Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

allmet33 · September 2008

It's actually a combination of all things. I guess it really depends on how you look at it. I had a 2002 Sonata that I got in lieu of a 2002 Camry. Reason being, Toyota wanted almost $7k more to give me what I got in the Sonata. The Sonata had every option the Camry had and proved over the next 4 years to be just as reliable as a Camry (I previously had a 96 Camry) and in my opinion, same features, same reliability, lower price...the Sonata was much more car.

The G8 is more car from the performance perspective and if that's your leaning...by all means. From a standpoint of features and amenities...the Genesis is more car because of what is offered for the money. It's not to say you can't have driving fun in the Genesis, you can just have more of it with the G8. However...if your the type that likes cruising, then your driving would be wasted on a G8.

kdshapiro · September 2008

Conversations with whom???

With whomever was saying these things?

No...it depends on the price of the car. A fully loaded G8 GT sells for less than a Genesis 4.6 that's fully loaded...simple fact

I specifically said V6. True there is a horsepower differential, but there are people who shop solely on price. Just like there are people who shop on features, name, gas mileage etc.

No...if it doesn't have everything that the other car has, then it can't be 95% of the car.

Performance counts very heavily, in fact more than doo-dads. The car has to walk the talk. The difference between a G8 and a 550i is less about the time to 60 and more about the total package. The G8 is probably 90% of the car at 50% of the price of a 550i. The other 10% to perfection is costly.

allmet33 · September 2008

With whomever was saying these things?

Must not have been too many, I talk cars with a lot of folks and that topic NEVER came up.

I specifically said V6. True there is a horsepower differential, but there are people who shop solely on price. Just like there are people who shop on features, name, gas mileage etc.

Even with the V-6...the G8 is still less than the Genesis.

Performance counts very heavily, in fact more than doo-dads.

Once again, it depends on whose doing the shopping. Personally, I look for a nice mix of performance and amenities. So in MY case, the Genesis would win out.

pod · September 2008

I consider the 2008 Mercury Sable (or Ford Taurus) to be a pretty good car. The new Ford CEO has essentially apologized for the "homer simpson" appearance and lack of sportiness and promised that the 2010 version will be a much more attactive and performance oriented vehicle. A different chassis, a different enine, etc. Spy photos have appeared that show a major change. Fine. I wonder how the knowledge that the present Taurus/Sable is to be phased out by 2010 will affect the price of these 2009 models. I would expect it to come down but perhaps they will throttle down the production so that there is no surplus of 2009's. Any thoughts on whether the price of the 2008-2009 Taurus/Sable will drop as we approach 2010?

carolinabob · October 2008

Confused? The new this summer Lincoln MKS is based on the Taurus platform (chassis) which is the Volvo S80 platform. The MKS has a tweaked Taurus V6. How can they be doing all that much revision to the Taurus and not the MKS?
BTW, I have given up on Hyundai after the 3rd set of new shocks on my 07 Azera with only 11,000 miles are deterioriating. I also test drove three different Genesis' and concur with Automobile Magazine, Car and Driver and others who reported significant deficiencies in the Genesis suspension.
Also drove an MKS, it rides a lot better than the Genesis, but does need more power if accelerating up steep hills or interstate entry ramps.
The Genesis (and Azera) have tremendous potential, but Hyundai needs to spend the money to get the cars designed right from the ground up, insure quality and then determine the price of the car.

thegraduate · October 2008

This forum has gotten QUIET! A few questions to bring back the conversation...

Let's discuss changes available for 2009 on these vehicles. I know the Chrysler models got a bump in V8 power. What else? Has Hyundai changed the Azera at all since it came out?

The Buick Lucerne CX and CXL now come standard with a more powerful & efficient 3.9L, replacing the 3.8L motor. Would that change your mind in car shopping?

Does anybody here have the new Maxima? How about the G8?

allmet33 · October 2008

The changes in the Azera are subtle. Switching from silver to chrome accents inside. Instead of a rich mahogany faux wood, it now looks more like a good grade of oak. The stereo got a bigger screen dislplay and along with the climate controls, it all has a blue backlight instead of the green backlight. The speaker grilles are now plastic to deal with the complaints of the cloth retaining scuff marks. The grille has been re-done and actually looks better than the orginal grille. Oh, and the suspension was tweaked and they are using some new components. Not sure if it will do any better as the problems seem to show up after a few thousand miles are put on them...so the jury is out on that supposed improvement.

