A reporter would like to speak with drivers whose families have had a lot of automotive brand loyalty. Has it faded over the years? Please send a few sentences on this to pr@edmunds.com no later than Friday, October 16, 2009 if you care to be interviewed on the subject.
The Kizashi drives better than basically everything in its class. Camry, Accord, Altima, Jetta, Malibu, Mazda6, Legacy – you name it.
The above was copied from the first drive article by autoblog.com of the new Suzuki midsize car....the Kizashi. Stupid name IMO but seems to have some things going for it. Ony engine is an I4 and auto is a CVT which I'm also not fond of.
Maybe this car would be a good candidate to replace the Aura on the rights side of this page.
I would like to go head to head against it with my Sport. I have driven CVT cars for several years now, and they aren't that great for acceleration, great for MPG, but not acceleration. I have driven a LOT of cars over the years, including performance cars, and of all of them I found the Fusion Sport handles the best as a daily driver, and someday would love to take it to a track and put it through its paces, a nice Road America track with curves and turns and straightaways, to really see how it handles, and this is the first car I ever felt that way about. I have driven Vettes, and stangs, and although they handled well, and could move, as a daily driver they aren't that great.
Would be very interesting to see how the Suzi is in comparison.
I am waiting to read some more reviews of the Suzuki K. The autoblog reviewer was just gaga over the way it handled due to it's rigidity and suspension quality. He was driving the manual however but I think he mentioned that the CVT ran to 60 in 7.9 sec. which is respectable.
This time, it's compared to the TSX and last-gen Legacy.
They'd better throw in the V6 before the end of next spring, or it's not going to be on my list. Then again, if they're using the 3.6L GM V6, it may not make it anyway...
Notice the reviewer did not include the Fusion in the list
Probably just didn't want to name every midsize car for brevity sake. I think the Fusion, Milan, Sonata, Optima, Aura, etc etc would be covered under "you name it".
And among all four-cylinder midsize sedans, only the Accord EX (190 hp), and Volkswagen Jetta Wolfsburg and Passat (200 hp) beat it in the power department
Above from the Edmund review of the Suzuki K. Interesting how Edmunds puts both the Jetta and Passat in the midsize class.
Unless Suzuki can get a few more horses out of it, the 252 HP rating for both the Malibu and Aura isn't too impressive. Plus I don't find it as smooth at the Honda, Mazda, or Ford V6.
Trust me, it's plenty of power, with a probable 0-60 in around six seconds (the Malibu LTZ does it in 6.5 according to Car and Driver). What the hell do you want in a midsize sedan anyway?
Re plenty of power... did you know the C4 Corvette didn't get over 250 hp until 1992, with the second-gen LT1? How could those Corvette owners put up with such paltry power for all those years? :shades:
And now back to our regularly-scheduled program...
did you know the C4 Corvette didn't get over 250 hp until 1992
Well, that was then, and this is now. People want all the power they can get, for the money. You have to keep pace with the competition, or lose sales. In 92 cars had only 1 airbag. With every generation, consumers expect more, power, safety, etc.....
I don't see anyone expecting 24 airbags yet. To me, that's the equivalent of expecting more horsepower in a mid-sized family sedan than in a V8 supercar from not long ago.
There's a big difference in my mind from the wimpy V6 in the Optima (which has less power than several I4s in the class) and robust V6s in most other mid-sized family sedans. Where does this power competition end? Why not optimize these cars more for fuel economy, safety, driving comfort, interior room, and other things that matter to a family vs. racing to see who can get to 300 hp in a mid-sized family sedan first?
back in the late 80's a 200hp sedan could hit 130+ mph. don't ask me how i know. the big horsepower numbers in current vehicles are tempered by the extra weight they carry around.
the big horsepower numbers in current vehicles are tempered by the extra weight they carry around
Yeah, but I would be more than satisfied with a 220hp V6 that could get over 30 mpg hwy. Between # of gears and the gearing ratios it seems possible but the manufacturers are constantly adding hp but keeping the V6s down around 25-28 hwy mpg. I think there are a lot of people that like the pull and smoothness of a V6 but still want decent mpg. Used to be in American cars a V6 was just a $6-800 option, now the V6 models of most cars add all kinds of options to the pkg and charge several thousand more.
The V6 in the Fusion sport is 263 HP and I got 31 MPG in the highway. My 0-60 times are roughly 7.5 seconds with wheel slip. If I can get the goodyears to hookup I can get that number down to at least 7.1 or better. The wheel slip combined with the traction control hurt the 0-60 times and with the TC off, its crazy town, as the engine hits redline very fast when the tires light up.
These days one at least one of those "porky" mid-sized sedans can hit 147 mph - with 235 hp. According to the Scottsdale police, anyway. Since the maximum speed limit in my area of the country is less than half that, I think that provides more than enough cushion for whatever maneuvers I might need to make.
I don't see anyone expecting 24 airbags yet. To me, that's the equivalent of expecting more horsepower in a mid-sized family sedan than in a V8 supercar from not long ago.
1992 is long ago, as far as midsize sedans go. The 92 Accord didn't even offer a V6 engine, but it was much smaller and lighter than the Accord of today. Some people want every safety item they can possibly get, and some want all the power they can get. My 03 Accord has 100 more horse power than my 92 did, but imo it needs that power to move the extra size and weight. The 03, even with the V6 engine, gets the same mileage as the 92 around town, and better mileage on the highway. I call that progress.
Where does this power competition end?
It will never end. I would not buy a certain car, just because it has 10 more hp than another, but I will take what ever I can get, in the car I want. There are 4 cylinder versions and hybrids, for those of you who don't want the extra power. I'll take 300hp or even 400hp, if I can get it for my price range.
Just to add a little about the "porky" Sonata it was a 2006 model and a rental car according to article on MSN news. Have 2009 SE V6 since July 2009 now have 10,000k+ miles (travel a lot) 2000k mile trip ave over 31MPG did see 36.1 on trip computer, under controlled driving 47MPH @ 1300RPM f/ 30+ miles. I also have a Mazda 2.5Lv6-166HP no trip com. best ever calculated about 28MPG O.K. but not good enough f/ HP to MPG ratio, compared to 3.3Lv6-249HP. This some of my research done before purchasing Sonata. For general info purposes. All these were listed in midsize sedan comparison rated by EPA standards, compiled from sites like Edmunds, car&driver, Motor trend, kbb, jd power etc. Check it out interesting! All also 2009 new V6 w/ Auto trans.
Interior volume is calculated total passenger & cargo. The new road test was done on the Sonata SE V6 mainly because the prior 0-60 was done before the midseason upgrade on 2009 edition, done by independand test group f/ Car&drivers request. I did not try mine 0-60 nor did I try to go 147 miles per hour I will take their word for it. We did not by this thing to race or thinking in any kind of way it is some kind of sports car never saw Hyundai addvertise it as such, they modified the SE to have little sportier look and feel and in my opinion thats what I got, just that! I have had sport type cars before in my younger days, way to expensive to buy and use, gas guzzlers. Thanks for your valuable time and happy driving or car hunting which ever comes first. OH by the way my wife and I luv everything about this car, this is my 22nd car purchase since early sixties and so for is the best. What a warranty. Old days you got 12 month 12K miles, at least Hyundai believes it,s the best.
I don't know how many family midsize sedan buyers are measuring their own 0-60 times. I enjoy some power but it's been many, many years since I timed my cars 0-60 or whatever. I rely on the professional reviewers to give those stats and then I compare them relatively.
I was talking about the EPA hwy mpg ratings. Not what one person can get. I think most people can get 2-4 better mpg than the EPA ratings on a pure hwy trip. I believe the Fusion Sport is rated 27 mpg hwy by the EPA. Like I said, a V6 with reasonable hp that is EPA rated at 30-32 would be very nice IMO.
"porky" Sonata? What the hell does that mean.I leased a 2006 Sonata and thought it was a very nice car. As far as MPG goes...my 2006.5 Optima has averaged over 30MPG for 34,000 miles.Sometimes more and sometimes less,but overall OVER 30.AC on included.I do drive at posted limits.
I wonder why you have a problem hooking up with the goodyears? My 07 Aura XR with LS2's has provided me several runs 0-60 in 6 .0 and 6.1 sec. I turn off the T/C, do a burn out to warm the tires and turn T/C back on. Without it I can't get the tires to stop spinning for the first 60 feet or so. Not sure what the Fusion weighs but is can't be much more than the Aura.Try my method and see if you can't get your times down to the 6's at least.
Don't get excited. The reference was to Backy's comment about heavy midsize cars a couple of posts back. Also, I know the post was hard to read because of syntax/grammar but he was actually complementing the 2009 Sonata V6 SE which he owns. He also stated that he got better hwy mpg than you do with your Optima!
1992 is long ago, as far as midsize sedans go. The 92 Accord didn't even offer a V6 engine, but it was much smaller and lighter than the Accord of today. Some people want every safety item they can possibly get, and some want all the power they can get. My 03 Accord has 100 more horse power than my 92 did, but imo it needs that power to move the extra size and weight. The 03, even with the V6 engine, gets the same mileage as the 92 around town, and better mileage on the highway. I call that progress.
+1
It will never end. I would not buy a certain car, just because it has 10 more hp than another, but I will take what ever I can get, in the car I want. There are 4 cylinder versions and hybrids, for those of you who don't want the extra power. I'll take 300hp or even 400hp, if I can get it for my price range.
+2
You may not see the sense in a high-HP V6 for a midsize sedan. But for those that do, they'll take more power in a package that suits them. In the end, that's all that matters.
I stand by my comment about the HP for the GM V6. If (and that's a big IF) Suzuki gives a slight bump to the HP (say 260-265), maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer. I'll still take one out for a test-drive or two, but I've witnessed the V6 firsthand on both the Aura and Malibu, and IMO it doesn't help to make a sale compared to the Honda, Mazda, or Ford V6.
I stand by my comment about the HP for the GM V6. If (and that's a big IF) Suzuki gives a slight bump to the HP (say 260-265)
Not trying to light a fire under you or anything (I promise! ), but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not? My dad owned a 2005 Accord 2.4L while I owned a 2006 Accord 2.4L, in which they increased the horsepower by ten. I couldn't tell a difference. Both were EX, non-leather models (the same exact trim level) with automatics. I've run them both around town, and on long highway trips; both had powerbands that I couldn't tell apart.
That said, the 3.6L engine in the Malaurabu has tested faster than the 271 horsepower Accord (I'm sure an extra tranny gear helps that).
I understand your comments about a refined engine sound; my 2.4L Accord sounds smoother than several V6 engines.
Interesting stat compilation, from various sources. Back in early 2007, when I was shopping for a new sedan, I read all of the Road Tests. I have it someplace, but as memory serves, the Aura XR factory rating was 0-60 in 6.6. Edmunds had it at 6.4 and Road and Track go it down to 5.9 on a cool L.A. morning. They also recorded a 0-100 in 15.3 and a 1/4 mile in 14.5 @ 97.7 MPH This was better than any Nissan, Toyota, or Honda V6 at the time.
My personal tests are very close to the R&T results. I ahve looked at every test I can find on the Saturn Aura XR V6 and I have never seen one that posted a 0-60 in 7.3 seconds. This test must have been done by a group of 5 adults, that all went along for the ride, because the only way an Aura XR V6 was that slow was if it was loaded to the max and the test was run in Devner in July.
Now I won't tell anyone I average over 30 MPG but I have had a few tank fulls that were over 30. I ma very happy with the 26.6 I have averaged over the past 30,000 miles (and on 87 octane, not the 93+ that several of the cars in your list are required to run)
Last point, when compiling an averages list like the one above, try to get averages from many road test, and throw out anything the EPA says because they are far from reality in all of their statistics.
Not trying to light a fire under you or anything (I promise!)
No worries! This is a automotive forum, after all. A place to have discussions and share opinions.
...but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not?
Ahh, but you omitted the rest of my sentence, which I stated: ...maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer.
To me, it's not just the HP, you also have to include the weight, size (both the actual measured proportions, and how big it "feels" behind the wheel), and gearing (as you pointed out with the Honda vs. Saturn numbers). It's all of them together that makes the difference...
**** 2005 Park Avenue Ultra 3.8-240 0-60 7.6 18-27 EPA mpg interior volume 112.1 wt 3860 (note - if you manually shift the automatic(hold it in 2nd) it will get 6.5 seconds, which is nearly the same as the CTS - it's *not* a slow car despite its huge size)
So many years and nothing really has changed. And I can guarantee that the rear seat actually fits three people in the Park Ave versus the CTS, which feels a LOT smaller and can't actually fit 6 people.
I'm going to miss the big GM behemoths...
And, yes, new cars are smaller and weigh more for their size... Kind of a shame...
On paper not much has changed, but on the road there's a world of difference. The CTS handles vastly better and is finished to a level not available from GM in '05.
Having said that, I agree that the big FWD GM sedans of a few years ago were underrated and surprisingly efficient. My MIL has a 2000 LeSabre with the normally aspirated 3800 and it's a decent road trip car with fuel economy comparable to my less spacious 2002 Accord V6.
I agree interesting stats, right from different sources. Those sources also show up in your reply so it seems we both use the same information basically. One major difference is I looked up 2009 reviews and specs not 2007, I wasn't interested in a 2007 Aura. But just to educate myself since your reply I did look into it and what I can see is the 2007 has better numbers on 0-60 than the 2009, actually it is not to easy to find the 2009 figures. I have nothing against any of the listed vehicles they were what I compared to make the purchase. In your reply you listed 3 different 0-60 numbers from different ratings, but you did not average it either, I didn't want to modify numbers, not my test. EPA is MPG average individual drivers may vary. Good we are happy w/ our MPG we are stuck w/ it. Thanks for the reply.
My MIL has a 2000 LeSabre with the normally aspirated 3800 and it's a decent road trip car with fuel economy comparable to my less spacious 2002 Accord V6.
Those 3800s were something else. Despite their "outdated" pushrod design, performance was very good compared to the SOHC/DOHC designs of the day, fuel economy was comparable, and reliability was excellent. There are still tons of 3800s on the road today.
The Goodyears are crap tires, even the reviews on them are poor. I tried turning off the TC, but the tires lost traction so fast that the engine hit the rev limiter almost instantly, and the Ford does a strange thing, it doesn't upshift if you hit the limiter. I guess it does that to protect the transmission from damage. The GVWR on the car is 4650 pounds. At well over $200 a tire to replace them, I am not going to do any burnouts if I can avoid them for now. When it comes time to replace them though, I shall smoke'm good.
the engine hit the rev limiter almost instantly, and the Ford does a strange thing, it doesn't upshift if you hit the limiter. I guess it does that to protect the transmission from damage.
Not strange at all - my 2000 Lincoln LS did the same thing. It held the gear you selected no matter what until you came to a stop in a higher gear - then it would downshift automatically. It's a design choice that allows the driver to choose when to upshift - similar to what would happen in a manual. You're asking for manual gear control by using the selectshift - why would you want it to automagically shift when it doesn't need to?
Some mfrs upshift at redline which is fine 99% of the time. I just prefer that manual mode really means manual mode and not manual most of the time except when the computer thinks you should upshift.
>Those 3800s were something else. Despite their "outdated" pushrod design, performance was very good compared to the SOHC/DOHC designs of the day, fuel economy was comparable, and reliability was excellent.
Let's be clearly honest here to wit that some people mocked and ridiculed the 3800s by GM. However, as said by the previous poster, I can take either of my 3800 leSabres, pack the trunk with luggage and stuff for a trip to stay a few days with long time friends, add three adults, add a cooler with snacks and drinks on the back seat, and get 31-32 mpg for the entire trip on regular fuel at 65-70 with the AC on from Dayton to Nashville via interstate. We arrive without being beaten by the road roughness, having driven in relative quiet with the CD or radio on, talking at normal volumes without fighting road noises and wind noise, and sit in comfort on supportive leather seats. All this in easy room for 6.
Where do I find a midsize car to replace that? The laCrosse 2010 would be my closest choice, so far.
As far as I know, with the demise of the 2009 LaCrosse, the option of six-passenger seating is no longer available in any midsize sedan. While I generally prefer individual seating and a center console, I wish the option still existed.
As for the cross-country midsize/midsize+ sedan, I think the 2010 LaCrosse is the closest replacement. The Lucerne, though only a few years old, is suddenly looking outdated and irrelevant with the upmarket move by the LaCrosse.
The 2010 Taurus looks like another good bet for a cross-country road trip--not to mention a direct competitor for the LaCrosse in the subcategory of slightly oversize midsize sedan. (Shall we call them "relaxed fit" midsizers?)
Why not a car like the Fusion/Milan or Camry for a cross-country trip? Both have smooth rides (Camry probably a little smoother but handling is not as good), roomy interiors (for 4 + 1 anyway, typical for the class now), and good-sized trunks. Also very good highway fuel economy for such large cars.
If you need to take a long trip with more than four adults, the middle rear seat passenger won't be happy even in a car like the LaCrosse or Taurus. Might as well get a minivan or 7-8 seat SUV in that case.
Also, unlike the LaCrosse and Taurus, the Fulan and Camry are actually mid-sized sedans.
The 2010 Taurus looks like another good bet for a cross-country road trip--not to mention a direct competitor for the LaCrosse in the subcategory of slightly oversize midsize sedan. (Shall we call them "relaxed fit" midsizers
Where do you get the idea the new Taurus has anything to do with midsize sedans? It is larger than the Impala and almost a foot longer and half-foot wider than a Malibu and is clearly the Ford replacement for the Vic/Marquis. I think Ford even markets it as a full size car.
The '10 Lacrosse is less than two inches longer and less than a half inch wider than the Accord. I don't think those dimensions push it into a new or subcategory.
Will the 2011 Hyundai Sonata be a game changer?The looks are good and the interior seems very nice and Hyundai`s reliability is massively improving. It definitely is much better than the Fusion/Malibu. And unlike GM it`s going to be in business for a while. Especially the interiors look very good. I like comfy rides and prefer my Lexus/Toyota and cant stand the road noise in the Accord but this Sonata can push the Camcord. Helps keep Toyota/Honda on their toes.Competition is always a good thing for the buyer..Also helps keep prices in check.
But must say I was surprised with the Malibu.Probably b`cos it is such an improvement over the previous version. Even the interiors are pretty decent.Definitely a step in the right direction. But with BK, no funds--tough to improve a product even though you have ideas. This is GM`s biggest problem and will not go away. Hence GM needs a miracle. :shades:
Fusion`s interior and drive was mediocre. Surprising that it is so popular and is selling well. Malibu is definitely better than Fusion. But at it`s price with good reliability- a decent deal. A used 1 or 2 yr Fusion is a great bargain.
And finally the Altima-- the most overrated sedan out there and very pricey for its very average quality.Cheap plastics everywhere , squeaks and rattles in a new car and the drive and handling are very overrated.The car seat material and the fit and finish are so pathetic.The Accord drives much better but has lots of road noise though. Also Nissan`s reliability is very average nowadays with lots of brake and hardware problems. Just cant see how it is worth paying 22k for an Altima which is a POC in my opinion.Very disappointed with the Altima. :lemon:
Hoping the 2011 Sonata delivers.Can shake up the mid size sedan category putting pressure on Camcord/Malibu/Fusion which is a good thing for us buyers!! :shades:
Fusion`s interior and drive was mediocre. Surprising that it is so popular and is selling well.
This is defintely your opinion and certainly not any kind of consensus that I've read. I think the vast majority of owners and professional reviewers would disagree with your assessment and is probably the reason, as you say, "it is so popular and is selling well."
I tend to agree with you on the Sonata though. From what I've seen of the Korean market model, if they don't change it a lot or eliminate some of the bells and whistles, it will be a much bigger contender than it already is when they start selling it here.
Just a little FYI for those that didn't know this bit of trivia. The Taurus is the same car that Ford tried to market as the "500" which was a full size sedan. Ford used the "500" on cars back in the 60's with the Galaxy and Fairlane names. For some reason Ford sales of the "500" were really bad. Marketing decided that it was just the name that turned off buyers so they renamed the "500" the Taurus, because the Taurus models sold well.
I had that problem, reaching redline/limiter immediately too. So, I did my burnout in 3rd gear, and use a patch of water to get it started,. Just about 3 seconds is enough to soften the tires. Makes a big difference in the launch and in the first 60 feet which equated to at least 0.5 seconds in 0-60 times. Of course you start out in 1st for the timed runs, if that wasn't clear.
You do have the ability to start in any gear wit the Ford don't you?
I think the pressure is already on, other than Sonata's big change f/ 2009 the only car in the midsize class that I can think of maybe the Mazda6, 2010 or 2011 may see others follow suite another change f/ Hyundai is in the works. According to auto industry stats I have seen and read about, show slump in sales for all the car makers midsize sedans, except 1, their sales actually jumped up 15% f/2009. Which prompted them to hire more people to step up production in Alabama. I didn't hear about that company getting a hand out of our tax money to stay afloat. The company I bought all my vehicles from since early sixties must not take very good care of their business. They got a big chunk of the tax money bail out and still have serious financial problems. Since 1995 I stopped buying their cars they have dropped 2 of their car lines completely (the kind I bought) and 2 more that has been put on the discontinue or get rid of list. So my conclusion is, if they don't want them I deffintly don't want them either!! Imagine if you have one of those and the dealership closes you got it from and the nearest one is kind of far away who will work on it if needed especially under warranty. Well I have been there with that deal and sorry but not again. I will stick with growing carmakers that put their customers wants on top of their list, and really want to stay in business. I am not that crazy about buying from a foreign company, but at least the 1 I just bought is engineered and built here in our USA and their job looks secure for the near future not like what is going on with some suppose to be BIG DOG companies here. Thanks Hyundai for stepping up your game.
IMO the "drive" of the Fusion is very good, one of the best in the class in terms of a nice blend of composed ride and good handling. Interior? Middle of the pack at best, although improved for 2010.
I talked with a friend at church yesterday who is looking to buy a new car for the first time in many years. She was thinking of an Altima. I asked her what else she had tried. Drove the Malibu--didn't like it. Drove the Sonata--was OK except the Altima's driver's seat was more comfortable. Doesn't want a Camry--period. Thinks the Accord is nice but overpriced. She has not looked at the Fusion yet. I recommended she do that before jumping for the Altima, as she will do a lot of highway driving and wants a big trunk, and the Fusion does very well in both categories, plus it should cost less than the Altima (although I am seeing some good deals on closeout 2009 Altimas right now). Also I recommended she look at certified used cars e.g. Altima and Fusion, to save some money.
I had 3 -3.8L GM's 1 Buick La sabre and 2 Bonnevilles, good cars, good, fairly powerful drivetrain, good MPG f/ that generation. Only problem I had with that set up and car was Mass air sensor and fuel pump in tank, had the same problem with all three, I almost forgot a lot of alternator trouble. Kind of miss the bigger car and the carmaker, but if they don't want them I don't either. Best GM engine IMO was the old 283, 327 and 350 4 bolt main but they did burn a lot of gas!
That was true for the 2009 Taurus but not the 2010 Taurus. For 2010 the platform was modified to handle more torque with 100% new sheetmetal and interior plus numerous new features (push button start, selectshift, 365 hp engine option, BLIS, etc.).
About the only thing that didn't change was the base 3.5L drivetrain.
Comments
The above was copied from the first drive article by autoblog.com of the new Suzuki midsize car....the Kizashi. Stupid name IMO but seems to have some things going for it. Ony engine is an I4 and auto is a CVT which I'm also not fond of.
Maybe this car would be a good candidate to replace the Aura on the rights side of this page.
Would be very interesting to see how the Suzi is in comparison.
This time, it's compared to the TSX and last-gen Legacy.
They'd better throw in the V6 before the end of next spring, or it's not going to be on my list. Then again, if they're using the 3.6L GM V6, it may not make it anyway...
Probably just didn't want to name every midsize car for brevity sake. I think the Fusion, Milan, Sonata, Optima, Aura, etc etc would be covered under "you name it".
Above from the Edmund review of the Suzuki K. Interesting how Edmunds puts both the Jetta and Passat in the midsize class.
Actually, Edmunds is incorrect, since they themselves have put the 2011 Sonata into this discussion. That car is supposed to have a 200 hp I4.
Unless Suzuki can get a few more horses out of it, the 252 HP rating for both the Malibu and Aura isn't too impressive. Plus I don't find it as smooth at the Honda, Mazda, or Ford V6.
And now back to our regularly-scheduled program...
Well, that was then, and this is now. People want all the power they can get, for the money. You have to keep pace with the competition, or lose sales. In 92 cars had only 1 airbag. With every generation, consumers expect more, power, safety, etc.....
There's a big difference in my mind from the wimpy V6 in the Optima (which has less power than several I4s in the class) and robust V6s in most other mid-sized family sedans. Where does this power competition end? Why not optimize these cars more for fuel economy, safety, driving comfort, interior room, and other things that matter to a family vs. racing to see who can get to 300 hp in a mid-sized family sedan first?
don't ask me how i know.
the big horsepower numbers in current vehicles are tempered by the extra weight they carry around.
Yeah, but I would be more than satisfied with a 220hp V6 that could get over 30 mpg hwy. Between # of gears and the gearing ratios it seems possible but the manufacturers are constantly adding hp but keeping the V6s down around 25-28 hwy mpg. I think there are a lot of people that like the pull and smoothness of a V6 but still want decent mpg. Used to be in American cars a V6 was just a $6-800 option, now the V6 models of most cars add all kinds of options to the pkg and charge several thousand more.
inquiring minds want to know.
Car and Driver or Motor Trend ran a story on it months (if not a year plus) ago.
1992 is long ago, as far as midsize sedans go. The 92 Accord didn't even offer a V6 engine, but it was much smaller and lighter than the Accord of today. Some people want every safety item they can possibly get, and some want all the power they can get. My 03 Accord has 100 more horse power than my 92 did, but imo it needs that power to move the extra size and weight. The 03, even with the V6 engine, gets the same mileage as the 92 around town, and better mileage on the highway. I call that progress.
Where does this power competition end?
It will never end. I would not buy a certain car, just because it has 10 more hp than another, but I will take what ever I can get, in the car I want. There are 4 cylinder versions and hybrids, for those of you who don't want the extra power. I'll take 300hp or even 400hp, if I can get it for my price range.
according to article on MSN news. Have 2009 SE V6 since July 2009 now have 10,000k+ miles (travel a lot) 2000k mile trip ave over 31MPG did see 36.1 on trip
computer, under controlled driving 47MPH @ 1300RPM f/ 30+ miles. I also have
a Mazda 2.5Lv6-166HP no trip com. best ever calculated about 28MPG O.K. but
not good enough f/ HP to MPG ratio, compared to 3.3Lv6-249HP. This some of my
research done before purchasing Sonata. For general info purposes. All these were
listed in midsize sedan comparison rated by EPA standards, compiled from sites
like Edmunds, car&driver, Motor trend, kbb, jd power etc. Check it out interesting!
All also 2009 new V6 w/ Auto trans.
Acura TL 3.5-280HP 0-60 6.7 17-25 EPA mpg total interior volume 111.3 wt 3708
Aura 3.6-252 0-60 7.3 17-26EPA mpg interior volume 113cuft wt 3613
Cadillac CTS 3.6-263 0-60 6.4 17-26EPa mpg interior volume 112 3874
Altima 3.5-270 0-60 6.0 19-26Epa mpg interior volume 116 wt 3355
Malibu 3.6-252 0-60 6.6 17-26EPA mpg interior volume 112.8 wt 3436
Accord 3.5-271 0-60 5.9 19-29EPA mpg interior volume 115 wt 3600
Mazda6 3.7-272 0-60 6.4 17-25EPA mpg interior volume 118.9 wt 3547
Camrey 3.5-268 0-60 6.2 19-28EPA mpg interior volume 116.4 wt 3483
Fushion 3.0-221 0-60 8.5 18-25EPA mpg interior volume 116.2 wt 3325
Sonata 3.3-249 0-60 6.7 19-29EPA mpg interior volume 121.8 wt 3549
Interior volume is calculated total passenger & cargo. The new road test was done
on the Sonata SE V6 mainly because the prior 0-60 was done before the midseason upgrade on 2009 edition, done by independand test group f/ Car&drivers
request. I did not try mine 0-60 nor did I try to go 147 miles per hour I will take their
word for it. We did not by this thing to race or thinking in any kind of way it is some
kind of sports car never saw Hyundai addvertise it as such, they modified the SE to
have little sportier look and feel and in my opinion thats what I got, just that! I have had sport type cars before in my younger days, way to expensive to buy and use,
gas guzzlers. Thanks for your valuable time and happy driving or car hunting which
ever comes first. OH by the way my wife and I luv everything about this car, this is
my 22nd car purchase since early sixties and so for is the best. What a warranty.
Old days you got 12 month 12K miles, at least Hyundai believes it,s the best.
I was talking about the EPA hwy mpg ratings. Not what one person can get. I think most people can get 2-4 better mpg than the EPA ratings on a pure hwy trip. I believe the Fusion Sport is rated 27 mpg hwy by the EPA. Like I said, a V6 with reasonable hp that is EPA rated at 30-32 would be very nice IMO.
As far as MPG goes...my 2006.5 Optima has averaged over 30MPG for 34,000 miles.Sometimes more and sometimes less,but overall OVER 30.AC on included.I do drive at posted limits.
Not sure what the Fusion weighs but is can't be much more than the Aura.Try my method and see if you can't get your times down to the 6's at least.
+1
It will never end. I would not buy a certain car, just because it has 10 more hp than another, but I will take what ever I can get, in the car I want. There are 4 cylinder versions and hybrids, for those of you who don't want the extra power. I'll take 300hp or even 400hp, if I can get it for my price range.
+2
You may not see the sense in a high-HP V6 for a midsize sedan. But for those that do, they'll take more power in a package that suits them. In the end, that's all that matters.
I stand by my comment about the HP for the GM V6. If (and that's a big IF) Suzuki gives a slight bump to the HP (say 260-265), maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer. I'll still take one out for a test-drive or two, but I've witnessed the V6 firsthand on both the Aura and Malibu, and IMO it doesn't help to make a sale compared to the Honda, Mazda, or Ford V6.
Not trying to light a fire under you or anything (I promise! ), but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not? My dad owned a 2005 Accord 2.4L while I owned a 2006 Accord 2.4L, in which they increased the horsepower by ten. I couldn't tell a difference. Both were EX, non-leather models (the same exact trim level) with automatics. I've run them both around town, and on long highway trips; both had powerbands that I couldn't tell apart.
That said, the 3.6L engine in the Malaurabu has tested faster than the 271 horsepower Accord (I'm sure an extra tranny gear helps that).
I understand your comments about a refined engine sound; my 2.4L Accord sounds smoother than several V6 engines.
Back in early 2007, when I was shopping for a new sedan, I read all of the Road Tests.
I have it someplace, but as memory serves, the Aura XR factory rating was 0-60 in 6.6. Edmunds had it at 6.4 and Road and Track go it down to 5.9 on a cool L.A. morning. They also recorded a 0-100 in 15.3 and a 1/4 mile in 14.5 @ 97.7 MPH
This was better than any Nissan, Toyota, or Honda V6 at the time.
My personal tests are very close to the R&T results. I ahve looked at every test I can find on the Saturn Aura XR V6 and I have never seen one that posted a 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
This test must have been done by a group of 5 adults, that all went along for the ride, because the only way an Aura XR V6 was that slow was if it was loaded to the max and the test was run in Devner in July.
Now I won't tell anyone I average over 30 MPG but I have had a few tank fulls that were over 30. I ma very happy with the 26.6 I have averaged over the past 30,000 miles (and on 87 octane, not the 93+ that several of the cars in your list are required to run)
Last point, when compiling an averages list like the one above, try to get averages from many road test, and throw out anything the EPA says because they are far from reality in all of their statistics.
No worries! This is a automotive forum, after all. A place to have discussions and share opinions.
...but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not?
Ahh, but you omitted the rest of my sentence, which I stated:
...maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer.
To me, it's not just the HP, you also have to include the weight, size (both the actual measured proportions, and how big it "feels" behind the wheel), and gearing (as you pointed out with the Honda vs. Saturn numbers). It's all of them together that makes the difference...
****
2005 Park Avenue Ultra 3.8-240 0-60 7.6 18-27 EPA mpg interior volume 112.1 wt 3860 (note - if you manually shift the automatic(hold it in 2nd) it will get 6.5 seconds, which is nearly the same as the CTS - it's *not* a slow car despite its huge size)
So many years and nothing really has changed. And I can guarantee that the rear seat actually fits three people in the Park Ave versus the CTS, which feels a LOT smaller and can't actually fit 6 people.
I'm going to miss the big GM behemoths...
And, yes, new cars are smaller and weigh more for their size... Kind of a shame...
Having said that, I agree that the big FWD GM sedans of a few years ago were underrated and surprisingly efficient. My MIL has a 2000 LeSabre with the normally aspirated 3800 and it's a decent road trip car with fuel economy comparable to my less spacious 2002 Accord V6.
in your reply so it seems we both use the same information basically. One major
difference is I looked up 2009 reviews and specs not 2007, I wasn't interested in a
2007 Aura. But just to educate myself since your reply I did look into it and what I
can see is the 2007 has better numbers on 0-60 than the 2009, actually it is not to
easy to find the 2009 figures. I have nothing against any of the listed vehicles they
were what I compared to make the purchase. In your reply you listed 3 different
0-60 numbers from different ratings, but you did not average it either, I didn't want to modify numbers, not my test. EPA is MPG average individual drivers may vary.
Good we are happy w/ our MPG we are stuck w/ it. Thanks for the reply.
Those 3800s were something else. Despite their "outdated" pushrod design, performance was very good compared to the SOHC/DOHC designs of the day, fuel economy was comparable, and reliability was excellent. There are still tons of 3800s on the road today.
Not strange at all - my 2000 Lincoln LS did the same thing. It held the gear you selected no matter what until you came to a stop in a higher gear - then it would downshift automatically. It's a design choice that allows the driver to choose when to upshift - similar to what would happen in a manual. You're asking for manual gear control by using the selectshift - why would you want it to automagically shift when it doesn't need to?
Some mfrs upshift at redline which is fine 99% of the time. I just prefer that manual mode really means manual mode and not manual most of the time except when the computer thinks you should upshift.
Let's be clearly honest here to wit that some people mocked and ridiculed the 3800s by GM. However, as said by the previous poster, I can take either of my 3800 leSabres, pack the trunk with luggage and stuff for a trip to stay a few days with long time friends, add three adults, add a cooler with snacks and drinks on the back seat, and get 31-32 mpg for the entire trip on regular fuel at 65-70 with the AC on from Dayton to Nashville via interstate. We arrive without being beaten by the road roughness, having driven in relative quiet with the CD or radio on, talking at normal volumes without fighting road noises and wind noise, and sit in comfort on supportive leather seats. All this in easy room for 6.
Where do I find a midsize car to replace that? The laCrosse 2010 would be my closest choice, so far.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As for the cross-country midsize/midsize+ sedan, I think the 2010 LaCrosse is the closest replacement. The Lucerne, though only a few years old, is suddenly looking outdated and irrelevant with the upmarket move by the LaCrosse.
The 2010 Taurus looks like another good bet for a cross-country road trip--not to mention a direct competitor for the LaCrosse in the subcategory of slightly oversize midsize sedan. (Shall we call them "relaxed fit" midsizers?)
Any other recommendations out there?
If you need to take a long trip with more than four adults, the middle rear seat passenger won't be happy even in a car like the LaCrosse or Taurus. Might as well get a minivan or 7-8 seat SUV in that case.
Also, unlike the LaCrosse and Taurus, the Fulan and Camry are actually mid-sized sedans.
Where do you get the idea the new Taurus has anything to do with midsize sedans? It is larger than the Impala and almost a foot longer and half-foot wider than a Malibu and is clearly the Ford replacement for the Vic/Marquis. I think Ford even markets it as a full size car.
The '10 Lacrosse is less than two inches longer and less than a half inch wider than the Accord. I don't think those dimensions push it into a new or subcategory.
But must say I was surprised with the Malibu.Probably b`cos it is such an improvement over the previous version. Even the interiors are pretty decent.Definitely a step in the right direction. But with BK, no funds--tough to improve a product even though you have ideas. This is GM`s biggest problem and will not go away. Hence GM needs a miracle. :shades:
Fusion`s interior and drive was mediocre. Surprising that it is so popular and is selling well. Malibu is definitely better than Fusion. But at it`s price with good reliability- a decent deal. A used 1 or 2 yr Fusion is a great bargain.
And finally the Altima-- the most overrated sedan out there and very pricey for its very average quality.Cheap plastics everywhere , squeaks and rattles in a new car and the drive and handling are very overrated.The car seat material and the fit and finish are so pathetic.The Accord drives much better but has lots of road noise though. Also Nissan`s reliability is very average nowadays with lots of brake and hardware problems. Just cant see how it is worth paying 22k for an Altima which is a POC in my opinion.Very disappointed with the Altima. :lemon:
Hoping the 2011 Sonata delivers.Can shake up the mid size sedan category putting pressure on Camcord/Malibu/Fusion which is a good thing for us buyers!! :shades:
This is defintely your opinion and certainly not any kind of consensus that I've read. I think the vast majority of owners and professional reviewers would disagree with your assessment and is probably the reason, as you say, "it is so popular and is selling well."
I tend to agree with you on the Sonata though. From what I've seen of the Korean market model, if they don't change it a lot or eliminate some of the bells and whistles, it will be a much bigger contender than it already is when they start selling it here.
The Taurus is the same car that Ford tried to market as the "500" which was a full size sedan. Ford used the "500" on cars back in the 60's with the Galaxy and Fairlane names.
For some reason Ford sales of the "500" were really bad. Marketing decided that it was just the name that turned off buyers so they renamed the "500" the Taurus, because the Taurus models sold well.
You do have the ability to start in any gear wit the Ford don't you?
car in the midsize class that I can think of maybe the Mazda6, 2010 or 2011 may
see others follow suite another change f/ Hyundai is in the works. According to
auto industry stats I have seen and read about, show slump in sales for all the
car makers midsize sedans, except 1, their sales actually jumped up 15% f/2009.
Which prompted them to hire more people to step up production in Alabama. I didn't
hear about that company getting a hand out of our tax money to stay afloat. The company I bought all my vehicles from since early sixties must not take very good
care of their business. They got a big chunk of the tax money bail out and still have serious financial problems. Since 1995 I stopped buying their cars they have dropped 2 of their car lines completely (the kind I bought) and 2 more that has been
put on the discontinue or get rid of list. So my conclusion is, if they don't want them
I deffintly don't want them either!! Imagine if you have one of those and the dealership closes you got it from and the nearest one is kind of far away who will
work on it if needed especially under warranty. Well I have been there with that deal
and sorry but not again. I will stick with growing carmakers that put their customers
wants on top of their list, and really want to stay in business. I am not that crazy
about buying from a foreign company, but at least the 1 I just bought is engineered
and built here in our USA and their job looks secure for the near future not like what
is going on with some suppose to be BIG DOG companies here. Thanks Hyundai
for stepping up your game.
I talked with a friend at church yesterday who is looking to buy a new car for the first time in many years. She was thinking of an Altima. I asked her what else she had tried. Drove the Malibu--didn't like it. Drove the Sonata--was OK except the Altima's driver's seat was more comfortable. Doesn't want a Camry--period. Thinks the Accord is nice but overpriced. She has not looked at the Fusion yet. I recommended she do that before jumping for the Altima, as she will do a lot of highway driving and wants a big trunk, and the Fusion does very well in both categories, plus it should cost less than the Altima (although I am seeing some good deals on closeout 2009 Altimas right now). Also I recommended she look at certified used cars e.g. Altima and Fusion, to save some money.
powerful drivetrain, good MPG f/ that generation. Only problem I had with that set up
and car was Mass air sensor and fuel pump in tank, had the same problem with all three, I almost forgot a lot of alternator trouble. Kind of miss the bigger car and
the carmaker, but if they don't want them I don't either. Best GM engine IMO was
the old 283, 327 and 350 4 bolt main but they did burn a lot of gas!
Using an old famous closing; "GOOD DAY"
About the only thing that didn't change was the base 3.5L drivetrain.