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

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1…208209211213214…544

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I would not put the Mazda6 SV on your list. They are a special order car only. I have yet to be able to order one for our inventory. Basically, you won't be able to get one.
  • ergsumergsum Member Posts: 146
    The 2009 Sonata I4 Se placed second behind the Volkswagen in a Motor Trend comparison of ten midsize family sedans.

    link title

    link title
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Good info to have--it's nice to have insight from a dealer.
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Member Posts: 205
    Surprisingly Camry 2.4 L I4 is faster then Accord I4 or Malibu in 0-60 mph. Because of the quiet and smooth ride it just doesn't feel very quick.

    "our-cylinder Toyota Camry is quick relative to its competition. Our LE test car's 8.9-second 0-60-mph time is tops for this group, as is its 16.9-second quarter-mile at 82.3 mph (though the Accord, which has 19 more horsepower, nearly closed the gap)."

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124091

    While Accord is fine automobile it's ride is more harsh and noisy then Camry, gives you impression of fast pick up. It is all subjective feeling. Facts prove otherwise.

    BTW Camry also has best brakes and turning radius in the group

    "Life in Camryland isn't all bad, though. It turns a tighter circle at 36.1 feet than either the Accord at 37.7 feet or Malibu at 40.4 feet, making it less stressful to maneuver in crowded areas. The Toyota also stopped the shortest from 60 mph at 122 feet."
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Mazda6 i Sport is a pretty good value. I would opt for one over a Mazda3 s Touring. Safety features are the same, and the Mazda6 is more economical, larger, quieter and more refined. They are also very very close in price. I would go for the Mazda6 i Sport over the Mazda3 s Touring if it came down to the two.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    More economical? I missed that--is it because of the six-speed? (Or were you talking about the '08 model?)

    Also, how difficult is it to find an '09 Mazda 6i with the manual transmission?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If you'll notice I didn't say my Accord was the 08 model; it is a 2006 with 166hp. I don't care for the new Accord or Camry either one, actually. I'd like to drive a new Mazda 6, and take another look at the Altima, if I had to replace my Accord.

    Per Motor Trend

    Accord LX-SE 5AT
    2006 0-60 - 8.1s

    Camry LE 5AT
    2007 0-60 - 8.7s
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Member Posts: 205
    Why would you compare current Camry with old generation Accord that was discontinued a year ago?I had 6 gen Accord for worry free 9 years and really wanted to like a new one but ended up buying 09 Camry.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Yes, more economical and powerful then the Mazda3. At 170hp, it is rated at 30hwy and 21city, but yet, real world FE from the first owners show it at 32hwy so far, without the engine being broken in.

    If you are looking for a mtx, they are just starting to pop up. I have two, one of which is a i Sport. It really is very very smooth and really quick. I was really pleased with my first drive.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    I've driven the Honda equivalent of the 6i Sport, an Accord LX-P five-speed, and I was impressed with it in a lot of ways, but it seemed a little "disconnected" compared to our Civic. That's the same complaint I have with our '02 Accord--it feels "big" in a negative way, a bit overdamped in its responses.

    I rented an '08 Milan recently for a couple of weeks and it was much more direct than the Accord--it felt more like the Civic, or even a little like my dad's old 3-series. If the Mazda6 has that level of steering feel and balance, it might be worth making the 100-mile drive to the Atlanta dealerships that have some variety in stock. (Our local Mazda dealer is very much a lowest-common-denominator place.)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The 09 Mazda6 will feel more connected to the road then a Milan. Drive it. I think you will be pleased.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Because I'm comparing what I have in relation to what is out there; is that a problem? And, when I shopped and decided on my 06 Accord, the Camry was still all of those things (not nearly as frisky as the Accord). I use my current car as a measuring stick for what I"m going to replace it with. If I don't find something I like better I won't trade. It's that simple. ;)
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Sounds sensible to me.
  • moocow1moocow1 Member Posts: 230
    And don't forget that the Sonata is thousands cheaper than the volkswagen. Also if you think the suspension is too spongy, you could always go for the Sonata SE model.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Unless you really have to have a moonroof, I'd take the Accord LX-P over the Civic EX. As was noted, the 6i SV is probably not available, and it's sorely lacking in basic equipment. And the Sonata GLS actually costs less than the (rare) Elantra SE in today's world, with much bigger rebates and discounts available on the Sonata. And their FE is not much different.