That's all I have on the Azera.

tjc78 · October 2008

The Buick Lucerne CX and CXL now come standard with a more powerful & efficient 3.9L, replacing the 3.8

Nope... still not what should be in the "flagship" Buick. As has been said many times... there are better choices.

As for the new Max.. I didn't drive one but did check it out and sat in it. The interior is very nice, however I am not sure that it fits into the large sedan category any longer. It certainly seems smaller inside than the previous generation.

I think one of the reasons this thread is quiet is because in general the large car market is not doing all that well. Although gas has been dropping people still are going for more fuel efficient vehicles.

thegraduate · October 2008

The thing is, the same people who always participated here (you included

)are still driving those large cars, to the best of my knowledge!

I agree about the 3.9L. They should put the 3.6L/6sp in it and be done with the thirsty Northstar.

tjc78 · October 2008

I am still driving my Avalon you are correct. I think on the reasons we all stopped is the topic got a bit stale and the cars really haven't changed except the Maxima. Don't worry, Allmet and the Captain have been having some good conversation over on the Genesis board!

plekto · October 2008

What GM needs is direct injection and electronic valves in their engines. All of them. this would give them an enormous advantage over the competition.

Imagine the entire top half of the engine gone - no timing chain, no camshafts, no valve assembly, no having to deal with oil as well or a myriad of other problems. Keeping the air/fuel and oil separate in the engine is huge by itself - no chance of problems there. And the head can be made out of essentially un-warpable materials or the engine could be made without a head entirely(no upper gaskets)

Lighter, cheaper, more reliable, and far better fuel economy. Valves and compression getting poor? It'll adjust the clearances on the fly - and if it's really shot, replace the module and go on your way.

Not holding my breath, though.

allmet33 · October 2008

What GM needs is direct injection and electronic valves in their engines. All of them. this would give them an enormous advantage over the competition

Funny thing is...GM is using direct injection on the 3.6 in the Outlook/Acadia. Oh...my bad, they were talking about switching to it.

Actually...what they do have currently is the SIDI...spark ignition direct injection.

GM Press Release

joe97 · October 2008

The Genesis (and Azera) have tremendous potential, but Hyundai needs to spend the money to get the cars designed right from the ground up, insure quality and then determine the price of the car.

I must have missed the memo about how Hyundai didn't spend enough money to put the Genesis from sketch to production; I've also likely missed the memo about its quality and correct pricing - silly me...

allmet33 · October 2008

Joe97...you didn't miss any memos, the only quality knock on the Genesis is the suspension. I think the Koreans really don't know how to tune the suspensions of their vehicles for the North American market. What they may like over there in Korea isn't what we look for hear. Oh yeah, and the unfinished trunk lining under the rear deck.

To be honest...the suspension has been the only consistent issue with the Genesis, yet...folks that have bought them aren't even complaining so it makes me wonder if the folks that are merely test driving them are saying it to give them something to harp on...I don't really know. When I tested one, the ride was quite compliant, confident and poised over pot holes, man hole covers and other road imperfections. I didn't have a chance to get on the highway with it, but I would imagine cruising on the highway would be a very pleasant experience.

As far as pricing goes...I really don't know what anyone could say. The car is worth more and because it's a Hyundai, folks want to pay even less for it than what's being asked. Granted, it can be purchased below sticker, but even at $42K...the 4.6 w/tech package is one heck of a steal!!!

Karen_S · October 2008

An advertising agency would like to speak with satisfied Dodge Charger drivers. If you own or regularly drive one of these vehicles, please respond to jwahl@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, October 31st.

carolinabob · October 2008

Will say it again. Re: the Genesis, read the October issues of Car & Driver and Automobile magazines.
Several people on Edmunds and other blogs have mentioned concerns about the ride. The posts here re: the Azera speak for themselves.
Re; pricing, spend a little more to get it correct and then charge accordingly instead of trying to dramatically undercut the competetion on price.

allmet33 · October 2008

No offense Carolinabob...Hyundai has always undercut the competition on price, that has ALWAYS been their niche. Fortuntately with nearly 60K miles on my '06 Azera, I haven't experienced the problems I have read in postings here on Carspace as well as Hyundai-Forums. What Hyundai really needs to do is bring in an American consultant to work with them on the suspention tuning. They take care of that main issue and the rest is a cake walk. As far as pricing goes...they really don't have to address pricing...their cars are priced quite fairly in my opinion. Folks just need to accept the fact that Hyundai has grown up and and a $40K Hyundai exists!

joe97 · October 2008

So let me be more direct here, obviously I didn't make myself clear earlier

You said, "Hyundai needs to spend the money to get the cars designed right from the ground up"

Hyundai spent over 530 million dollars to develop the Genesis from the ground up.

Re; pricing, spend a little more to get it correct and then charge accordingly instead of trying to dramatically undercut the competetion on price.

If the Genesis price range doesn't make sense, how much were you thinking?

As for the ride of the Genesis, there are obviously room for improvement, no doubt; nonethless, it is a good one, a very good first attempt. The Genesis has a very balanced ride, think somewhere in between the GS and the 5er. By the way, I disagree with your position the MKS rides much better than the Genesis - to me, the MKS rode a little soft in comparison to the Genesis.

badgerfan · November 2008

I just drove a rental 2008 white Chevy Impala LT with about 4300 miles on it for two weeks in New England on vacation. Put about 700 miles on it. Having not driven this generation of Impala before, I was curious about what GM's latest version was. For the record, I drive a 2000 Ford Taurus SES with the DOHC 3.0 V-6, with 75K miles on it. I have not read any of the 6700+ posts here.

My impressions: On the plus side it was quite quiet, had a smooth ride, shifted and braked well, and had a large nicely shaped trunk with linkage hinges so as to make most of the trunk space useable.

On the minus side, handling was somewhat remote, and road noise at times seemed higher than my Taurus is, though both were acceptable in my mind.

What I really did not like were the outside rear view mirrors which were small, oddly triangular shaped, and the white body color housing was very distracting. The center console dash lights reflected in the top of the windshield at night, and the other gage lights behind the steering wheel reflected in the drivers side door window AND in the rear view mirror!

Also the cupholders were way too far back in the console, and the armrest on the console was also too far back and poorly cushioned.

The rear seats on this model at least, didn't fold down.

Front seat comfort was not as good as my Taurus. My rear ached after anything longer than a 1 hour drive.

The visors were too small and did not block sun in the upper corners.

I detested the fake burled wood on the dash. It looked cheap.

Most of these negatives would not be deal breakers for me, except for the poor outside mirrors, the reflections of the dash lights in the glass, the cupholder placement, the center armrest problem and the less than ideal front seat comfort. These items would definitely make me shop elsewhere.

berri · November 2008

I had a similar car in Miami several weeks ago and used to own a 2000 Taurus until I got fed up with the constant repairs once it was out of warranty. I thought the Impala road nicer than the Taurus on the highway, but the Taurus was a better driver. You are right that the seat backs are the killer on the Impala. They are terrible after a few hours. Taurus seats in an Impala would make a nice highway car if reliability improved. What's with the current Taurus - all that back seat legroom, but cramped driver's leg room further aggravated by intruding wheel wells?

thegraduate · November 2008

What's with the current Taurus - all that back seat legroom, but cramped driver's leg room further aggravated by intruding wheel wells?

CRAMPED Driver's Legroom? I'm 6'5" (with a short torso, long legs) and find there to be plentiful legroom front and back (I tend to sit with the seat all the way back in every car or full size truck I've driven). The real aggrivating thing is the lack of a telescoping steering wheel, although I think the Impala lacks this also, right?

tjc78 · November 2008

CRAMPED Driver's Legroom

Every car is different for some people. For example when I drove the Genesis I felt it wasn't as roomy as my '06 Avalon, but the #s would say it is. Just my body type I guess.

ronsmith38 · November 2008

I have a 2008 Sable, and also find the drivers legroom ample. It has power adjustable pedals, and by adjusting them and the seat, the need for a telescoping steering wheel is diminished. Since my wife is shorter than I am, the memory settings come in handy.

allmet33 · November 2008

I think it has everything to do with how and individual sets the seat up. I'm 6'2" tall and when I tested the Genesis, I had no issues with leg room at all. Even with the seat in the position I needed, it left ample room for the back seat as well.

thegraduate · November 2008

Well sure, its different person-to-person. I was just surprised because as a 6'5" guy, I'm used to having legroom issues EVERYWHERE but never having headroom problems. Heck, I have an Accord Sedan with a moonroof and can adjust my power seat almost all the way up with no problems. All my height is in my legs, and the Taurus felt plenty roomy up front.

Don't get me wrong though, you guys know I'm not so hard-headed as to believe where I'm comfortable, others may not be!

tonycd · November 2008

"I predict that gas will hit $3 before $8! Once the speculation factor goes away."

You said it way back in June. Helluva good call, Ron.

allmet33 · November 2008

I feel you, but at 6'2"...I've NEVER had leg room issues in the driver's seat of any car I've driven (and it's been quite a few). If anything, the only leg room problem has ever been those that ride behind me.

I also think some of it has to do with perception. If the driver's cockpit seems cramped, then you will feel cramped no matter what. Some automakers do a good job of making the driver's area seem spacious. In today's world with adjustable pedals, tilt and telescoping steering wheels...I don't understand how leg room can be an issue. Not unless someone just has abnormally long legs.

You are right on one thing...your driving position may not be comfortable to someone else and vice-a-versa.

thegraduate · November 2008

Some automakers do a good job of making the driver's area seem spacious. In today's world with adjustable pedals, tilt and telescoping steering wheels...I don't understand how leg room can be an issue. Not unless someone just has abnormally long legs.

Well, if you have a car that doesn't have those features, it CAN be. Even if it does, sometimes, automakers just don't put in a lot of front-seat travel (such as the Honda Fit, just not enough legroom for me up front).

I drive a 1996 Accord about every-other day. It's a little lacking in actual legroom, but the whole interior is so open (low dashboard, cowl, lots of glass), the car doesn't feel cramped to me at all. It happens to have excellent steering wheel placement for me; it doesn't telescope, but it is a good distance away... unlike our old Odyssey, or vehicles like the old Corolla model, which was the biggest pain in the arms to drive.

By the way, with an inseam that is very nearly 35", I'd probably qualify for those "abnormally long legs" comments!

badgerfan · November 2008

Well my 2000 Taurus has been and continues to be an excellent car both from performance and reliability standpoints. I plan on keeping it for at least 3 or 4 more years. Not that interested in the current Taurus as I don't need that big a car. A Fusion would be just fine, or I might even go down to a compact next time.

thegraduate · November 2008

My parents almost went with the Fusion over the summer, as my mom is always looking to save some money where possible, but the salesman pointed out that there was more "bargaining" room on the Taurus, and equipped similarly, the Fusion wouldn't be any cheaper. The fact that the Taurus was more powerful and had better fuel economy sealed the deal.

That said, the new Fusion is due out soon, and should offer improved power & economy.

lmandrews · November 2008

In your post #3518 dated 10/29/07 you mentioned a memory seat problem with your Amanti. I would be very interested in what your problem was. I am having a problem programming the seat using only the controls on the door. Everything worked as described in the manual from 4/08 until about a week ago (11/3/08) when it suddenly would not hold the program. KIA is trying to convince me that the instructions in the manual are wrong and that the seat must be programmed using the remotes, which I have never done. The main control module was replaced, but the problem remains. I would appreciate any information you may have about this problem.

aviboy97 · November 2008

Hey everyone-

I'm doing a little homework here for my in-laws for they are considering trading their 2004 Maxima for either a 2009 Maxima 3.5 SV (possibly with tech) or a 2009 Mazda6 s GT (possibly with Nav).

They are similar in size, although the Max is bigger which is not a good thing in their eyes since they thought the 04 was a bit too big. They are very similarly equipped too. The Mazda has Bluetooth, Xenons, leather, dual climate, fuel computer, every safety feature under the Sun and Blind Sport Monitor detection system, something the Max does not have. TO get Xenons on the Max, you need to get Nav. Not the case with Mazda, since they are standard.

Power goes to Max with 290hp / 261 tq vs Mazda's 272 hp / 269 tq. Fuel economy is similar, however, the Max recommends Premium, is that correct?

The price advantage will go the the Mazda as well, for I can get them the Mazda6 s GT w/ Nav, moon roof / Bose Audio / Sirius radio for under $30,000. What are the Maxima's selling for? Particularly the SV with Tech, Bluetooth and Xenons?

BTW, I work for Mazda, so there is no need to educate me on the 6. I don't wanna hear any Ford talk either. Ford does not build or engineer the Mazda6. I'm really looking for useful input on the Maxima. Thanks in advance!

donna388 · November 2008

"Power goes to Max with 290hp / 261 tq vs Mazda's 272 hp / 269 tq.
Fuel economy is similar, however, the Max recommends Premium, is that correct?"

You've got it backwards.

The Mazda has the edge here because of greater torque.

Also, if the Max must use premium and the Mazda regular, there is a savings.

thegraduate · November 2008

That horespower will matter when merging or passing. Torque is what gets you going from a start. The Maxima's CVT will use the power more effectively and efficiently, because there will be no gear changes; instead, the engine will be able to go right to the best part of the powerband and stay there, unlike a conventional automatic.

By the way, the Maxima is actually 3 inches shorter in length than the Mazda, which has grown quite large. They shortened the Maxima for 2009.

aviboy97 · November 2008

I've heard great things about Nissan's CVT. The Aisin unit in the Mazda6 has a very sharp and precise shift which stays in its power band as well. No shift shock or power lag.

By the way, the Maxima is actually 3 inches shorter in length than the Mazda, which has grown quite large

Their current Maxima feels like a boat. It's their 3rd Maxima, and they were not a big fan of how big it got, but, purchased it over the Altima at the time, because they felt the Altima was relatively cheap in comparison. I noticed the size change after I posted. The 6 has more interior room too. Should the Max really be considered a mid-sized sedan?? I think so.

It looks like the price will be closer then I anticipated. I can get them a Mazda6 s GT with Nav / moon roof / Bose / Sirius radio for around $29,300. I've gotten quotes on the Maxima SV with tech, Xenons, and Bluetooth for around $32,500. That's nearly $4,000 off MSRP. Plus Mazda has 0% for 36 months, and I don't think Nissan has anything for the 09 Maxima.

I guess it's going to come down to what car they like more. They have yet to test drive either. I'm curious to see which they will like more.

thegraduate · November 2008

The 6 has more interior room too.

Any numbers on the interior volume? I'm curious, since it has grown so much. I know the Accord (non-moonroof) is 106 cu. ft. and with its 14 cu. ft. trunk, equals the 120 cu. ft. that it takes to get into the "Full Size" car territory. I was just curious how close the 6 comes to this.

I can't find numbers on the Maxima either.

Thanks,

TheGrad

tenpin288 · November 2008

From www.fueleconomy.gov

Passenger Volume

96 ft3 (4D) 09 Maxima

102 ft3 (4D) 09 Mazda 6

Luggage Volume

14 ft3 (4D) 09 Maxima

17 ft3 (4D) 09 Mazda 6

aviboy97 · November 2008

Maxima Mazda6

Front Headroom (in.) 38.50 39.40
Rear Headroom (in.) 36.40 37.30
Front Legroom (in.) 43.80 42.50
Rear Legroom (in.) 34.60 38.00
Front Shoulder Room (in.) 56.30 57.30
Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 55.10 56.50
Front Hip Room (in.) 53.40 55.10
Rear Hip Room (in.) 53.90 55.90

After spending a lot of time in both the Mazda6, and their current 2004 Maxima, the Mazda6 feels smaller.The Mazda6 has a driver focused cockpit and every control can be reached with relative ease. I'm wondering how the 09 Max is in comparison.

aviboy97 · November 2008

The truck in the Mazda6 is 16.5cu ft, not 17.3.

donna388 · November 2008

"That horespower will matter when merging or passing. Torque is what gets you going from a start."

Not necessarily. And not unless you really rev it up.The only way you will get the Maximas greater maximum horsepower is to wind it up to much higher than necessary revs.

Sure, the Nissan may have a sight edge in a drag race, but most people do not rev their motors to their maximum revs in normal everyday driving.
In normal everyday daily driving, extra torque is the better way to go.
I will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.
Torque is what pulls you along in normal everyday driving, when doing normal driving, grade climbing, leaving normally from a dead stop, etc.

Many do not like the CVT and prefer feeling the gear changes, and from what I have read, Mazdas six speeds do get the job done. I drove that CVT tranny for two days in a rental and it does take some getting used to.

tjc78 · November 2008

will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.

The 3.5 in the Max (VQ) is one of the best V6s ever.... the 3.7 in the Mazda has a long way to go to even be in the same league IMO.

tjc78 · November 2008

I sat in the '09 Max and felt it to be too small to my tastes. Much smaller (esp in the rear) than the outgoing model. However, the quality of the interior is fantastic.

One of the reviews I read on the '09 Max is Nissan still has some torque steer problems. Automobile mag actually just did a comparo on the Max vs 6 vs Passat cc. I didn't get a chance to read it, though

aviboy97 · November 2008

Edmunds.com have similar performance times for both vehicles. 6.5 sec to 60mph and 14.7 sec in the 1/4 mile. Both cars weigh about the same too, little over 3,500 lbs.

aviboy97 · November 2008

I should check out that article. Thanks for your opinion!

tonycd · November 2008

They basically said the Mazda was nice beyond its class, but the Maxima and Passat CC were a class above it and it didn't quite bridge the chasm.

Of course, this is also an admission that the other two cost more.

If I worked for Mazda, I would be inclined to like its products, so it's hard for me to be too critical. However, it does sound to me as if that's a factor here.

captain2 · November 2008

donna388-
grad's got it right here - hp is torque delivered over time. the actual formula is hp= (torque*rpm)/5252. In itself and as a measure of any car's ability to accelerate, the higher the HP the better the acceleration times, not necessarily the torque. If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+. Otherwise we could all be driving around in rev challenged diesels that despite 350 lb ft. (or more) of torque still can't get out of their own way. Wouldn't we? :confuse:
Yes it is certainly torque that you feel in the seat of your pants when you initially hit the accelerator (as grad noted) BUT it is the abililty of any engine to rev quickly (or apply that torque in a given period of time (making HP)) that determines actual accelerative power. Truck buyers worship torque numbers and tend to buy things like those slow diesels for precisely these reasons - they have big loads they need to get moving and are less concerned with how long it might take to get to any given speed.
I would also challenge you on the 'modern" V6 assertion on the DT. While the engine is obviously putting out 50 or 60 extra horses than the old DT, is not nearly the 210hp 'dog' that it was comparatively, it is still requiring more displacement to do it. Plain and simple the Nissan VQ is getting quite a bit more hp per unit of displacement than either the Ford or Mazda DT. Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design , simple VVT on the intake valves vs. CVVTi intelligent (computer controlled) continuously variable intake AND exhaust valve timing on undeniably the best V6 of this group - the Toyota 2GR. Now that engine - is 'modern' - and innovative. Recent updates have pulled the VQ to almost the same levels as the 2GR, but not quite - it is the VQs remarkable history that sets it above all the rest, including the newer Toyota design.

aviboy97 · November 2008

If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+.

It should, but it does not. Same 0-60 and same 1/4 mile times.

Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design

That is is. Apparently, Mazda's new VV-T system will debut in the 2010 Mazda3 utilizing control over both intake and exhaust valves. The VV-T in the 3.7L is a carry over from the 3.0L, which was designed by Mazda and only adjusts the intake valves. By late 2010 or 2011, all Mazda models will have the updated VV-T system. Perhaps this would push the 3.7L hp to around 280+

The VQ is a great engine, however, I would be more impressed if they could figure out how to run it on regular fuel. The fact that they do not offer a VQ engine that runs on regular is a disappointment. Take away the compression ratio of 10:6 and say good by to the impressive power numbers. The Toyota 2GR does run on regular as does the Mazda 3.7 MZI. The 2GR-FSE is very impressive with it's direct injection as well. The 3.7L MZI is adaptable to DI, and DI has been used by Mazda for 3 years in their 2.3L DISI Turbo. I'm wondering when they will add it to the 3.7L.

captain2 · November 2008

It should, but it does not
and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars. The Mazda has poorer FE despite putting out LESS HP, but equal acceleration. The only thing that might explain that - the gearing in the Mazda's 6AT is 'higher' than it effectively is in the CVT, and now you have something that would explain both the Mazda's poorer FE and it's similar acceleration despite giving up 20 something HP.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the marketing gurus over at Mazda wanted to perpetuate the 'zoom-zoom' thing although the 6.5 is somewha unremarkable these days - the CVT, of course, would argue against the 4DSC pretensions on the Maxima although it would help the FE.

aviboy97 · November 2008

and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars

..something that is commonly neglected when talking about performance or fuel economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mazda sacrificed a few MPG's to get better performance numbers. Same can be said for Nissan and how they made a sacrifice.. They are promoting a "4 door sports car" with a 290hp engine when in fact their transmission of choice makes it's performance numbers suffer, but, have people say "26mpg and 290hp..not so bad!"....you are correct. It's all about marketing.

joshuag · November 2008

I personally think that Toyota needs to fix their transmission problems on their current Avalon before anyone should consider it. We have a Toyota Avalon Limited with 33,000 miles on it and we constantly need to take it back to the dealer to have the transmission "re-flashed," whatever that means. Our car is a 2006 and Toyota is still putting the same transmission in the car and refusses that there is a problem.

Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles