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…306307309311312…544

Comments

  • cannon3cannon3 Member Posts: 296
    Lets bring VW into this thread. The new 2011 Jetta is going to be larger and may compete now with the larger sedans. Do you like the styling? Pricing is supposed to be very competitive. VW has very ambitious goals here in the U.S. over the next 5-10 years. What do you think? is the new Jetta good start for VW?
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Lets bring VW into this thread. The new 2011 Jetta is going to be larger and may compete now with the larger sedans. Do you like the styling? Pricing is supposed to be very competitive. VW has very ambitious goals here in the U.S. over the next 5-10 years. What do you think? is the new Jetta good start for VW?

    VW's uniqueness was germanic vehicles that drove great. They are now trying to become Toyota -- bigger, blander, cheaper. Why buy the new VW when I can get a Toyota and it is actually reliable?

    VW is scr*wing themselves IMHO.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Member Posts: 804
    VW is scr*wing themselves IMHO.

    Seems like some others feel that way too...

    A Mediocre Jetta
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    The G25 is a radial game-changer, though

    I'm sure you meant radical above. I don't think it's a game changer at all. In fact, in less they discount it heavily from the present MSRP it is way too close the G37. Now if it got better MPG it might be different but you can't get NAV or other premium upgrades. It's really a joke at just a couple of thou less than the G37. Now the G37 is a great bargain at the prices they are getting and what you get for those prices.

    I own an Infiniti and love it so I don't have to go drive one to notice the difference. I said the Regal was kind of in-between and that's exactly what I meant. It sits in between the average price sedans we talk about here and the Infiniti and other luxury brands. So of course I would notice a difference. Buick is attempting(key word) to compete in both classes and, like I also said, I don't know if they will be successful. Personally, I think they should go after one market or the other but that's just me.

    A decked out Civic will be priced higher than the base Accord so does than mean they are in the same segment? If we looked at things that way we would have just one great big huge segment with decked out Civics, modest midsize sedans and base luxury cars all in the same segment because their extreme prices overlap. That would be stupid.

    And please, before it starts, let's not get into "the best deal is a two year old Beemer cause that is also priced within this general area". We've already been there and done that.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Thanks tenpin, that's a good article. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Nobody who buys a Regal wants a stripped-down rental, either.

    The Regal CXL is by no stretch of the imagination a "stripped out rental." Its equipment level is comparable to that of the Accord EXL, which has virtually the same MSRP, $28k.

    Do some homework.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    I have a 2010 Fusion Sport, my coworker has a Regal, she paid more and got less. Basically same size car inside and out, but I cant see paying more for less. A fully optioned Fusion Hybrid has more for less than the Regal does and gets 40MPG.
  • dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    I own a 2001 Jetta now, dont like the new styling at all. I just dont get what they're going for. Reviews have been harsh too.
  • dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    I'm in between both of you on the G25. To me it's exactly what it's supposed to be, a BMW 328 fighter. Most people who buy a 3 series get the 328. Infiniti was conceding that market and just going for the 335 buyers. Now they are competing and offering the G25 for less (thousands less). I think it's significantly cheaper than a comparably equipped G37.

    As far as radical game changer though, nah.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited October 2010
    Cars Direct is quoting a base price of $29,495 for the Regal with the turbo.
    - No sunroof
    - No Side airbags
    - No Audio worth mentioning
    - No Nav, no options at all.
    If you add so much as a sunroof or side airbags, it's at $32K instantly.

    I get $31,959 with option TO5 (which I'd consider the bare minimum to bring it to the level of the competition's base models) and front license plate bracket(required almost everywhere and the scumbags make you PAY for it?)

    G25: $32,638 for the Journey model with sunroof. That's it/loaded - pretty much no other options are available. Note: none of these cars have NAV to keep it fair, since GM charges 2x what the other two do for the feature.