    For $14.6K for a basic year-old Fusion, I'd rather get a 2009 Sonata with a full complement of safety features including ESC and the longer warranty, and IMO a much nicer interior. You could also pick up a loaded, low-miles Fusion or Milan for that price.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Well, the '08 Fusion in question is new, so even though the '09s are already on the lot, I don't think of it as a year old (though I'm sure my insurance company would if I totaled it in a week). And an '09 Sonata would cost at least $1500 more, even if you could find one here with a manual transmission, according to CarsDirect.

    Actually, I only mention the Fusion because the driving dynamics remind me of the Civic. Everything I've read about the Sonata GLS says it's softer than the Accord, and that's the wrong direction for me. I'd be more likely to consider a Sonata SE if I could find one with the I4, but then we're back to Accord/Mazda6 prices, well beyond the bargain basement territory of the "leftover" Fusion.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Sonata sticks are available for as low as $13k + TTL according to the Sonata Prices Paid discussion. I think that was a very exceptional price though. Advertised Internet prices at larger dealers are more like $1500-2000 under invoice + $2000 general rebate + special rebates (e.g. $500 loyalty). Since the Sonata stick stickers at around $19k, $14.6k for a stick Sonata is very doable. But you are right, they are pretty rare. But out there, as they are not 2008 close-outs but current models.

    Have you driven the 2008 Accord? It's softened up. I didn't find the 2009 Sonata significantly softer than the Accord. The Fusion does have a nice ride quality though. But a Fusion S is pretty bare-bones, and is one of the few cars in this class that doesn't have ESC even available. But it's standard on the Accord and Sonata--another big reason to go with one of those I think, or the Elantra SE (but good luck finding one of those right now!).

    At current discounts/rebates, a Sonata SE I4 would start under $18k--very much in the Civic EX territory. More than a leftover Fusion S stick, certainly--but WAY more car. Shoot, if you want something cheap how about a slightly used Taurus (the classic one, not the re-badged Five Hundred)? :)
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Yes, Backy, I drove an '08 LX-P, and it was a bit soft. So is my '02, for that matter. I'm not wild about ESC as a requirement, but wouldn't rule out a car on the basis of having it or not having it.

    As for the Taurus, it's a no-go. As I suggested in my original post, I'm looking for something more nimble and fun to drive than my current '02 Accord. By no stretch of the imagination would any Taurus (other than a first-generation SHO) fit that description.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You would probably be happiest with the Civic or Mazda3 then, maybe the Elantra SE. Good luck!
  • canddmeyercanddmeyer Member Posts: 410
    If you want to eliminate road noise, then eliminate the Accord. If build quality is important, then eliminate the V6 Accord and V6 Camry. Sit in the back seat of any vehicle you test, so you'll know what your passengers are in for.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    But a Fusion S is pretty bare-bones, and is one of the few cars in this class that doesn't have ESC even available.

    The 2008 Fusion didn't have it but ESC is now available on the 2009 models.
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Member Posts: 205
    What's wrong with V6 Camry? 3.5L Toyota V6 is a well proven engine. Most problems with 6 spd auto Camry transmissions resolved.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, but he was looking specifically at a 2008 Fusion. ESC is optional for 2009, right? Not standard as on the Accord, Mazda6, Passat, Sonata, Aura (some trims), and Malibu (some trims)?
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I know but the way you phrased it might lead some to believe it still isn't available at all. And what difference does it make whether it's optional or standard? It's available.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It could make a huge difference depending on how widely available the option is. For example, ABS/ESC is optional on the Optima. But just try to find a car with that package! Hopefully it will be a widely available option, on all trims of the Fusion (and Milan).
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I thought ESC was going to be required on all vehicles at some point.....?

    It's easier to factory order a Ford the way you want it than an import, so getting exactly what you want is just a matter of waiting 4-6 weeks in most cases.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I thought ESC was going to be required on all vehicles at some point.....?

    September 2011.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Golly, how many engines does Toyota produce?

    Referring to the RAV4 for 2009,
    From Carscoop.Blogspot.com :

    The new 2.5L unit that produces 179 HP at 6,000 RPM, along with 172 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,000 RPM (versus 166 HP and 165 lb.-ft. respectively of the previous 2.4L), is matted to a new 4-speed automatic transmission. According to Toyota, fuel efficiency is improved over the 2008 RAV-4 2.4L with EPA mpg estimates of 22 city/28 highway on 4x2 models and 21 city/27 highway on 4x4 models. The top-of-the-line 269 HP 3.5-liter V6 remains unchanged.

    I guess THIS is what will go into the 2010 Camry. Makes more sense than the 2.7L. It'll be more torquey than either of Honda's 2.4L engines. A plus in these ever-heavier midsize sedans.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    It seems that Honda, which was once a leader in engineering engines that were top of the class in power vs. economy is slacking.

    Toyota's Camry has the 2GR 3.5L which is a mileage leader AND the class-leader in acceleration as well. They have a 6-speed Auto, as does Ford, Mazda, VW, and General Motors. Nissan has upped the ante more with a good implementation of a CVT, and should be applauded for making a 4-cylinder engine that rivals some V6 engines in acceleration, all with city fuel economy and torque that is top of the class.

    Honda's engine is lacking in torque (either one, the 4-cyl models vs. other 4s or the V6 vs other V6s), but doesn't "make it all better" with great economy; if anything, the real-world fuel economy seems to have taken a nosedive compared to the previous generation.

    Even the once-lowly Hyundai Sonata matches or beats the Accord with its fuel economy, all without VCM; a system which has been a problem in a number of cars (check out the Accord VCM Thread here on Edmunds).

    *Steps off Soapbox*

    Sorry, I just had to get that out. Honda went from being a class leader in powertrains and performance in the previous generation to being mediocre/midpack in one generation. Did making the Accord big and beefy also make it too big for its britches?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    That engine would really spice up the Camry. I would assume 22-24city 30-32hwy for the EPA estimates.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    May give Ford a run for its "Best-In-Class Fuel Economy" claim. Maybe 23/33? Toyota likes to gear tall, remember!

    EDIT: That claim Ford is making is for their upcoming Fusion refresh.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Since when did Ford have best in class FE, on a car actually on the road anyway?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I was talking about their claim for the upcoming Fusion; sorry I didn't make that more clear. I edited to put that in.

    In my head I wrote it, put in reality I didn't! :blush:
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    It's possible, but at least the 2010 Fusion will have a 8 month head start.

    What was the mileage increase in the RAV4?
  • oldcemoldcem Member Posts: 309
    Not so sure that the Camry V6 is the class leader in acceleration now. The road tests I've read in a couple of the mags indicate the GM midsizers (Aura and Malibu) with the 3.6 are quicker. However, the Camry supposedly delivers better fuel economy than the GM twins. I went with the 3.5 Liter Aura 4 speed that is a good bit slower than the class leaders, but, delivers great fuel economy.

    Regards:
    OldCEM
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    According to Motor Trend, the Camry is fastest among the Altima, Accord, and Malibu V6 Sedans.

    Car and Driver ran the Camry SE-V6 with numbers below. Which mags had the GM twins being faster?

    2007 Toyota Camry V-6
    Second Place: The Quickest Cars of 2007: $20,000 to $25,000

    Base price: $24,160
    0-to-60-mph time: 5.8 sec
    Quarter-mile time: 14.3 sec @ 99 mph

    The Saturn Aura XR was ninth on this list.
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I agree here....I'd say the 3.6 V6 found in the GM Midsize Triplets is faster than say the Accord's or Altima's 3.5L V6s, but I don't think it can match the Mazda6 V6 or Camry V6 for acceleration. I'm ready for an all out test of the midsize four cylinder models though. I'm curious as to how these cars would be ranked based on the traditional requirements for a family sedan...room, ride, handling, fuel economy and things of that nature. I wonder where the 6 would rank amongst class leaders like the Malibu and Sonata as far as fuel economy on a real-world level.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    4-cyl Midsize Comparison

    Check that out, it may be what you're looking for; it's a Car and Driver Comparo.

    For what it is worth, the Motor Trend comparison I referenced in my previous post had the Malibu and the Accord accelerating at the same rate to 60 MPH. Other tests I've seen put the Malibu slightly faster (by about 2 tenths of a second).

    The Camry is simply the fastest family car in the $25,000 category.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    GM has a fantastic 6 cyl. on their hand, the only improvement I can see is on fuel economy.
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Member Posts: 205
    I'm sure Camry gets lower review ratings recently because they sell Camry LE with cheap and crappy Bridgestone Turanza EL400 tires while Honda sells Accords with Michelin. Few $$ that Toyota saves on tires result in bad reviews and lost sales. Otherwise 4 cyl Camry is fastest, smoothest car with shortest braking distance in it's class.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Otherwise 4 cyl Camry is fastest, smoothest car with shortest braking distance in it's class.

    Right now I think Malibu and Sonata are 1-2 in stopping distances, although the Sonata has the slimest margin over the 3rd place Camry.

    I can't give you fastest even w/ better tires. Passat and Altima stand in as much faster sprinters.

    I would argue the Sonata has the smoothest ride but certainly a better set of tires could improve the already smooth Camry.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Mazda6 4 cyl has yet to be tested. I would assume that it would rank near the top, since all cars Mazda produces tend to hang out in the top of driving dynamic category's , like braking.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'm sure Camry gets lower review ratings recently because they sell Camry LE with cheap and crappy Bridgestone Turanza EL400 tires while Honda sells Accords with Michelin. Few $$ that Toyota saves on tires result in bad reviews and lost sales

    So you're saying we should overlook it, and give Toyota a pass for cheaping out? I disagree. We don't have to make excuses for everyone else, and Toyota, typically one of the most expensive options out there, CERTAINLY shouldn't get them.

    I can't help but notice you said "4-cyl Camry is the fastest...". Um, with the lowest-in-class horsepower, it just isn't; regardless of Toyota's cost-cutting on tires or not.

    Braking/Acceleration

    170ft from 70 MPH, 8.9 sec to 60 MPH. Camry

    169ft from 70 MPH, 8.2 sec to 60 MPH. Accord

    168ft from 70 MPH, 7.8 sec to 60 MPH. Altima

    170ft from 80 MPH, 8.7 sec to 60 MPH. Malibu
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    I've got that comparison at home on my desk...I guess I should have clarified that I'd like to see how the Mazda6 ranks when tested against the four cylinder CamCordNataMaliTima's of the world.
  • lucky_777lucky_777 Member Posts: 205
    I don't know where your numbers came from but I got mine from
    Edmunds Road Tests Comparison Test: 2008 Four-Cylinder Family Sedans
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124091

    "Life in Camryland isn't all bad, though. It turns a tighter circle at 36.1 feet than either the Accord at 37.7 feet or Malibu at 40.4 feet, making it less stressful to maneuver in crowded areas. The Toyota also stopped the shortest from 60 mph at 122 feet."

    "the four-cylinder Toyota Camry is quick relative to its competition. Our LE test car's 8.9-second 0-60-mph time is tops for this group, as is its 16.9-second quarter-mile at 82.3 mph (though the Accord, which has 19 more horsepower, nearly closed the gap)."

    Most likely your numbers are for old generation Accord that was quicker then this year model. Altima wasn't part of edmunds review.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Why are 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times considered so important? Who does this, and why? IMO, full throttle from a dry stop, puts unnecessary strain on engine mounts, and other drive line components. I am more interested in 40-70mph or 50-80mph times. Where are they?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Since no sources use the same passing times (some cite 45-65, some do 30-50 and 50-70) so 1/4 mile and 0-60 times is all we have to compare. Also, starting from zero shows low-end power as well as top-end passing power.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Altima wasn't part of edmunds review.

    Then you can't claim the Camry being the fastest in this class. Clearly the Passat is the fastest; followed in a distant second by the Altima.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I don't think 1/4 mile times are a good indication of passing power. A car could have a lower 1/4 mile time, than another car, and actually be slower from 50-80mph. In my world 50-80mph is more important than 0-60mph. Unless you drag race your family car, this is probably true for most drivers.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    So these stats are probably more relevant, especially w/ the current state:

    F/E 4 cyclinder (top three)

    Nissan Altima 2.5L 6-spd manual - 23/32
    Chevy Malibu 2.4L 6-spd auto 22/33
    Hyundai Sonata 2.4L 5-spd auto 22/32

    F/E 6 cyclinder (top three)

    Hyundai Sonata 3.3L 5-spd auto 19/29
    Honda Accord 3.5L 5-spd auto 19/29
    Toyota Camry 3.5L 6-spd auto 19/28
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles