6spd is too $$$, as is the TSX, he thinks the Jetta looks like a Corolla whch he never liked anyway (and the ones that are actually powerful/cool are $$$)...what else?
Only thing with a back seat and Rear Wheel Drive - hence sporty - (have US standards gone so far down hill that all it needs is a manual to be sporty?) and requisite decent front rear balance you can get under 25k new is the 2 door Mustang.
There are a three two seaters on the market, but that does not seem close to what you want.
The new GTI is pretty cool for front wheel drive, and will be available with 4 doors later this year. Getting one under 25k though may be a stretch.
That's tough. Going used would be my choice, buy finding a manual trans in the used market can be hard.
While rear drive is preferable, it is not very realistic in your price range. A used 3 series would work, but you won't get anything close to new for $25k. And still, the last 3 used 3 series I've found were automatics(yuck). An older 325 should be available well under 25k along with some older 328s. I would worry about maintenance expenses, but would definitely fit your requirement.
A used v6 Altima would be fun, but I can't see that being to successful on an autocross course, and finding a manual is not easy either (used anyway).
I did test drive a new Jetta GLI (2.0 FSI turbo w/ manual trans), was an absolute blast to drive. Don't think you can get that under $25k though, and you already mentioned you don't like the looks.
A Mazda 6 comes to mind. The 3.0 v6 is not the greatest, but I did find the handling to be very tight and nimble. I could definitely see that car doing well in an autocross with the proper tires. The MazdaSpeed 6 was an excellent drive, but goes over your price point. Overall, I really liked the handling and braking performance, but was put off by the v6 and somewhat cheap overall feel. I really liked the Mazdaspeed version, but it's pricey.
A G6 GTP, is an option, but I don't know, it just doesn't do anything for me. You can get it with a stick and it will be quick. Don't know about the handling, though the rags don't seem to be to big on it.
This might be a stretch, but I've seen Mazda RX-8s used with a manual trans for under 25k. It's sort of a 4 door and would be a blast on an autocross course. They certainly have there quirks, but I've always enjoyed driving rotary engines. They just spin and spin and spin.
Thanks, I will pass it along. I was voting for a '02-05 WRX or a G35, but the G35 might be a bit much to Auto-x and he wants something new. I don't think I will ever get a new car, I'm with you folks on the used market. He is also in Michigan so he was worried about RWD. A couple of things though, it only snowed 3x all of last winter, and there are snow tires.
-GM leased 800 EV-1's over a several year period at a price well above market. (In contrast, Toyota sold 7,500 Priuses in April 2006 alone, and that was a down month.)
-GM distributed the car only in California and Arizona, areas with long commutes that pushed the limits of the cars' range.
-GM used a technology that effectively prevented the car from being refueled on a regular basis.
Sounds like a formula meant to fail, and sure enough, it didn't quite succeed.
California imposed regulations
And provided subsidies. So yes, we the taxpayer helped to subsidize the car. (How quickly they forget...)
WRX was what I was thinking. Mazda3 loaded to teeth would be good, too. Slower, but nicer inside. No AWD, though. Audi A3 would work, but "stripper" only. Any options and you fly north of 30K. Mazda6 might work, too. 6-cyl is not as great as others, but the car itself is allright. Speed a bit out of the price range. Fusion/Milan - problem is not manual on 6 cyl and terrible crash test results (for its class).
A WRX would be a good choice. For some reason I completely forgot about it. I didn't mention a G35 due to price, still hard to find a used one under $25k and finding a manual trans will take some searching. The WRX would be great for autocross and tackling Michigan winters.
If he's set on new, the WRX and most of the other cars mentioned are out. A Mazda 3 would be fun, not all that fast though. A Mazda 6 should be able to go out the door under $25k depending on options and good negotiating.
Along the lines of a Mazda 3, a Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V is fun. They are crude, but fairly quick. They do have a limited slip front diff, which would be great for autocross. They can be had for under $20k.
The last couple of years of the first gen IS, a stick was available. But these cars are still desirable so most of the ones I have seen on the lots are Automatics.
Oh how I wish Toyo continued to produce the I6 motor for something...
Just to throw my two cents in. Not knowing your income I would say that you might want to rethink the $25K limit and lower it a bit. Kids come bundled with a lot of expenses some of which you never would expect.
I would stay away from any used car but if you must find a good mechanic you trust and have them give it a very good look over. My mom always said used cars are on sale for a reason, the trick is what is the reason. Also remember that many cars flooded by last years hurricanes are out there so be very careful when buying used.
Since you are going to have a family and that would include carrying baby bags and strollers all over the place you might want to consider a wagon. Subaru makes some very nice wagons in your price range, as does Mazda. You could also look at the Dodge Magnum or if you want to save some bucks the Ford Focus I believe comes in a wagon.
If you want a sedan the Ford Focus/Mercury Milan comes in with a manual in the 4 banger which people have said were fun to drive. People do like the Honda Accord or the Civic if you want to keep costs down. The best bang for the buck IMHO is the Hyundai Sonata, the V-6 is pretty peppy but only comes in an auto (but it has a manual mode).
I would stay away from any entry level luxury car that might fall your way as they tend to be smaller and not the best thing for a growing family.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
-GM leased 800 EV-1's over a several year period at a price well above market. (In contrast, Toyota sold 7,500 Priuses in April 2006 alone, and that was a down month.)
The lease prices were at a considerable loss given the investment. When the leases expired, many leaseholders wanted to continue the terms, suggesting the price was not all that bad.
-GM distributed the car only in California and Arizona, areas with long commutes that pushed the limits of the cars' range.
Who do you think you are fooling with that quip? The EVOs were made in response to a California program. What, was California going to mandate a program for sale in Boston?
-GM used a technology that effectively prevented the car from being refueled on a regular basis.
Sounds like a formula meant to fail, and sure enough, it didn't quite succeed.
GM advised California on multiple occasions the technology was not where it needed to be to make a viable fossil fuel free vehicle. California directed GM to perserver, only to change its mind in the case of Toyota of Honda, when they came up with the idea to use their Japanese government funded program hybrids instead of following through with electric vehicles (And both Honda and Toyota said were not viable.
And provided subsidies. So yes, we the taxpayer helped to subsidize the car. (How quickly they forget...)
Any subsidies were miniscule compared to the r&d investment, and would have been equally available to Toy and Honda, neither of which came through with an all electric.
Um, if you jump back to #1788 you'll find the poster was looking for ideas on what to buy for a sedan.
"Male, early 30s, married, no kids yet but soon, wife has family oriented vehicle. He wants something sporty, 4dr with a manual transmission (hence sporty), less than 25k. The car may see autocross or HPDEs."
Lemko suggested the IS and Loren mentioned that it doesn't come with a manual. Nobody said anything about Camcords :confuse:
"Male, early 30s, married, no kids yet but soon, wife has family oriented vehicle. He wants something sporty, 4dr with a manual transmission (hence sporty), less than 25k. The car may see autocross or HPDEs."
Lemko suggested the IS and Loren mentioned that it doesn't come with a manual. Nobody said anything about Camcords
Reread post 1788, it does in fact mention Accord, TSX, Jetta and Corolla.
Then read my post 1789, where I say a front wheel drive car with a manual does not sporty make.
Such things as front rear weight balance, which wheels deliver the power, torque and hp curve, suspension design, all play a far greater roll in sporty than a manual transmission. Unfortunately, most drivers today are so detuned from sporty after ten years of CamCords, all they need to see is a manual and they think they are Mario Andretti.
An IS is a decent sporty car, auto or manual.
An Accord EX with a manual (mentioned by the original poster in 1788) is not sporty.
An Accord with a V6 and a 6-speed gearbox (mentioned in the orinal post) is actually quite entertaining and actually laid waste to a GTO back in 2003 per one of the auto rags (C&D I think). I'll even go so far as to argue that an Accord with the 4 is a more involved experience your a typical pedestrian automatic 4-door sedan. And it isn't even the gearbox that is the reason why I enjoy the Accord so much. The steering feel and overall nimbleness are the reasons why I am on my fourth car.
FWIW, the current Accord has lost a good portion of what made these cars so enjoyable over the years. It has gotten to big and portly to be entertaining
"Such things as front rear weight balance, which wheels deliver the power, torque and hp curve, suspension design, all play a far greater roll in sporty than a manual transmission.
I'll agree with you 100% here and I will never argue that my Accord provides anywhere near the performance of my S2000. But GTI, MAZDA3 2.3 or Civic Si are all front drive with manual gearboxes and I don't think any of them are slouches.
"Unfortunately, most drivers today are so detuned from sporty after ten years of CamCords, all they need to see is a manual and they think they are Mario Andretti."
I don't think people are trying to be M.A. so much as they enjoy the control and involvment that a slushbox can't provide. I won't argue with you that an IS with an Auto is no fun, but I was never debating that in the first place. I was merely going along with the suggestion from lemko and Dieselone.
Ford Focus or Mazda 3 for Autox. Cheap but handle really well. And with the $ you save on the purchase price you could probably do a cold air intake, full exhaust, lower springs, and an extra set of wheels/tires for track days.
But GTI, MAZDA3 2.3 or Civic Si are all front drive with manual gearboxes and I don't think any of them are slouches.
I am not the fan of the Mazda3 that many here appear to be. I agree the GTI and Civi SI are both truely sporty cars - as is the Saab 9-3 Aero.
But the engineering in these cars is far beyond anything that you will find in just about every other FWD in the price range discussed.
I don't think people are trying to be M.A. so much as they enjoy the control and involvment that a slushbox can't provide.
I have never owned an auto without a manual. I agree that manuals allow more involvement in the driving process. My only point is that alone is not enough to make something sporty.
And I think we both agree that the IS, even without a manual, has enough engineering in other areas that it is a sporty car.
Then read my post 1789, where I say a front wheel drive car with a manual does not sporty make.
I guess it depends on how you define "sporty"? To me it means having some traits similar to a sports car, mainly fun, thus compromises are expected, but "sporty" should mean more fun to drive than a run of the mill car.
A true sports car is in my definition is rear wheel drive/awd with 2 doors with a good power and light weight. That said, I don't agree that all FWD cars are poor handling, they just have different handling traits. I've driven several FWD cars that have managed to put a smile on my face and that is what it's all about.
I won't go as far as saying an Accord Ex v6 6speed will hold it's own with a GTO. That's apples and oranges. The slalom is only a small part of the performance equation as smaller and lighter cars generally have an advantage.
But, an Accord v6/6speed is certainly more "sporty" than an Accord 4cyl with an auto. You get more aggressive tires and suspension tuning, and lots more power, more involvement with the manual trans, thus it's more sporty, but a sports car it's not.
I use to participate in SCCA sanctioned autocrosses all of the time. I've seen many a neon smoke a vette thru an autocross course. I've driven FWD, front engine rwd, and mid engine rwd cars in autocross events. They all can be fun to drive thus "sporty".
So a Civic Si or Cobalt SS have zero sporty traits? So I guess my Suburban is more sporty since it has a 290hp v8 and rwd/awd. Who cares about going around cones since I can just drive over them;)
I have never owned an auto without a manual. I agree that manuals allow more involvement in the driving process. My only point is that alone is not enough to make something sporty.
True, a Aveo with a manual doesn't qualify as sporty to me.
I guess it depends on how you define "sporty"? To me it means having some traits similar to a sports car, mainly fun, thus compromises are expected, but "sporty" should mean more fun to drive than a run of the mill car.
Yes. And the point I made in post 1789 is that the suggestion in 1788 the mere presence of a manual makes a car sporty is weak.
A true sports car is in my definition is rear wheel drive/awd with 2 doors with a good power and light weight. That said, I don't agree that all FWD cars are poor handling, they just have different handling traits. I've driven several FWD cars that have managed to put a smile on my face and that is what it's all about.
I said FWD cars such as the GTI, Civic SI and 9-3 Aero are sporty. Arguably even sports cars. An appliance with a manual is not sporty.
I disagree that a sedan cannot be a full fledged sports car. A BMW 3 Series with the top of line suspension and engine is one heck of a car.
But, an Accord v6/6speed is certainly more "sporty" than an Accord 4cyl with an auto. You get more aggressive tires and suspension tuning, and lots more power, more involvement with the manual trans, thus it's more sporty, but a sports car it's not.
Yes. And there are some sumo wrestlers who are less large than others. Does not make them normal sized.
So a Civic Si or Cobalt SS have zero sporty traits? So I guess my Suburban is more sporty since it has a 290hp v8 and rwd/awd. Who cares about going around cones since I can just drive over them;)
Again, not my point to rule out all FWDs. I prefer RWD. But I agree some, not many, FWDs are good sports cars. None of them would fit the OPs criteria - new in any event - for costs, four doors, etc.
The lease prices were at a considerable loss given the investment.
That's not at all relevant to the argument that the EV-1 was "commercially viable", as you claimed. The market viability of a product is based upon a price point that consumers are willing to pay, not whether that the seller recoups his costs.
Clearly, this car was not commercially viable at a price well above the typical market price of cars at the time -- not many people are going to buy something that is so expensive as compared to its alternatives.
The point of this whole exercise is that GM was never terribly serious about the EV-1 project, and there are aspects of it that make it appear that GM may have designed it to fail from the start so that it could fight against California's ZEV requirement, just as it has fought against almost every other requirement. (In other words, business as usual.) Distributing the car in low numbers, at a high price, while not distributing it in other markets where the range of the car may have been more suitable to local driving conditions, all add up in that direction.
Which goes back to Toyota. Unlike GM, it designed a project that actually is commercially viable: consumers willingly buy the product at a market price, it has been distributed in large numbers, and the technology is both usuable under real-world conditions and is portable enough to be included into other products. That sounds like a company that is serious about making it work, and sees compliance with regulatory requirements as an opportunity, rather than a legal fight as would its Detroit competitor. And of these two firms, we all know by now which one is better at generating profits and selling products that consumers want.
That's not at all relevant to the argument that the EV-1 was "commercially viable", as you claimed. The market viability of a product is based upon a price point that consumers are willing to pay, not whether that the seller recoups his costs.
You are misunderstanding or misconstruing my point. Toy, Hon and GM all told California a commercially viable all electric car was not possible. Alone among the 3, GM came through with one and sold it a price that a small group was all too happy to buy it.
The point of this whole exercise is that GM was never terribly serious about the EV-1 project
GM spent nearly a billion dollars and several years of R&D on the project. Seems pretty serious to me.
there are aspects of it that make it appear that GM may have designed it to fail from the start so that it could fight against California's ZEV requirement, just as it has fought against almost every other requirement.
Nonsense. The ligitation came after California changed the rules midship in favor of GM's rivals Toyota and Honda.
And, you ignore wholly that Toyota is also a plaintiff in the suit against ZEV, even after getting the advantage of California's switch to the Japanese government subsidized hybrid technology.
Which goes back to Toyota. Unlike GM, it designed a project that actually is commercially viable: consumers willingly buy the product at a market price, it has been distributed in large numbers, and the technology is both usuable under real-world conditions and is portable enough to be included into other products. That sounds like a company that is serious about making it work, and sees compliance with regulatory requirements as an opportunity
And yet, Toyota is there as a Plaintiff, suing California over Zevs. Why? To protect the huge profits it makes selling V8 powered Lexi's, SUVs and trucks. Makes sense of course. Much as it does for GM.
A sports car is different than a sporty car. I concur. He needs 4 doors for occasional maximum occupancy uses, and aside from marketing campaigns (re: 90s Maxima), there are very few 4 door sports cars. I think his wife has a V70 so his car isn't going to be the primary family hauler. I actually think he would be okay with an auto and will bounce the idea off him, I don't know what he would do for HPDE stuff though. I think since I am the one doing all this research, he really doesn't care that much, maybe he realizes once the baby comes, those opportunities will be far and few between :P. Personally, I think it would kill me to have an auto. If I want to be that un-involved in driving, I might as well take a bus or something.
The 3.9 cars are beat partially because of the 4 speed auto and I'm not here to make exuses for their mileage. The mileage on the G6 GTP and Impala with 3.9 is somewhat dissapointing which is one reason why the 3.9 is being equipped with DOD for the '07 Impala. I suspect mileage will be around 20/29 with the new technology. Unfortunately output drops to 233hp for reasons I dont understand. I'm sure most people would rather have better mileage than 8 additional hp out of this engine. In terms of V6 passenger cars, the Japanese do lead in fuel economy by 2-3mpg in many cases. However the mileage of the G6 4 cylinder is among best in class. I think only the Camry and Accord with manuals exceed it's efficiency.
Unfortunately output drops to 233hp for reasons I dont understand
I've been seeing the reports that the 3.9DOD will lose HP. Is it a rating issue or is it really losing some power. While 7 HP isn't the end of the world, the fact remains much of competition is adding power not reducing and still managing around 30mpg highway rating.
"Male, early 30s, married, no kids yet but soon, wife has family oriented vehicle. He wants something sporty, 4dr with a manual transmission (hence sporty), less than 25k. The car may see autocross or HPDEs.""
Maybe Mazda 6I(4cyl) with the manual tranny I have heard its fun to drive on the Edmunds(sedans boards.) The only con I could see about the 6 maybe that some have complained about tight backseat room with it. I know the 6 has already been mentioned before. I think you can get a good deal on a 6 since they are not selling that well when dealers are looking to move 06's during the July, August, and early September months to make for brand new 07's. The 6 will probably have alot of rebates attached to it by then so you can probably get one cheap although a manual tranny may be hard to find.
GM came through with one and sold it a price that a small group was all too happy to buy it.
100 units a year from a mainstream maker does not demonstrate nor match the definition of "commercially viable". A better term for this would be an "experiment."
And, you ignore wholly that Toyota is also a plaintiff in the suit against ZEV
As far as I know GM and DCX were the only two automakers that directly participated in the 2002 lawsuit against CARB. (Toyota generated smog credits from its participation in the ZEV program by selling electric RAV 4's and other cars.) If you have a source, feel free to provide it.
100 units a year from a mainstream maker does not demonstrate nor match the definition of "commercially viable". A better term for this would be an "experiment."
Which is what the program was intended to be. As I said above, GM, Toyota and Honda all told California a regular production all electric vehicle was not technically viable. California insisted they perserver. GM came through. Toyota and Honda backdoored the hybrid technology it was already working on with the full assistance of the Japanese government.
"On December 7, 2004 the Pavley law was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers and California auto dealers. ... And, since the federal government has sole authority to regulate fuel economy, Toyota, G.M. and several other automakers contend in their lawsuit that California is encroaching on Washington's jurisdiction."
Believe the several others include Daimler, Mitsubishi and the Ford group.
Maybe Mazda 6I(4cyl) with the manual tranny I have heard its fun to drive on the Edmunds(sedans boards.)
I have been able to rent the Mazda6 twice. It is a fairly tight, fun ride for FWD. My only quibble was the manumatic. If you are going to shift, get a manual. I actually preferred the straight auto Mazda6 over the manumatic. And, as I state above, I am a huge manual fan.
The only con I could see about the 6 maybe that some have complained about tight backseat room with it. I know the 6 has already been mentioned before.
Yes. The back seat is a bit tight. Lilengineer's friend will not mind now, as the child is less than a year old. I understand children get big fast and families can grow on you. So the tight backseat could become an issue.
Yes. The back seat is a bit tight. Lilengineer's friend will not mind now, as the child is less than a year old. I understand children get big fast and families can grow on you. So the tight backseat could become an issue.
It's not so much the kids themselves, but all the baggage that goes along with them.
A Mazda 6 would be fine for running small kids around town. I think Lilengineer mentioned his friend's wife has a Volvo wagon or something similar that I'm sure would be used for any type of family excursion.
I didn't drive a Mazda 6 with an auto. I would think it would be on the slow side. I made the mistake of driving a v6 5speed manual after driving the MazdaSpeed 6 w/ 6speed. Big mistake. The 6s felt a little lighter (since it is w/o awd) and nimble, but powertrain performance and refinement were no where near the 2.3 FSI turbo which power came on strong at 2k rpm. The 3.0 6 is pretty gutless under 4000rpm, but it is eager to rev, just not as smooth as a Hon/Nissan/Toy v6..
That said, I still agree that a Mazda 6 is a good value if you prefer "sporty" handling fwd sedan with a manual.
Comments
Back to hybrids, you need to stop giving credit where it's not due. Toyota pushed hybrids to show it's technological leadership and to stand apart in a crowded market. Toyota doesnt lead in design, the quality gap is closing and Toyotas rarely lead in value. Their solution was to invest their heavy profits into hybrids and then pitch the idea as a way to save the Earth. Fortunately for them gas went through the roof and their timing was perfect. They did NOT start making hybrids because they predicted gas would be $3 a gallon in 2006. I have never even heard that Toyota claimed that was the case and this is from a company known to toot its own horn. Please stop worshipping the Japanese and face the facts. Just this week Edmunds reported that Honda isnt going to do any hybrid trucks or SUVs and it cutting production the Accord. MEanwhile the Big 3 are all planning a significant increase in hybrid models. GM will have two on sale this year and two or three more in 2007. Ford has a hybrid Fusion coming next year as well as other models.
I'd bet money that two years from now GM sells more hybrids than anyone except Toyota.
Yes, but the 250hp 3.5 5speed auto combo in the Altima SE is rated for 20 city/30 hwy mpg, which if it's achievable is impressive, and easily bests a 3.9 powered Impala/G6 while putting out more hp & torque.
The Altima 4-cyl is also pretty gutsy, a 2.5 with 175 hp. I think that's about 15-20 more than the 2.4's in the Camry/Accord.
Back to GM, I'm actually a bit disappointed in the economy of their 3.9. I think in most applications it's rated at 19/27. Back when the Impala had the Buick 3800, it was rated at 20/30. And the 3.9, while it has 240 hp versus 200 from the 3.8, I don't think it's much quicker in 0-60. Maybe something like 7.8 seconds versus 8 or so.
Now in base form, I think the 3.5 is a good improvement over the old 3.4, but with the midlevel engine, it seems a slight step backward. Maybe it's more refined and smooth and responsive, but that fuel economy is a sore spot.
So now being well-made and reliable is a bad thing?? And for your information, sold axles are stronger than independent suspension, I know this through lots of off-roading experience, and while most people won't take their tahoes off-roading, it's nice to know that you have a nice solid strong rea axle to load your weight onto. And as far as the ride goes, every review I've read where their was a comparison between the two they say the Tahoe has a better ride. While I haven't riden in the new generation Tahoes yet, I can verify, based on my own experience that the tahoe rides better, although, the Expedition isn't uncomfortable by any standard.
Yeah but Gm and Chrysler didn't have a challanger saleswise to the Civic or Corolla in the early 00's. Only Ford had a compact car in the early 00's that take buyers away from the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla saleswise. Gm and Chrsyler didn't have a compact car to compete with Honda and Toyota in sales.
I've yet to read a review on the 07 Expedition, so it remains to be seen how Ford has decided to tune the suspension, I've read they have significantly redesigned it. Honestly, I don't really care about a solid axle vs. IRS in an SUV. All I know is GM's latest offerings, solid axles & pushrods and all have less tow capacity when compared to an Armada or Expedition which feature IRS and DOHC engines. That may not mean much to the avg buyer, but it does to me. A 3/4 ton Suburan will only offer an extra 300lbs of tow capacity vs. an 07 Expedition and will still be saddled with a 4 speed auto. No thanks.
If GM can offer a better ride/handling combo vs. the IRS competition, then that's great. The fact remains they are are behind in tow ratings in the 1/2ton category. The extra power of the DOD 5.3 is offset by more curb weight, and it's well known that the 5.3/4speed combo is far from the ideal towing combo. As I have mentioned before, when the going gets tough (i.e. pulling up grades) it falls flat on its face. I haven't driven an 07 Tahoe, or 06 Expedition. I have driven an Armada and while it has a firmer ride than my Suburban, it handles much better, and has lots more power and stronger brakes. Basically, I like the way the Armada drives better, the Suburban, while fine on relatively smooth surfaces, gets all out of wack quickly on any type of washboard surface. This maybe corrected in the 07 with its stiffer chassis, I don't know.
I find it funny that some GM fans will bash a Mustang for having a solid axle, but it's just fine on a $40k+ SUV.
So, the Accord has a pretty good interior its just the exterior of it that needs alot of spice.
"When GM does black plastic interiors they are blasted, when Nissan does one it is a revelation of sorts."
I don;t understand your point since all car manufacturers use black colored plastics. Nissan has gotten criticized alot for the cheap interiors in the 02-04 Altima, 04-06 Maxima, and current G35 so I don;t understand your point. Even Consumer Reports has been critical of Nissan interiors in their cars in the past few years.
"Hybrid technology is great, but the press seems to have forgotten words such as Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Armada, Pilot, Ridgeline, LX470, etc. when they are in the midst of theiri hybrid worship. Tne mileade on most import trucks/SUVs is terrible. The Germans are the worst, but the Japanese arent far behind. Import Suvs with V6s and 5 or 6 speed autos get worst mileage than GMs new OHV V8 equipped trucks. I have not read one single line in any article commenting on that fact or the fact that most crossovers (which are supposedly saving the world while GM is killing it with body on frame trucks) get mileage that is barely superior to old school SUVs like the explorer or trailblazer. The ML500 has a 7 speed automatic and gets about 15mpg in the City with a 5L DOHC V8. That's progress? As long as you throw around the word "crossover" you get a free pass from the press. 21mpg on the highway? Who cares, it's a crossover! 244hp but only 17mpg in the City? Who cares, it's a Honda and Honda loves the environment!"
You have a fair point that Japanese branded trucks don;t make good miledadge so what SUV does? I never even brought up SUV's mileadge type of issue. I was just saying how GM sells alot of SUV's but their mid-size and compact cars do not sell very well.
"Funny, I've never heard that mentioned by the media. All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars". "
I think because Toyota has been having sales success with their Prius hybrid this is why Gm gets backlashed by the media like they do. What the media is saying I think is that GM could have a seller like Toyota has the Prius but GM refuses to invest money into making a hybrid and putting it onto the market. I think the media is making it a GM vs Toyota thing how Toyota is doing something right in offering a hybrid like the Prius which is selling and GM doing something wrong by not offering a hybrid like Toyota does.
"All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars".
Well, you can;t argue with success the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and Mazda 3 sell very well. However I am not saying that the Japanese makes do not sell their share of SUV's because they do. I do wonder why Toyota and Honda were up on SUV's sales last month but GM and Ford were down. It did seem strange but than again Hyundai sold more cars than trucks last month so its not an Asian makes vs American makes issue. Toyota's sales of the new RAV 4 have been a great success for them which probably bring up their total SUV sales numbers up last month.
"When magazines review GM (or other domestic products) they are quick to point out what features are missing but fail to talk about exclusive features. Edmunds review of the Escalade is a perfect example (they do this all the time) because they made a huge deal out of features found on the GL450 but totally ignored Escalade features that cant be found on the GL. C&D and others do this as well."
C&D liked the Chrysler 300, and Ford Focus a couple years ago. The ripped the last generation Civic SI and the last generation Civic as well so I don;t know about bias. The Focus finished number 4 in 2003 in a 10 car compact comparo where as the Civic finished in 6th in the same comparo. I think C&d liked the Chevy Cobalt SS as well. They loved the Ford Focus SVT in 2002 as well I think.
I think what Nissan did on the performance end was for their cars to have higher HP numbers than Honda or Toyota to set them(nissan) apart from Honda and Toyota in the early 00's. Remember in the late 90's they tried to compete with Toyota and and they were a big time money loser. About Nissan interiors it was Ghson's cost cutting that led to cheaper interior materials that Nissan used in their newer cars vs the the high quality interiors that they used in their cars in the 1990's.
"If you thin Nissan wasnt making most of it's profit on trucks then you are crazy. Why do you think they investted billions in making new plants for the Titan/Armada down south? There were big profits to be had and they wanted a piece."
I suprisingly agree with you on this particular paragraph 100%.
"The midsize sedan market isnt extremely profitable for anyone, especially not Nissan who discounts its products just as much as the Big 3."
Nissan does not discount as much has the Big 3. No way. Maybe in the late 90's but now..no.
"Toyota pushed hybrids to show it's technological leadership and to stand apart in a crowded market."
Toyota can push hybrids because they have the money to spend to put out a hybrid. If it(the hybrid Prius)failed Toyota would still have plently left in the bank. The first generation Prius was not a huge success at all. It was the second generation that Toyota hit the sweet spot in the US market. Toyota is a very rich company. This statement is coming from a very hardcore Honda/Acura and Mazda fan by the way.
"Toyota doesnt lead in design, the quality gap is closing and Toyotas rarely lead in value."
I agree with two of your points in design and the quality gap closing. Mazda, Nissan, and chrysler lead in design as this current moment. Toyota has always struggled with design thus their average age buyer has went up through the 90's to till now. Quality: I agree the quality gap between manufacturer's closes every year. Value: Toyota's hold their value very well in the long run. I really do not base on what kind of car I am going to buy because of resale value but Toyota's hold their value very well(almost Benz like.)
"Fortunately for them gas went through the roof and their timing was perfect. They did NOT start making hybrids because they predicted gas would be $3 a gallon in 2006."
The current Prius just didn't come out in 2006. Actually, Prius sales were down last month vs April 2005 because Toyota has so much demand for the Prius they just can;t make them fast enough.
BTW, I don;t know I don't know about the whole hybrid trend but GM, Ford, and Toyota are investing alot of money so it could be the future or maybe its just a fad..time will tell.
LOL
That was going to be my next argument. Said Mustang has been eating up IRS equipped BMWs in some racing circuits which is pretty impressive IMO.
I've yet to read a review on the 07 Expedition, so it remains to be seen how Ford has decided to tune the suspension, I've read they have significantly redesigned it.
If the new Explorer is any indication, the '07 Expedition should be quite a ride. I have driven an '04 Explorer and now own an '06. The difference in ride quality is very noticeable. Very smooth, quiet, and car-like and better than the minivans we drove while shopping.
I'd bet you're wrong - but if you turn out to be right, it'll be because Toyota has found a better means of propulsion than the Hybrid - Ford will be in the process of following suit, and GM will JUST be getting their brand new Hybrid technology on the road!
Think I'm crazy? GM just this year put their Flex Fuel systems out there - Ford has been building, selling and using Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV in Fordspeak) now for 7 years or more......
GM is so late to the party, it's embarrasing for America...
2. The Japanese have a head start on hybrids primarily because the Japanese government mandated their use, underwrote thier research, and provided breaks to early adopters in Japan. If the US government had done the same for the domestic industry, GM would probably have done the dual phase system on its own. Of course you all here would be complaining about GM needing to go to the government. A complaint Toyota does not get for having done the same thing.
By the way - the European, South American, and most of the Asian market other than Japan, have barely any hybrids at all. Is GM only embarrasing in Japan?
Amen. Dual standard both here and there.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Given the Big 2.5's long history of fighting and lobbying against practically every single fuel economy, emissions and safety initiative, from seat belts to catalytic converters to CAFE to ZEV requirements in California, I seriously doubt that GM would lift a finger to spearhead a sweeping technology initiative without a team of government lawyers first shoving it down their throats.
GM is far from being a progressive company, it is a reactionary dinosaur that follows, without leading. There's absolutely no evidence to support the notion that GM would be cutting edge if only it had received a handout from Uncle Sam.
Toyota and Honda, on the other hand, started in the program, but midway through got the California government to change its stringent requirements and allow hybrids.
As opposed to Japan, where the government provided financial and r&d aid, California imposed regulations, made GM pay to meet them, then allowed the Japanese to change course.
There is no logical comparison between the two.
Accord v6 w/6spd is too $$$, as is the TSX, he thinks the Jetta looks like a Corolla whch he never liked anyway (and the ones that are actually powerful/cool are $$$)...what else?
There are a three two seaters on the market, but that does not seem close to what you want.
The new GTI is pretty cool for front wheel drive, and will be available with 4 doors later this year. Getting one under 25k though may be a stretch.
While rear drive is preferable, it is not very realistic in your price range. A used 3 series would work, but you won't get anything close to new for $25k. And still, the last 3 used 3 series I've found were automatics(yuck). An older 325 should be available well under 25k along with some older 328s. I would worry about maintenance expenses, but would definitely fit your requirement.
A used v6 Altima would be fun, but I can't see that being to successful on an autocross course, and finding a manual is not easy either (used anyway).
I did test drive a new Jetta GLI (2.0 FSI turbo w/ manual trans), was an absolute blast to drive. Don't think you can get that under $25k though, and you already mentioned you don't like the looks.
A Mazda 6 comes to mind. The 3.0 v6 is not the greatest, but I did find the handling to be very tight and nimble. I could definitely see that car doing well in an autocross with the proper tires. The MazdaSpeed 6 was an excellent drive, but goes over your price point. Overall, I really liked the handling and braking performance, but was put off by the v6 and somewhat cheap overall feel. I really liked the Mazdaspeed version, but it's pricey.
A G6 GTP, is an option, but I don't know, it just doesn't do anything for me. You can get it with a stick and it will be quick. Don't know about the handling, though the rags don't seem to be to big on it.
This might be a stretch, but I've seen Mazda RX-8s used with a manual trans for under 25k. It's sort of a 4 door and would be a blast on an autocross course. They certainly have there quirks, but I've always enjoyed driving rotary engines. They just spin and spin and spin.
Good luck.
He is also in Michigan so he was worried about RWD. A couple of things though, it only snowed 3x all of last winter, and there are snow tires.
Agreed:
-GM leased 800 EV-1's over a several year period at a price well above market. (In contrast, Toyota sold 7,500 Priuses in April 2006 alone, and that was a down month.)
-GM distributed the car only in California and Arizona, areas with long commutes that pushed the limits of the cars' range.
-GM used a technology that effectively prevented the car from being refueled on a regular basis.
Sounds like a formula meant to fail, and sure enough, it didn't quite succeed.
California imposed regulations
And provided subsidies. So yes, we the taxpayer helped to subsidize the car. (How quickly they forget...)
Mazda3 loaded to teeth would be good, too. Slower, but nicer inside. No AWD, though.
Audi A3 would work, but "stripper" only. Any options and you fly north of 30K.
Mazda6 might work, too. 6-cyl is not as great as others, but the car itself is allright. Speed a bit out of the price range.
Fusion/Milan - problem is not manual on 6 cyl and terrible crash test results (for its class).
2018 430i Gran Coupe
If he's set on new, the WRX and most of the other cars mentioned are out. A Mazda 3 would be fun, not all that fast though. A Mazda 6 should be able to go out the door under $25k depending on options and good negotiating.
Along the lines of a Mazda 3, a Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V is fun. They are crude, but fairly quick. They do have a limited slip front diff, which would be great for autocross. They can be had for under $20k.
Bang for the buck is obviously a WRX, but if he won't go used, his choices will be slim.
Yep, but no manual trans I believe.
Oh how I wish Toyo continued to produce the I6 motor for something...
I would stay away from any used car but if you must find a good mechanic you trust and have them give it a very good look over. My mom always said used cars are on sale for a reason, the trick is what is the reason. Also remember that many cars flooded by last years hurricanes are out there so be very careful when buying used.
Since you are going to have a family and that would include carrying baby bags and strollers all over the place you might want to consider a wagon. Subaru makes some very nice wagons in your price range, as does Mazda. You could also look at the Dodge Magnum or if you want to save some bucks the Ford Focus I believe comes in a wagon.
If you want a sedan the Ford Focus/Mercury Milan comes in with a manual in the 4 banger which people have said were fun to drive. People do like the Honda Accord or the Civic if you want to keep costs down. The best bang for the buck IMHO is the Hyundai Sonata, the V-6 is pretty peppy but only comes in an auto (but it has a manual mode).
I would stay away from any entry level luxury car that might fall your way as they tend to be smaller and not the best thing for a growing family.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The lease prices were at a considerable loss given the investment. When the leases expired, many leaseholders wanted to continue the terms, suggesting the price was not all that bad.
-GM distributed the car only in California and Arizona, areas with long commutes that pushed the limits of the cars' range.
Who do you think you are fooling with that quip? The EVOs were made in response to a California program. What, was California going to mandate a program for sale in Boston?
-GM used a technology that effectively prevented the car from being refueled on a regular basis.
Sounds like a formula meant to fail, and sure enough, it didn't quite succeed.
GM advised California on multiple occasions the technology was not where it needed to be to make a viable fossil fuel free vehicle. California directed GM to perserver, only to change its mind in the case of Toyota of Honda, when they came up with the idea to use their Japanese government funded program hybrids instead of following through with electric vehicles (And both Honda and Toyota said were not viable.
And provided subsidies. So yes, we the taxpayer helped to subsidize the car. (How quickly they forget...)
Any subsidies were miniscule compared to the r&d investment, and would have been equally available to Toy and Honda, neither of which came through with an all electric.
If a manual were all that is needed to make a vehicle sporty, then truck drivers should start wearing race caps and goggles.
More and more of those semis you see have automatics.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Male, early 30s, married, no kids yet but soon, wife has family oriented vehicle. He wants something sporty, 4dr with a manual transmission (hence sporty), less than 25k. The car may see autocross or HPDEs."
Lemko suggested the IS and Loren mentioned that it doesn't come with a manual. Nobody said anything about Camcords :confuse:
Lemko suggested the IS and Loren mentioned that it doesn't come with a manual. Nobody said anything about Camcords
Reread post 1788, it does in fact mention Accord, TSX, Jetta and Corolla.
Then read my post 1789, where I say a front wheel drive car with a manual does not sporty make.
Such things as front rear weight balance, which wheels deliver the power, torque and hp curve, suspension design, all play a far greater roll in sporty than a manual transmission. Unfortunately, most drivers today are so detuned from sporty after ten years of CamCords, all they need to see is a manual and they think they are Mario Andretti.
An IS is a decent sporty car, auto or manual.
An Accord EX with a manual (mentioned by the original poster in 1788) is not sporty.
True enough.
Semis are not sporty, manual or auto. Manuals do not make them any more so than autos.
FWIW, the current Accord has lost a good portion of what made these cars so enjoyable over the years. It has gotten to big and portly to be entertaining
"Such things as front rear weight balance, which wheels deliver the power, torque and hp curve, suspension design, all play a far greater roll in sporty than a manual transmission.
I'll agree with you 100% here and I will never argue that my Accord provides anywhere near the performance of my S2000. But GTI, MAZDA3 2.3 or Civic Si are all front drive with manual gearboxes and I don't think any of them are slouches.
"Unfortunately, most drivers today are so detuned from sporty after ten years of CamCords, all they need to see is a manual and they think they are Mario Andretti."
I don't think people are trying to be M.A. so much as they enjoy the control and involvment that a slushbox can't provide. I won't argue with you that an IS with an Auto is no fun, but I was never debating that in the first place. I was merely going along with the suggestion from lemko and Dieselone.
I am not the fan of the Mazda3 that many here appear to be. I agree the GTI and Civi SI are both truely sporty cars - as is the Saab 9-3 Aero.
But the engineering in these cars is far beyond anything that you will find in just about every other FWD in the price range discussed.
I don't think people are trying to be M.A. so much as they enjoy the control and involvment that a slushbox can't provide.
I have never owned an auto without a manual. I agree that manuals allow more involvement in the driving process. My only point is that alone is not enough to make something sporty.
And I think we both agree that the IS, even without a manual, has enough engineering in other areas that it is a sporty car.
I guess it depends on how you define "sporty"? To me it means having some traits similar to a sports car, mainly fun, thus compromises are expected, but "sporty" should mean more fun to drive than a run of the mill car.
A true sports car is in my definition is rear wheel drive/awd with 2 doors with a good power and light weight. That said, I don't agree that all FWD cars are poor handling, they just have different handling traits. I've driven several FWD cars that have managed to put a smile on my face and that is what it's all about.
I won't go as far as saying an Accord Ex v6 6speed will hold it's own with a GTO. That's apples and oranges. The slalom is only a small part of the performance equation as smaller and lighter cars generally have an advantage.
But, an Accord v6/6speed is certainly more "sporty" than an Accord 4cyl with an auto. You get more aggressive tires and suspension tuning, and lots more power, more involvement with the manual trans, thus it's more sporty, but a sports car it's not.
I use to participate in SCCA sanctioned autocrosses all of the time. I've seen many a neon smoke a vette thru an autocross course. I've driven FWD, front engine rwd, and mid engine rwd cars in autocross events. They all can be fun to drive thus "sporty".
So a Civic Si or Cobalt SS have zero sporty traits? So I guess my Suburban is more sporty since it has a 290hp v8 and rwd/awd. Who cares about going around cones since I can just drive over them;)
True, a Aveo with a manual doesn't qualify as sporty to me.
Yes. And the point I made in post 1789 is that the suggestion in 1788 the mere presence of a manual makes a car sporty is weak.
A true sports car is in my definition is rear wheel drive/awd with 2 doors with a good power and light weight. That said, I don't agree that all FWD cars are poor handling, they just have different handling traits. I've driven several FWD cars that have managed to put a smile on my face and that is what it's all about.
I said FWD cars such as the GTI, Civic SI and 9-3 Aero are sporty. Arguably even sports cars. An appliance with a manual is not sporty.
I disagree that a sedan cannot be a full fledged sports car. A BMW 3 Series with the top of line suspension and engine is one heck of a car.
But, an Accord v6/6speed is certainly more "sporty" than an Accord 4cyl with an auto. You get more aggressive tires and suspension tuning, and lots more power, more involvement with the manual trans, thus it's more sporty, but a sports car it's not.
Yes. And there are some sumo wrestlers who are less large than others. Does not make them normal sized.
So a Civic Si or Cobalt SS have zero sporty traits? So I guess my Suburban is more sporty since it has a 290hp v8 and rwd/awd. Who cares about going around cones since I can just drive over them;)
Again, not my point to rule out all FWDs. I prefer RWD. But I agree some, not many, FWDs are good sports cars. None of them would fit the OPs criteria - new in any event - for costs, four doors, etc.
That's not at all relevant to the argument that the EV-1 was "commercially viable", as you claimed. The market viability of a product is based upon a price point that consumers are willing to pay, not whether that the seller recoups his costs.
Clearly, this car was not commercially viable at a price well above the typical market price of cars at the time -- not many people are going to buy something that is so expensive as compared to its alternatives.
The point of this whole exercise is that GM was never terribly serious about the EV-1 project, and there are aspects of it that make it appear that GM may have designed it to fail from the start so that it could fight against California's ZEV requirement, just as it has fought against almost every other requirement. (In other words, business as usual.) Distributing the car in low numbers, at a high price, while not distributing it in other markets where the range of the car may have been more suitable to local driving conditions, all add up in that direction.
Which goes back to Toyota. Unlike GM, it designed a project that actually is commercially viable: consumers willingly buy the product at a market price, it has been distributed in large numbers, and the technology is both usuable under real-world conditions and is portable enough to be included into other products. That sounds like a company that is serious about making it work, and sees compliance with regulatory requirements as an opportunity, rather than a legal fight as would its Detroit competitor. And of these two firms, we all know by now which one is better at generating profits and selling products that consumers want.
You are misunderstanding or misconstruing my point. Toy, Hon and GM all told California a commercially viable all electric car was not possible. Alone among the 3, GM came through with one and sold it a price that a small group was all too happy to buy it.
The point of this whole exercise is that GM was never terribly serious about the EV-1 project
GM spent nearly a billion dollars and several years of R&D on the project. Seems pretty serious to me.
there are aspects of it that make it appear that GM may have designed it to fail from the start so that it could fight against California's ZEV requirement, just as it has fought against almost every other requirement.
Nonsense. The ligitation came after California changed the rules midship in favor of GM's rivals Toyota and Honda.
And, you ignore wholly that Toyota is also a plaintiff in the suit against ZEV, even after getting the advantage of California's switch to the Japanese government subsidized hybrid technology.
Which goes back to Toyota. Unlike GM, it designed a project that actually is commercially viable: consumers willingly buy the product at a market price, it has been distributed in large numbers, and the technology is both usuable under real-world conditions and is portable enough to be included into other products. That sounds like a company that is serious about making it work, and sees compliance with regulatory requirements as an opportunity
And yet, Toyota is there as a Plaintiff, suing California over Zevs. Why? To protect the huge profits it makes selling V8 powered Lexi's, SUVs and trucks. Makes sense of course. Much as it does for GM.
Next red herring.
I actually think he would be okay with an auto and will bounce the idea off him, I don't know what he would do for HPDE stuff though. I think since I am the one doing all this research, he really doesn't care that much, maybe he realizes once the baby comes, those opportunities will be far and few between :P. Personally, I think it would kill me to have an auto. If I want to be that un-involved in driving, I might as well take a bus or something.
You and I agree on manuals.
I've been seeing the reports that the 3.9DOD will lose HP. Is it a rating issue or is it really losing some power. While 7 HP isn't the end of the world, the fact remains much of competition is adding power not reducing and still managing around 30mpg highway rating.
Maybe Mazda 6I(4cyl) with the manual tranny I have heard its fun to drive on the Edmunds(sedans boards.) The only con I could see about the 6 maybe that some have complained about tight backseat room with it. I know the 6 has already been mentioned before. I think you can get a good deal on a 6 since they are not selling that well when dealers are looking to move 06's during the July, August, and early September months to make for brand new 07's. The 6 will probably have alot of rebates attached to it by then so you can probably get one cheap although a manual tranny may be hard to find.
100 units a year from a mainstream maker does not demonstrate nor match the definition of "commercially viable". A better term for this would be an "experiment."
And, you ignore wholly that Toyota is also a plaintiff in the suit against ZEV
As far as I know GM and DCX were the only two automakers that directly participated in the 2002 lawsuit against CARB. (Toyota generated smog credits from its participation in the ZEV program by selling electric RAV 4's and other cars.) If you have a source, feel free to provide it.
Which is what the program was intended to be. As I said above, GM, Toyota and Honda all told California a regular production all electric vehicle was not technically viable. California insisted they perserver. GM came through. Toyota and Honda backdoored the hybrid technology it was already working on with the full assistance of the Japanese government.
If you have a source, feel free to provide it.
First hit off google:
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html
Go about half way down the page, find this quote:
"On December 7, 2004 the Pavley law was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers and California auto dealers. ... And, since the federal government has sole authority to regulate fuel economy, Toyota, G.M. and several other automakers contend in their lawsuit that California is encroaching on Washington's jurisdiction."
Believe the several others include Daimler, Mitsubishi and the Ford group.
I have been able to rent the Mazda6 twice. It is a fairly tight, fun ride for FWD. My only quibble was the manumatic. If you are going to shift, get a manual. I actually preferred the straight auto Mazda6 over the manumatic. And, as I state above, I am a huge manual fan.
The only con I could see about the 6 maybe that some have complained about tight backseat room with it. I know the 6 has already been mentioned before.
Yes. The back seat is a bit tight. Lilengineer's friend will not mind now, as the child is less than a year old. I understand children get big fast and families can grow on you. So the tight backseat could become an issue.
It's not so much the kids themselves, but all the baggage that goes along with them.
A Mazda 6 would be fine for running small kids around town. I think Lilengineer mentioned his friend's wife has a Volvo wagon or something similar that I'm sure would be used for any type of family excursion.
I didn't drive a Mazda 6 with an auto. I would think it would be on the slow side. I made the mistake of driving a v6 5speed manual after driving the MazdaSpeed 6 w/ 6speed. Big mistake. The 6s felt a little lighter (since it is w/o awd) and nimble, but powertrain performance and refinement were no where near the 2.3 FSI turbo which power came on strong at 2k rpm. The 3.0 6 is pretty gutless under 4000rpm, but it is eager to rev, just not as smooth as a Hon/Nissan/Toy v6..
That said, I still agree that a Mazda 6 is a good value if you prefer "sporty" handling fwd sedan with a manual.