    TSX: 32,099 Note - this is for the 3.5 V6. Again, every option except for NAV to keep it fair. (GM charges almost 3100 for NAV while the TSX is closer to $1600, which makes it even more silly)

    So $32K for a Regal, $32K for a G25, or $32K for the TSX. Unless you're a GM loyalist, you'll cross shop these three almost guaranteed. Sure, you might be able to get a discount next *fall* on the Regal, but by then, the market will have simply moved on. The non-turbo is so massively disappointing to most people that they just buy an Accord EX with the 4 cylinder engine instead.

    Three vehicles with the same price, four doors, and leather/etc. It's going to be a cold winter in Detroit.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I thought of the G37 as the 335i for people who didn't want to spend $50k on a subcompact BMW. 300+ hp for 328i prices.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    "your options are stripped out rental or properly optioned at 30-32K."

    "Properly optioned" depends on the buyer. I doubt I would want all that fluff that puts the price up over $30K. The base Regal already probably has all I would want and more, but requires at least one thing that makes it unacceptable to me...leather seating. At a selling price of $26,170 (from truecar or overstock) it would at least be in my ballpark in that regard.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,513
    Just out of curiousity, I compared the Cruze dimensions to some cars I used to have. And it confirmed, to me, that this is really a "mid sizer", at least by my standards!

    One of my favorite cars that I owned was a 1991 Mazda 626. At the time, a mid size car, sompeting with camry, accord, etc. And plenty roomy, big trunk, and suitable for family duty.

    It was also 3" shorter than a Cruze (179 vs. 182) And of course wasy lighter at 2600 #s. And somehow, it performed just fine with a scarey low HP total of 110. Cruze also has almost exactly the same trunk and gas tank volume.

    a 1991 Accord was only about 184" long, so just slightly bigger.

    Now that Accords are all bloated up (wide bodies, up over 190"s), they should be (and in some cases by EPA volume standards are) considered full size! And stuff like a Cruze and Jetta (almost exactly the same dimensions) as a mid size family car.

    And if my perspective on full vs. mid size seem off for an American, back in the late 60s/early 70s my family (with 3 kids) car (and our only car) was a 1969 Volvo, not an LTD!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    edited October 2010
    I believe the 626 was, like the similar Contour was considered to be a compact...a larger compact, kind of like the Jetta, a larger compact with a large truck. The other side of that compact/midsize line was the prior version of the Mazda6...a small midsize.

    These compact/midsize bordeline cars seem to be the ones that appeal to me and my wife. I had a Contour before my Mazda6 and my wife has a Jetta.

    To me one thing that makes a car mid size is room for three sets of adult hips in the back seat. At a minimum standard of 18 inches per set of hips, this translates to 54 inches of rear hip room to meet that part of my personal definition :) . My 2007 Mazda6 just makes it at 54.1".
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    It certainly can be looked both ways. My take is that Infiniti had to be the super deal to combat the long reputation of BMW as the one to beat in sport sedans. They brought the G35, now G37, to beat the BMW "32." I don't think they were shooting for the 335 buyers.

    I also believe that for Infiniti to have a legitmate 328 fighter in the G25 it has to be a another super deal. More HP/torque, better MPG for less money. If they are close in price and they are very close the BMW is going to win because of reputation, lots more low rev torque and more hp. They are similar in size, actually the BMW is wider but the G25 is much longer.

    It just seems to me that Infiniti is more intent on getting potential customers into an Infiniti at a lower price point than really trying to beat the 328 at it's own game.

    However, we should take this conversation back to the cars on the right. We could continue this discussion on the G25 thread if you'd like.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited October 2010
    - The Turbo or a V6 is a must for this segment. 180hp and a nearly 4000 lb car (wet weight) is horrendously unimpressive. Absolutely non negotiable in 90% of the public's minds, as sales have shown. Everyone is stalling and waiting for the turbo models to show up on the showroom floors in "the next few weeks".

    - The single option package I added wasn't even $1600. It includes sunroof, side airbags, and premium audio. No nav, no handling upgrades, no tires, and no frills. Just the basics. I'm certainly not getting a car without side airbags when the competition has them included just to save $400 or so. And they offer a sun/moon roof as standard(or it's ordered on every last car for sale in most cities), so that has to be added for a fair comparison. And of course, better speakers and a 6 CD changer to compete with their standard audio kit.

    - That price includes a nearly $800 delivery charge as well.

    - GM has nav and all the sport suspension goodies and so on in a $5600 option pack if you want. Sane people wont pay that, though. It never ceases to amaze me how GM always makes you pay for better handling instead of making that default. And it always comes in the most expensive trim/package.

    Truecar backs me up on this as well. Average price for the Regal Turbo is coming in at $31,715. $32,316 for the TSX, and $32,375 for the G25. Almost the exact same price range (Cars Direct has a $697 spread and Truecar has a $690 one)

    - If we're comparing base models we have a huge problem as well. The TSX with the 4 cylinder engine is $27,526. Yet it comes with sunroof, a 6 CD changer, side airbags, fog lamps, and so on. GM once again failed to listen to anyone online or elsewhere when it came to getting rid of options and just pricing the car as-is in its best couple of trims. Buying a $25K car with $6K in options is 1980s insanity. It should be three questions: What color, What transmission, and Do you want NAV with that? Honda, Nissan, and Toyota have this down to a science, and even Mercedes and Ford are figuring it out pretty quickly. GM is still stuck in the 80s mentally.

    So you're stuck - Go sportier and with the turbo and you bump into the G25. Go more basic and you get hit upside the head by the TSX.

    EDIT - The reason this hits home for me is that my mother is looking for a new car. She's always been loyal to GM but now is faced with the impossible task of trying to justify anything in the 25-30K range that GM makes versus the competition. Those three are just driving her brain in circles because as much as she wants the Regal to be the best option against the competition, it just simply isn't. The gap between the TSX and the Regal is especially large. One feels like a nice family sedan with some luxury added and the other feels like a luxury car that's been shrunk down in size. It's just far more polished and refined and better thought-out from beginning to end. Buick feels like they've been taking cues from Honda and Toyota and Accura feels like it's been taking cues from Mercedes.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    So are the reviews praising the handling on the Regal based on driving one with that $5000 option package? The base one doesn't handle and ride like...well, a Buick, does it?

    "The Turbo or a V6 is a must for this segment."

    They sell the TSX in the $28-32K price range with a 4 cyl. having the same torque as the Buick (max HP is a bit higher on the TSX, but who's hitting 7000 rpm?).

    I think the "gotta have it now" people would tend to be the ones that want the Turbo, etc. Not many are thinking "I just gotta get the brand new base model of X, now!". :)
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    As these sedans have all grown, I long for a premium smaller one. The TSX is too big vs. the older model.

    Jetta? Nope - now decontented and bloated.

    Are there any premium 178-184" long sedans out there that aren't going to cost nearly $40K?
  • googonabikegoogonabike Member Posts: 27
    Tlong, how about Suzuki Kizashi? In any trim. Except for the calipers on the hood it beats TSX (4cyl.) hands down in every department for thousands $$$ less.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Check out the new G25.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I liked the fact that the Jetta was a little different than the others. Now it's even more boring outside, chintzier inside, has a laughable base engine, and really gives me no reason to go to VW for this kind of car when there's several other excellent choices, including the new Cruze and soon the new Elantra, both with mid-sized room like the Jetta, but much spiffier styling IMO, better fuel economy (official numbers not out on the Elantra yet, but it should do well there with its 1.6L DI engine and 6AT), and probably higher feature content at a lower price. Or for the same money as a decently-equipped Jetta, I could get a true mid-sizer like the Fulan, Mazda6i, Sonata, Optima, etc. If I were buy a Jetta now, it would be a used one, or more likely a Rabbit/Golf since those are still designed like more upscale cars.

    It will be interesting to see how this change in strategy by VW is received by the buying public.

    Anyway, for this discussion we'll soon have the new US-assembled Passat replacement to discuss.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Tlong, how about Suzuki Kizashi? In any trim. Except for the calipers on the hood it beats TSX (4cyl.) hands down in every department for thousands $$$ less.

    I'm ok with a *somewhat* rare car, but I wouldn't invest $25 odd K in a brand that has little presence in this country, has little dealer network. I keep cars a long time and don't want a major orphan. Plus I hate the name.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    The Jetta wagon is still the same also, not updated in 2010 like the Golf, but not cheapened like the 2011 Jetta.

    I too am interested in how this new VW strategy goes over and also to see how Ford does with the Fiesta and upcoming Focus. They are going the opposite direction from Ford with their small cars selling essentially european cars in the US. I used to think the new US built VW midsize might be of interest some day, now I think maybe it'll be the Focus, instead. The Focus seems to be midsize in terms of exterior width at 72 inches, it'll be interesting to see what the interior dimensions will be.

    I'm thinking if VW fails they will have to content themselves with being a niche player in the US and will go back to selling european vehicles here. OTOH, if they succeed and Ford's euro small cars fail, I may want to grab a deal on the failed Focus, as it may be the last chance for a budget europeanish car in the US for a while.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    edited October 2010
    The lower end of that size range has many compacts in it now, but none come to mind as "premium". I would not be looking for premium cars myself, so I'd likely be looking more at larger compacts, rather than any of the midsize cars were I in the market. Kia Forte and the upcoming Focus are both around 178-179 inches in length and both will be offering a hatch in addition to sedans.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    From the pictures and articles I've read, the new Focus may come close to what you want. More HP than Cruze but still will get similar MPG, should be fairly premium stuff on board, probably handle a little more euro than Cruze and will offer a hatchback version.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,513
    maybe a volvo S40?

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    To me one thing that makes a car mid size is room for three sets of adult hips in the back seat. At a minimum standard of 18 inches per set of hips, this translates to 54 inches of rear hip room to meet that part of my personal definition :) . My 2007 Mazda6 just makes it at 54.1".

    Every review I've ever seen of the 2003-2008 Mazda6 mentions that it was the smallest of the mid-size players. They praised almost every aspect of the car, but it was too small to compete head-to-head with Camry/Accord/Altima. Then for 2009 they rolled out the much larger MZ6 that we have now, but sales are pathetic!? Even though it's the best looking car in its class, they've barely sold 26,000 YTD at then end of September. In comparison, Camry and Accord were both well past the 200,000 mark by then. I don't get it.....

    Now it's the Suzuki Kizashi that gets all the size complaints in reviews. But total lack of marketing and anonymity are the much bigger problems, IMO.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    Are there any premium 178-184" long sedans out there that aren't going to cost nearly $40K?

    The Mazda3 s Grand Touring 4-door is 180.3" long and the interior looks (and feels) more like a $35k car than $25k!

    The 2011 Mazda3 s Grand Touring 4-door with A/T and Tech Pkg is $25,940 and includes:

    Power windows, locks, mirrors (heated)
    Heated leather seats
    Power driver's seat
    Automatic on/of Bi-Xenon HID headlights
    Clear-lens LED taillights
    10-spkr, 265 watt, BOSE Centerpoint Audio System w/ 6CD in-dash
    Power Moonroof
    Navigation System
    Rain-sensing wipers
    Dual-zone Automatic Climate Control
    Advanced Keyless Entry & Start System- w/ push button start
    Bluetooth phone integration
    SIRIUS satellite radio w/ 6mos free
    Antitheft Alarm System
    Leather-wrapped steering wheel w/ audio, cruise & nav controls
    5-speed Sport automatic w/ Adaptive Logic & manual shift mode
    (6-speed manual version is $800 less)

    The models with the beige interior (Dune, as Mazda calls it) look particularly upscale. The upper portion of the dash, center console, carpeting and top half of all four doors are black, with the seats and lower half of the doors and dash being the light color. Only Pearl White, Graphite and Copper Red are available with the Dune interior. Black is standard all the other exterior colors and Black is optional on Pearl White and Graphite....just FYI.

    It's at least worth a good look and a test drive...
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    The Mazda3 s Grand Touring 4-door is 180.3" long and the interior looks (and feels) more like a $35k car than $25k!

    I agree; I really like the Mazda 3 for all the reasons you cite (we have a Mazda 5 already), BUT the looks of the new 3 really aren't that great -- I don't hate it but I'm not crazy about it.

    I had an A4 (new) in 1998, but of course it was a 6 cyl yet only $33K OTD back then. It was also about 178" long. But of course today the A4, with 4 cyl only, is heading towards $40K and that is unacceptable. And of course it is quite a bit bigger, too. But I really did get addicted to the handling and that gorgeous leather/wood interior.

    I might just consider buying a 4 yo or so A4. The money I save can go to maintenance. ;)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If someone is looking for a compact-sized car with a mid-sized interior, the Mazda3 ain't it. One of the most cramped back seats in the class.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    I am 4 months into a new 2010 I-4 Milan and think the car is a steal for the $18.8K I paid for it. I wanted the base version but accepted given the price the next level up. Black on black, quality cloth interior, wonderful paint job with subtle speckles in the black tone (called champagne black), motorized drivers seat, the synch entertainment system (911 if crash; hands free everything, step by step directions, regular car "health" reports spoken on radio, etc), an engine bay that could house a troupe of gypsies, dip sticks for everything, wonderful access for DIYers, 4 wheel discs, traction control and other unobtrusive nannies (it's an I-4 for goodness sake), all seats except drives fold down to provide very large loading area, 12cf trunk space with rear seats up (plenty of room for golf bag and cart), projector headlights, fog lights (subtle and small and low, where they belong), so far 31 mpg average of city and hway, QUIET controlled ride, self dimming mirror, compass, heated side mirrors, wonderful beefy leather wrapped steering wheel with buttons for the usual, good sound system, 6 mos. free Sirius, 17" wheels with michelin tires, plugs in R armrest console for every type of electronic device, MP3, iPOD, flash memory; large built-in memory; 1 disc CD, cruises at 1800RPM at 65 mph quietly, good passing power, chilly AC and quick heat, looks much larger than it is and different from the Fusions, quite reasonable service schedule with no automatic replacement of anything at any time (it is based on inspection and wear and discussion), capless gas filler, sharkfin antenna, tasteful, quite minimal chrome accents, high quality interior materials, all interior lights can be dimmed with one button, keyless entry pad, 2 keys at purchase, interior and trunk carpeting and sound insulation, comfortable well bolstered cloth seats, blah blah blah. $18.6K!

    It is a well engineered overall package, now in year 6 or 7 of its history (and the last year---hence excellent prices). The 2010 is a substantial redo of the 2009 (I guess they didn't see their demise coming). It looks good. it rides well. It holds the curves and twisties quite well for this class, It costs little. I think it deserves more mention in this forum. My most prized feature is the quiet ride (not floaty) and I don't mind averaging over 30 mpg on regular.

    I would say, after research, it is the best midsized buy on the market at this time.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    edited October 2010
    Every review I've ever seen of the 2003-2008 Mazda6 mentions that it was the smallest of the mid-size players. They praised almost every aspect of the car, but it was too small to compete head-to-head with Camry/Accord/Altima. Then for 2009 they rolled out the much larger MZ6 that we have now, but sales are pathetic!?

    This is the problem with the "me too" strategy. There is no reason for the Camry and Accord buyer to go to the Mazda6. Meanwhile, they alienate the folks who bought the prior version precisely because it was different. I think VW is going down this same path and their strategy will also fail.

    I think I had predicted here that the Kizashi would get bashed for having a "cramped" rear seat, just like the old Mazda6 and before that the Contour.

    edit: Yep, I said it right here: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f12d514/14641#MSG14641 :)
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Am I the only one that actually agreed with the press about the 1st-gen Mazda6 being smaller in the back seat? When I bought the 6 back in '04, back-seat space wasn't a priority at the time, but over the years, between job and family, my priorities have changed, and I soon discovered that the back-seat room was lacking for 3-across seating. Truthfully,I probably wouldn't have considered a '10 Mazda6 had they not expanded the interior dimensions.

    Now, the space is welcome, and the huge trunk is also a plus (I can fit all 4 of my winter wheels/tires in the trunk without having to lower the back seats, something I have to do in my previous '04 as well as my Altima). Plus, I can still enjoy the unique styling and superior ride/handling that Mazda offers, and not have to settle for an Accords bulbous styling and button-happy dash and center console, among other things...
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I'm not saying the back seat is not smaller. I am not even saying it is not "cramped". I am saying I like the size of the old car and I like the other aspects of it. They lost that with the new one, the ride handling is no longer much different from some of the competition and it is way too big for my taste.

    I find the back seat, while certainly smaller, is adequate for 3. My 3 kids are all in their 20s, so are not often going places with us, but we have had them all in the car on occasion.
  • nsbio1nsbio1 Member Posts: 75
    While it is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but I would not call the current Mazda6 the best looking car in its class, but a long shot. It looks fattened and disjointed, such that even, ahem, Camry is a looker in comparison.

    I own a Mazda3, my second Mazda, and I am generally a fan of Mazda vehicles, but 2009+ Mazda6 looks bad (IMO, of course).

    Previous gen Mazda6, on the other hand, was good looking.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I actually find the new Mazda 6 styling to be much more attractive than the previous model. But I don't like how big it is!

    I guess we all have slightly different needs....
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited October 2010
    I agree, the Milan is a stealth car in this class. Too bad it's going away.

    The best thing about the car is, the more you talk about it, the lower the price gets! (wink)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It appears the Milan is available at about $5000 below MSRP, about $2000 more than they are giving off on the Fusion. This may be the best deal on a moderately priced midsize since the 2006-2008 Mazda6, which often had similar deals available.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited October 2010
    Similar deals can be had on the 2010 Optima and Galant, and there's big deals on Malibus now also. But I'd take a Milan over any of those. I do recall the great deals on the 2006-8 Mazda6i, around $16k for the Sport package with 17" alloys, CD changer etc. Ah, the good old days!

    But my comment about the price dropping was the price on pod's Milan dropping, even as he spoke about it.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738

    Are there any premium 178-184" long sedans out there that aren't going to cost nearly $40K?

    Just three currently. I've been looking for cars like this.

    1: The G25. At 31K, out the door, it's a great deal.(29K if you want the base model) It's 187 inches long, but since a lot of that is bumpers and it's fairly round/low profile(unlike say, a CTS), I think it *just* qualifies/fits, especially since it has RWD.
    2: A 2010 IS250. It's just the right size and RWD. The turning radius and handling on these two is superior and makes it feel MUCH smaller than, say, an Accord.
    3: (if you drive manual) The Civic Si. 22K, loaded with all the goodies.. You can add leather yourself(aftermarket, REAL leather)) and the suspension and brake and so on upgrades and still not be past 26K. It'll whomp on a Regal quite easily. Unfortunately, nobody makes a good midsize sporty/luxury car like this any more. Nissan and Toyota dropped their higher-end versions out of the U.S. market and so did most of the rest. The Si still is available and is a blast to drive. (yes, it's 175.5 inches, but being FWD, it handles :"midsize" and is pretty much midsize inside as well. (doubly so since size-wise it's almost identical to the previous TSX, which was *the* choice for this segment. The new one is too large and heavy and needs to ditch the FWD lest it start to follow Buick's lead.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    ... and is pretty much midsize inside as well.

    Let's not get too carried away. The Civic isn't even a COMPACT, EPA interior-space wise-it's in the sub-compact class. Several compacts trounce it in interior volume, e.g. Elantra, Sentra, and Versa are all mid-sized in interior volume, while most others are in the compact class interior-wise vs. sub-compact.

    As I said earlier, I think the G25 would fit the bill well--certainly upscale, and well under $40k.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    Your love affair for RWD is a non-starter for many in the snow-belt, especially in New England where there are hills "everywhere."
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    ....previous TSX, which was *the* choice for this segment. The new one is too large and heavy and needs to ditch the FWD lest it start to follow Buick's lead.

    I've actually thought about buying a used previous model TSX. I don't like the size and greater numbness of the new one.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,513
    might be the right size, but good luck find a RWD one anywhere in the northern half of the country (as in, any place that has seen a snowflake in the last 20 years). Probably only AWD models will ever be in stock.

    Is the new TSX more than 184"? certainly the old one fit the profile.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Not gonna be interested in any Toyota or Lexus.

    The new TSX is about 185.5". A bit bigger than I'd like.

    I'm going to hang onto my '05 TL for a while longer (just turned 100K miles), and eventually try to get something smaller. The TL is a nice car but is more of a cruiser than a truly sporty car. I'll keep my eyes open and hope that in the next couple of years something smaller of high quality comes along. Otherwise I could buy a used Audi or MB or BMW 3 series (although I don't like the looks of the current 3).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Perhaps when the GLI version of the new Jetta comes that might fit in the category you are interested in? The Jetta is 182 inches long.
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    edited October 2010
    daman92:

    Claiming text from US News and World Report as your own analysis isn't likely to earn you a lot of respect around here. I see that all of your posts (Terrain, Avenger, Equus, LaCrosse, Aston Martin DB9, Odyssey, Audi S4, Range Rover, Milan) in the past two weeks are of similar character.

    Do you have any of your own insights to share with us? Or are you just trying to spam us with your hubpages?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    stephen987.....+1.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    RWD is not an issue at all in snow if the car has stability control and weighs over 3500lbs(give or take). RWD was never an issue for generations until little 2000lb and under cars came out and lacked the mass to dig down and hold onto the snow without FWD.

    But the problem was that GM and Ford and the rest all decided that they should do the same thing with their large cars as well. So we ended up with the worst of all worlds - no better in snow but much worse in everything else. More expensive transmissions, more brake wear, CV joint repairs, and on and on.

    The previous TSX was fine at a bit over 3K lbs - a bit heavy but in the acceptable category for FWD. The new one is almost 4000lbs and when cars get that heavy, you really need to unload the front suspension and steering. Buick still makes 4000lb cars with FWD and well, they *drive* like 4000lb cars with FWD.

    RWD cars now have stability control, ABS, and huge low profile tires compared to what we remember growing up. 18 inch wheels? I remember when drag racers used tires about that large. Add in better tires that grip better and I just don't get what you're all going on about. I've seen FWD cars end up just as badly off as RWD cars on ice. And AWD is a worse situation in most cases as it imparts a false level of security, which leads to stupid decisions mroe often than not. At this point, it makes little to no difference.

    But in dry weather, it's a massive improvement to have RWD. Especially as cars all are approaching 200HP as a minimum.

    Look, BMW and Mercedes have steadfastly stuck to RWD for their vehicles and last I checked Germany gets snow that's roughly comparable to the U.S. Half of the Mercedes population isn't dying every winter because of the choice to drive large and heavy RWD cars.

    Then again, they do use snow tires in the winter.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The previous TSX was fine at a bit over 3K lbs - a bit heavy but in the acceptable category for FWD. The new one is almost 4000lbs and when cars get that heavy, you really need to unload the front suspension and steering. Buick still makes 4000lb cars with FWD and well, they *drive* like 4000lb cars with FWD.

    Since when is 3,400 lbs (the curb weight of the current TSX) "almost 4,000?"
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles