Midsize Sedans 2.0

m6user · October 2010

According to Edmunds the Accord EX-L w/auto has the same published MPG of 23/34. They could be wrong though as I didn't check the Honda site.

Any info on the gearing set up for MPG on the Regal like you mentioned would be appreciated though.

brainfertilize · October 2010

That's a possibility.

But I purchased the Mazda6 because I'm passionate about it. Not the reverse.

I tried out other cars. I have a fairly broad-based experience of car ownership, too.

It is more likely that the Mazda6 just matches my driving style precisely in ways that other cars don't.

But there still seems to be a marked difference between what professional car reviewers (like C&D and R&T) give for grades, and what extremely experienced/respected amateur car reviewers (like TTAC) give for grades, and I'd like to understand why.

The reason I care about this subject so much is that if I'd listened to the reviewers and not even bothered to try the Mazda6, I'd probably be suffering buyer's remorse for a Mazda3's small size or an Altima's rough ride and CVT strangeness, or a Civic's road noise and lack of driving fun.

It really is difficult to test drive a dozen cars, what with all the hard sales they push on you as soon as you step on a lot. So I'd like to be able to understand how to interpret reviewers more to be able to translate/match up with my preferences more, so that I can just test drive 3 before I purchase my next vehicle. (yeah, I always plan ahead 3-5 years)

m6user · October 2010

I think you just have to limit it by how it appeals to you(looks) and compare the hard specs carefully til you boil it down to 5-6 cars. Then test drive each one.

I use the articles to see if several writers say something bad and then I add that to my "be sure to check during test drive" list. I never eliminate a car that fits my needs spec wise and that I like the looks of because of auto writers. Most of them just paraphrase what other writers have written to a large degree.

Case in point. The 03-08 Mazda6 was slammed by just about every auto writer in the business for it's turning radius. Oh, it so hard to park in parking lots. Well, I don't have a problem with it. Then the new Malibu came out with a larger turn radius and do you think any auto writer even mentioned it? None that I read. Kind of curious. That kind of thing happens often.

There are also mistakes made. For example, I'm looking at Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX. On the Edmunds "comparator" it says the Edge does not have external temperature readout. Well, I sat in one the other day and it has the digital external temperature readout in three different places. From none to overkill. But if I really wanted that external temp readout(and I do by the way) I would eliminate that vehicle from my consideration possibly. I'm not that anal but combine that with a couple other things and I just might. Anyway, mistakes like that happen all the time so you have to be careful.

Bottom line: Take anything in print with a grain of salt.

backy · October 2010

So this is kinda weird... the other day, I went to the EPA site to see which smaller cars are classed as "mid-sized" by the EPA--this was for another post I was researching. To my surprise, I didn't see the Forte or the Cruze on their list of "mid-sized" cars... but I did see the Elantra, Sentra, and Versa. I thought, as you do, that the Forte has mid-sized interior volume. I also thought the Cruze is mid-sized inside--at least, Chevy claims that to be true. So maybe the Forte and Cruze are just under the limit for the EPA's "mid-sized" class.

brainfertilize · October 2010

Case in point. The 03-08 Mazda6 was slammed by just about every auto writer in the business for it's turning radius. Oh, it so hard to park in parking lots. Well, I don't have a problem with it. Then the new Malibu came out with a larger turn radius and do you think any auto writer even mentioned it? None that I read. Kind of curious. That kind of thing happens often.

Yeah, that is exactly what I was trying to describe. It frustrates me, because it seems like they are looking for excuses to ding certain vehicles for things they give other vehicles a pass for.

And "turning radius" is one of those things, like "0-60 time", where the actual number matters far less than the driver's subjective opinion.

Eh, I'd just like a little more transparency in that process.

m6user · October 2010

Well, to be fair turning radius is a hard number that is not an opinion and so is 0-60 time for the most part. Those you can pretty much compare.

But it's the "I don't like" things that are harder to pin down. Like how hard a seat is TO THEM. Or the handling is crisp or the ride is jittery or too soft. Those kind of thems are really in the eye of the beholder to a large degree and have to be experienced for yourself.

brainfertilize · October 2010

True.

I guess I tend to think of interior volume and trunk volume as even harder numbers than 0-60 time or turn radius.

Because an object near the limit of size can or cannot fit into the trunk. There's no wriggle room.

A person's legs can or cannot fit comfortably into 30.2 inches versus 36.3 inches. It is pretty definitive.

But I have never once clocked my car from 0-60. I just know whether I feel like I have enough acceleration to merge successfully or not.

I have never measured turn radius in any car I've test-driven, or owned. I just know whether it needs lots of room to turn around or not.

And I've never measured a car's turn radius when I was test-driving to find out, Hey! That rating was wrong! or Hey, it was dead-on!

But I can feel for myself that the Mazda6 has steering that is taut and responsive, but that the car glides over bumps better than the average car. (my wife commented on that, too, when following me home...bumps that made other cars bounce didn't joggle the 6 at all).

I guess part of the problem is that family sedans are such a tight market, with so little variation between cars sometimes, that the writers have no choice but to use a .3 second diffference in 0-60 times to pick or pan a car.

And part of it may be that they are using the typical human method of making up their mind of "like" or "dislike" and then finding evidence to support that judgment after the fact.

But it is frustrating to run up against that limitation.

stickguy · October 2010

good example for you. Just got the latest issue of car and Driver in the mail. They have a quick test of the Sonota turbo. Like it a lot overall (but no manual!). One of their "cons"? it is a "tad" slow 0-60. It does the job in 6.2 seconds. I have no idea what they expect out of a mid-20sK family sedan, but it is amazing that they list it as a negative!

I also disagree about published volumes (interior and trunk) as being true hard numbers you can compare (even legroom). It really depends on how the space is configured.

A car with very high, upright seats and well designed front seats needs less legroom to be comfy than one that is low slung and has no toe room. And a square trunk with a big opening is more usable than a shallow, deep, irregular shaped one with a small opening, even if it is technically bigger.

and a lot of interior volume is from headroom. And to me, once you have enough, more does not really add any true room or comfort (unlike more shoulder room say). Lots of cars lose a couple of cubes adding a moonroof, but if your head has pelnty of clearance still, it isn't (to me" any smaller of a car.

colloquor · October 2010

0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds is slow? I think Car and Driver has been spending too much time driving exotics. Not too many years ago, 6 seconds was consider very fast, even for so-called performance cars. I think the auto journalists lose all concept of reality sometimes.

brainfertilize · October 2010

These are very good points.

That explains, I guess, why my 626 seemed so much larger in the back seat than the numbers would indicate, I guess.

I should have been reading here before I purchased a car, rather than after, I guess.

dash5 · October 2010

I agree 100%. My old 2004 Infiniti G35 coupe had about that time 0-60 and while not a supercar by any means, it was certainly considered sporty and performance oriented. The Sonata/Optima have the same HP and torque as that car, weigh a bit less and have much better fuel economy.

thepieguy · October 2010

As a guy that has been researching which midsize to get for a very long time now I can say that "enthusiast" car magazine reviews are so wildly inconsistent that they are pretty much only good for entertainment value. Not to mention some of them smell a little bit tainted by $$$ (just my opinion). They sure do love to compare 0-60 times as if it is a critical issue, yet it is something that varies significantly by driver, environmental conditions, etc. Annoying.

dash5 · October 2010

I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.

tlong · October 2010

I dont mind the 0-60 time too much unless they go overboard but the cornering and "body roll" stuff tends to get really excessive when you're talking mid sized family sedan.

Have you ever noticed that, almost without fail, in car magazine reviews the new model of a car is always "30% stiffer chassis than the previous model"? I've not found flexing a big problem in my cars. :surprise:

thegraduate · November 2010

Flexing, no. Squeaks and rattles are big tellers of weak chassis/platforms, though.

mickeyrom · November 2010

Great post! Who cares how fast off the line a car is,unless you plan to take it to the drag strip.My Optima with it's 4 cylinder engine was something like 8 or nine seconds to 60,yet I have no problem passing.(on the rare occasion I need to)My Optima,it's 4 years old,has around 50 more HP than my first car,a 50 Ford V8.How much power does one need?I'll take the slower 0-60 times and 30-35 MPG thank you very much.

acdii · November 2010

It depends on where you live. In the city, 0-60 doesn't mean squat, if you need to do 60 MPH on a 30MPH road, move! If you live in the country though, 0-60 times can be important. A few years back I owned a Prius, 0-60 13 seconds sometimes more if a tire slipped. I live out in the country and daily had to take a road that intersected a highway, with traffic moving at 60MPH. I need to make a left to get into traffic, and this is where 0-60 times can be important, either find an opening you can zip into , or wait 10 minutes for a big enough opening, and hope your tires don't slip in the gravel from other drivers cutting the turn short and driving across the shoulder. I went from the Prius to a Camry, and while a little better getting into traffic, it still left a lot to be desired. I finally got a car that gets me into the traffic stream quickly, the Ford Fusion Sport. It gets good MPG, comfortable, fun to drive, and handles great. It has the 0-60 times I need, without being obnoxious, for that I have my Flex Ecoboost, obnoxiously quick.

thegraduate · November 2010

These days you can pull 250hp AND 30-35 MPG.

m6user · November 2010

Exactly. Why not have both? I use the 0-60 times as a relative measurement. Like acdii was explaining, there are plenty of situations where some oomph off the line or from 30-60 is very much appreciated. I live in the Chicago area and they are always working on the expressways. Some of the entrance ramps during construction have virtually no merge lane and having some power is not just a convenience but can be a safety factor. I'm not saying you can't drive at all without a decent 0-60 time but it gives me a sense of security knowing that I can pull out and get out of someone's way if need be.

0-60 times are just another measurement among the many that can be considered. Personally, I look at stopping distances with a more critical eye. As long as 0-60 times are generally in line with other cars I'm considering, it matters little if one car is a few tenths of a second faster or slower to 60. However, if there is a 2 second spread +/- that wold be something that I would want to look at strongly either from having enough power or how it might affect MPG.

thepieguy · November 2010

Yeah I didn't mean to sound like I don't think acceleration is an important issue. It is. I have a Fusion SPORT on order. Many people don't drive for "fun" but those rare occasions where you need that power make the sacrifice of a few MPG's totally worth it. You can consider it a safety issue. My peeve regarding car reviews would be more like... "Car A went 0-60 in 6.2 seconds when we tested it 2 years ago and Car B went 0-60 in 6.4 when we tested it just now, therefore Car A is more sporty so we like it better". So many things wrong with that kind of logic.

thegraduate · November 2010

I agree there. When talking the difference in less than, say, a second (especially when we get below 7 seconds) it becomes negligible. I have a 249 horse Sonata. It's a few tenths slower than the 268 horse Camry, or torquier Malibu, but the difference in 6.8 versus 6.3-6.5 for the others is something that can't be felt in the seat of the pants, to me.

backy · November 2010

I read that C/D issue today and it was the typical inconsistent journalism from C/D and other auto mags. In their short take on the Sonata 2.0T, they make it seem as if it's a big deal that the 2.0T can run 0-60 in "only" 6.2 seconds while the V6 Camry is 0.4 second quicker and the V6 Mazda6 V6 is 0.1 second quicker. Then turn back a few pages, to the comparo of the Regal Turbo, the TSX V6, and the VW CC, and their tune changes. While explaining why the CC was their top pick even though it was not as quick as the TSX, they said the CC was "only 0.4 second behind it (the TSX) to 60 mph". So 0.4 second is only important when driving... a Hyundai? They also emphasized in the Sonata review how the two V6 cars are quicker in the 5-60 street start test. Interestingly, the Sonata 2.0T is 0.5 second quicker than the CC in that test. And the TSX blows the CC away there. But no mention of that.

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

stickguy · November 2010

you really can't compare those magazine numbers to real world use. Only CR comes close.

the car mags do whatever they have to for the best #. clutch dumps, brake torquing, etc. All things that normal people driving sedans don't do, even when they are trying to merge. At least CR does the run from idle, and just floor the gas (not sure what form they use for a stick, but nothing brutal).

I think 5-60 (what C&D calls street start) is much more illuminating. That and 30-60. Both are much more realistic, and reflect what you are going to do even when merging onto a highway.

m6user · November 2010

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

Your last sentence explains why they didn't include it in the comparo.....it isn't considered(by them) to be in the same class. My question is why didn't they use the TSX 4cyl as both other cars had 4cyl engines and pricepoints would be a lot closer. The v6 in the TSX adds a big premium to the price. If they had the Sonata would have blown it out of the water.

mz6greyghost · November 2010

IMO they should have included the Sonata SE 2.0T in the Regal/TSX/CC comparo. We know they had one to drive around the same time as they did the comparo. It has competitive performance numbers, is a turbo sedan like the Regal and CC, but starts at $5,000-10,000 less than the base prices for those other cars.

Your last sentence explains why they didn't include it in the comparo.....it isn't considered(by them) to be in the same class.

And they're right. Chances are CC and TSX buyers won't consider the Sonata. Based on current Acura owners I know, this holds true. Based on sitting in the interiors of the TSX and CC, then the Sonata, I'd also agree.

m6user · November 2010

I agree as well. Things that are graded more subjectively is where the differences lie and can be hard to quantify. Some people want to think a vehicle with the same equipment and stats are equivalent but IMO they are not. There are different grades of leather, switches, suspension parts, etc. not including the engineering experience to make everything work together in a cohesive manner.

Sonata is great for what it is(a leader in the midsize family sedan class) but it is not in the premium, luxury or sports sedan class. Reviewers should keep that in mind when they review the turbo Sonata and not try to compare it to true sports sedans where it will come up short. If they stick to comparing it to it's immediate competitors it should come out with flying colors. They downgrade because of a couple of tenths of a second 0-60. If that's the case, they should also be downgrading the V6s in the class for only getting 26-29 mpg.

Please everyone, don't reply with "my v6 gets 31mpg all the time on the hwy". I am referring to EPA as that is the about the only reliable comparison. I realize that most everyone can beat the EPA hwy numbers on a hwy trip but the turbo Sonata will probably beat it's EPA of 33 hwy mpg as well so it's all relative.

thegraduate · November 2010

They downgrade because of a couple of tenths of a second 0-60. If that's the case, they should also be downgrading the V6s in the class for only getting 26-29 mpg.

These are car enthusiast magazines, not Consumer Reports. Most gear-heads won't get thrills from whether they get an extra 30 miles on a tank of gas versus the other guy. They get off on having the faster vehicle.

If you're most interested in values a consumer values, pick the mag with consumer in its name. If you're into how quick your family-hauler hauls... your family

you're going to be more interested in something like Road & Track / Motor Trend.

Just consider the sources, friends. :shades: Don't get mad because they don't judge by your standards.

m6user · November 2010

These are car enthusiast magazines, , not Consumer Reports. Most gear-heads won't get thrills from whether they get an extra 30 miles on a tank of gas

Maybe they should stick to reviewing cars that only your so-called "enthusiasts" would be interested in then. I say if you are going to review family sedans, at least consider data points that the average family sedan buyer considers important. But that's just my opinion.

jeffyscott · November 2010

Even if you are interested in "how quick your family-hauler hauls... your family", you may be more interested in CR's 0-60 acceleration numbers, unless you are also interested in abusing your family hauler.

thegraduate · November 2010

I rather enjoy seeing the "fun-side" of these cars. This is going to sound rude, and it isn't my intention I assure you, but it isn't your (or my) place to tell writers what they can or can't review. This isn't a goverment-run publication - nobody's forcing you to buy and read the magazine. Who does it hurt to write reviews from a "fun-to-drive" perspective?

thegraduate · November 2010

I agree; the car mags are known for writing reviews that are entertaining to read, offering anecdotal and editorial opinion that you may or may not value. Reading CR is informative (very much so) but it's like reading the nutrition facts label on your box of cereal. Dull.

Some of us read for the entertainment value of the article, not for the chart at the end of the article.

m6user · November 2010

What, we can't express opinions in here anymore? I wasn't telling them they can't do something. Does something have to be run by the goverment before we can complain about how they are run? I didn't say they were violating my civil rights as a citizen, I was expressing my opinion as a consumer that they could do a better job of reviewing these type of vehicles. I read them and like the sport side of their commentary as well but I think they could be more objective.

If you think they are doing a great job then it is certainly your perogative to praise them and I promise I won't tell you that it's not your place to do so.

smarty666 · November 2010

Guys, you shouldn't let this car mag business get to any of you. The best advice I can give to any of you is to read the reviews, test drives, etc from multiple car mags and test drive the vehicle yourself if your considering it. Then you can take the opinions of not only the mags but your own and compare them and see if the car meets your driving needs/style.

Car magazines, as someone else pointed out, are no substitute for your own and other people's real world driving experiences!

backy · November 2010

Yet we've seen folks shopping the Sonata vs. the Regal right here. And if a mag can compare one car that's $5k more than another, why not go $5k in the other direction?

The auto mags had no problem comparing the Passat to much less expensive I4 mid-sized family sedans (MT). Guess what? The Passat won the comparo! What a surprise! But a much less expensive Sonata took 2nd. So is comparing a Sonata turbo to a Regal turbo and CC turbo relevant? I think it is. But use the TSX I4, as was mentioned. It's not VW's, Buick's, and Hyundai's fault that they offer turbo power for the same price (or less) as the normal I4 in the TSX.

kaliforniak · November 2010

I think you hit the nail on the head there. None of us or 99% of the driving population will do what car magazines do to get those 0-60 times. What's important to me is how fast the car goes when I just floor it to get on the free way and from 30 to 50/60 to pass someone on local streets. If the car can go fast enough without the driver having to do something crazy, then that's the car for me.

Think about it, let's say car mags are getting 0-60 for a car at 6.5 secs, that's going to be the best number they got from numerous runs. These numbers should only serve as a reference. For example I test drove a V6 Mazda6 and the thing has more than enough power to do anything I want it to do.

mz6greyghost · November 2010

So is comparing a Sonata turbo to a Regal turbo and CC turbo relevant? I think it is.

But to the general public, it really isn't.

The Passat example you pointed out only furthers my point, that certain cars fit into certain types to 99.9% of buyers and car magazines. The Passat, despite being more expensive, is considered a "midsize family sedan" to the general public, as well as the Sonata that it was compared to. Conversely, the Regal, TSX, and CC are considered "premium sport sedans" (also known as entry-luxury to others), to which the Sonata isn't.

Personally, I don't agree with it either, since IMO the Mazda6S GT is more of a premium sedan (with it's high-tech options and excellent interior fit-and-finish and materials) than a plain-jane midsize family sedan, but it is what it is.

plekto · November 2010

Isn't that the truth, though.

Here's what the manufacturers generally do(and why the auto magazines generally don't come close to their silly claims, even):
1 - Get the weight down to as low as possible. Spare tire, and so on are generally left out. As are most options. Often the car has only 1-2 gallons of fuel in it as well.
2 - Tires are the largest that they can fit/recommend. Max pressure, too.
Think every little drag strip trick and you'd be about right. And, yes, they generally fit the vehicle with slicks or high-performance rubber as well.
3 - Transmission is manually locked in 2nd gear after launch. TC is off, stability control is off, and winter mode is enabled if possible.
4 - Engine is reved to nearly redline and the transmission is dumped into 2nd gear at full throttle. As a reference, Top Gear did this type of launch and ate a new transmission in about 30 such launches. Only idiots would do this move.
5 - Car is driven to nearly redline, which coincidentally is geared to 65mph or so in 2nd gear.
6 - Result? Awesome bragging rights! But totally unrealistic and the result of more skulduggery and bending the rules than anything else.

Real-world tests? Fifth Gear(Top Gear's more consumer-geared brother show) did a test on a drag strip with a normal mash the pedal in three different road-worthy/typical optioned out cars and the best that they could do was 20% worse than the manufacturer's claims. We're talking 4-5 seconds on average worse than claimed. And these guys test vehicles for a living. They came up with the conclusion that simply put, the manufacturers have to be making it up.(didn't say "lying" on the air but you could tell that they were thinking it)

I mentally add 50% to their claims and it's always been about right. Still, most people aren't going to complain or notice about a 0-60 time of 8-9 seconds, as it IS quite fast.

note - 0-60 in in 5-6 seconds in reality is about as fast as the typical roller modern coaster accelerates out of the gate. We really don't need vehicles that can do that and most people would get in a lot of trouble if your average car actually could do that in daily driving conditions.

m6user · November 2010

I think it's kind of funny when people put the CC in whole class above the Passat when the CC base price is less than $2k more and has the same drivetrain and warranty. That's kind of like putting the Sonata Ltd. in a different class than the GLS or SE.

One of the things that sets the "premium" or "near luxury" class apart is warranty. To my knowledge they all offer 4 or more years of warranty. Plus the entry levels are usually closer to $4k difference versus less than $2k. I think the CC gets lumped into a category above because it just looks so different(great IMO) compared to the Passat upon which it is based.

Like I've said before, I consider the Regal to be an "in-betweener" even though Buick is marketing it upscale. The old Regal was always just a gussied up Malibu and firmly in the class we talk about here. The new one is a step up but at entry points in the mid twenties and soon(when they start offering the base model) in the lower twenties, I think they are going to have a hard case in selling it as a premium class auto. I kind of hope I'm wrong but it seems like it's trying to be two different cars entirely.

maxamillion85 · November 2010

I read the comparison test and for the most part I agree with the results but I like some others in here would have liked to have seen the TSX I4 used verses the V6 model and I would have liked to seen the Optima in the comparison test...not the Sonata. Optima will be slightly sportier and it will offer more premium feature content (memory seats, cooled front seats, Xenons, LEDs etc.)

It would have been real nice to have seen the Optima SX up against those cars. I'm pretty excited about the new Sonata and even more excited about the Optima.

As far as the Regal, I just don't see it as a premium sedan. The Regal, at least in the last generation was nothing more than a "sportier" Century, it was never luxurious at least not to me. The current one is much sportier and nicer looking, though the Regal was never a bad looking car. The Regal is lacking in feature content as well, no memory seats, no xenons (at least not on the 2.4 model) or LEDs if anything the Regal is no more luxurious then say a Mercury Milan or a Sonata LTD...its a slight step above the Malibu as far as feature content is concerned...and even the Malibu (LTZ) and the Aura had LEDs. So in a sense if the Regal could be included in the comparison test, why leave out the Sonata? Sonata actually has it beat in feature content, power and price though it may be lagging behind it somewhat material-quality wise. Buick can advertise the Regal as a more upscale car all the want too, but honestly its really not all that upscale considering the price and lack of feature content compared to the TSX and the CC.

backy · November 2010

The old Regal was always just a gussied up Malibu ...

Aren't the Regal and Malibu both based on the Epsilon II platform? If so, that would reinforce your statement... but for the NEW Regal.

m6user · November 2010

Yes, I think you're right. I do like the new Regal though and I think it is very classy and materials are good. I would love to buy another Buick and hope they do great with it but it does lack some bells and whistles that I personally like and I think the powertrains are one step behind in regards to power/mpg when compared to others. I just saw an article today about the the Regal GS and it will be about 255 hp or something like that. That is the highest hp engine of the three that are being offered and the hp and mpg lag behind several others in the midsize class.

maxamillion85 · November 2010

the current Malibu is based on the old Epsilon I platform along with the Aura and Pontiac G6...the new Regal, Lacrosse and the next Malibu are based on the Epsilon II platform though GM has various sizes of the platform available. the New Caddy XTS will be based off this platform as well.

The OLD Regal, if I remember correctly was based off the same platform as the Century, Intrigue, Grand Prix and Impala...I admit that I could be wrong about that though.

backy · November 2010

Ah, now I remember the article I read recently. It said the Malibu is based on a "heavily revised" Epsilon platform. So not quite Epsilon II, but not really the same as the G6 or Aura.

kaliforniak · November 2010

The only time I think of that I "need" to go from 0-60 is when I need to merge on to the freeway from at dead stop. Even in that case, 0.1 seconds or 0.5 seconds really wouldn't make a difference. 0-60 should never be the determining factor when buying a car which brings me to my next point.

I am looking to buy a car within the next 2 month and as the time draw closer the reality hits harder. Things that seemed minor when I'm just shopping gets magnified into key factors. Let's take warranty for an example, a 5/60K one is vastly superior to a 3/36K one when I plan to own my car for at least 6 years. MPG that I ignored because my commute is only 10 miles round trip now bugs me in the case that I have to relocate or find a new job. Monthly insurance premiums, maintenance costs, after warranty repair costs and a whole list of things that hits when you are about to take money out of your bank account. It's nice to be able to talk about them without any worries but as a responsible adult I simply cannot buy a car without a way to resolve these issues.

So what's my point? What ever different in performance number that matters in a comparo can kiss my behind because I need the money where else. Things like crash test ratings all the sudden becomes a high priority since as we all know a dead man can't drive.

In short, the same car can yield very different opinions depending on how the person is viewing the car.

rdm925 · November 2010

Hi, I need feedback. We need to look at a compact to mid size car for daughter w/ 4 & 5 yr old grandsons and under 20k if possible. What is the best choice. So far it is either the Mazda 3 (my choice) or Ford Focus (cheaper but ughly) or maybe good deal on Mazda 5.
Thanks, :shades:

plekto · November 2010

Well, if they are to be in the rear seat, that means that they need to not be wedged against the sides in case of a side impact. In short, you need to get a larger vehicle to be safe. That said, there are loads and loads of mid-size vehicles out there that get good fuel economy.

1 - let someone else eat the initial depreciation. Even a Hyundai or similar is now pretty much problem-free for the first decade or so, so buying a certified or similar vehicle with 20-40K on it is a fantastic way to save money.

2 - domestics, while band and boring as a rule, depreciate the fastest. This can mean a 2-3 year old 25-30K vehicle for the price of a new Civic. That buys a LOT of gas. Case in point - I recently bought an old Crown Vic to get around town in. At the price I bought it for, it will take me three years to spend the difference in gas versus a smaller 4 cylinder Toyota. Sometimes the best economics isn't the most efficient vehicle. It's big and can seat 6, so it makes for a great car to put kids in. Way better than a Minivan in any case. That would have just *completely* crushed what's left of my soul versus denting it a bit driving this beast. :P (minor note - you can get a 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis fully loaded for $25K new and half that 5 years old)
http://www.automotive.com/2005/09/mercury/grand-marquis/index.html
That's roughly $2K in gas to burn through before you get to the price of even a stripped-down Yaris with automatic.

Yes, it's a silly example

But new just doesn't make sense any more - unless maybe it's a gift or something like that, which would be a factor to consider.(I think anyone with a family would be just as thrilled at a CPO vehicle, TBH)

3 - many larger vehicles get better efficiency than their smaller counterparts. As vehicles get larger and larger, compact cars' tiny engines have to work harder, to where the MPG difference between, say, am Impala(as a random example) and a Mazda 3 is only a few MPG. (19/29 vs 25/33) But that little 2.0 engine in the base 3 is a horrid and weak thing. Moving up to the S solves that, but mpg drops to 20/29 - no real gain versus the larger and safer vehicle.

So the question should be - what mid-size 2-4 year old CPO domestic vehicle is the best? Well, we need to be a bit more specific. Are there any features you must have or desires like cargo space or certain brands you won't consider?

m6user · November 2010

Well, we need to be a bit more specific. Are there any features you must have or desires like cargo space or certain brands you won't consider?

Yeah, maybe they just want to buy and drive a new car! Ever thought about that?

When are you going to get off your soapbox about buying a 2-3 year old depreciated vehicle? Nearly every time someone comes on here and asks for advice you get on your soapbox instead of asking them what they want. How about asking them if they want to buy new or used. Then if they say used is ok, knock them out with your vast knowledge in fiscal responsibility. However, be warned, most everybody knows to buy used is probably the most frugal financial decision to make. But to many, obviously not you, buying a brand new car is a dream that only a brand new car can bring to fruition.

There are some drawbacks to buying used that(besides not being brand new) that people worry about.

1. Was the car crashed/flooded/bought back under lemon law etc.? I realize we are supposed to be able to determine that but there are reports of fraud in these areas all the time.
2. Was the car maintained?. Again, records could show this but how accurate are they.
3. Are there new safety features on a brand new car that on the used vehicle or just weren't available a couple of years prior.
4. Is the warranty as good as a new car warranty? Hard to tell sometimes with deductibles and fine print.

I'm sure there are more that I can't think of until I have more coffee but you get the jist.

mz6greyghost · November 2010

Let me help in actually answering the question (instead of the battle of new vs. used).

The Mazda3 is a fun yet practical compact, with good space for child seats in back. Whether you opt for the sedan or 5-door, it should offer good space, and still be a reliable, fun-to-drive vehicle.

The Focus is well past it's prime IMO, in fact, it's riding on a platform that's been around since it's intro in 2000 (and which the Mazda3 is on the newer-gen, and vastly superior, platform.) The Focus is due for a complete redesign next year, and if you can't wait, then I'd remove it off the list.

As for the Mazda5, it's more of a minivan than a sedan, and as such, it's versatile and got plenty of room for child seats, it's also on the same platform as the 3, and shares it's drivetrain and most suspension components.

I'd go with the 3 or 5.

backy · November 2010

Another thought is to consider the cars that are in between compact and mid-size, i.e. have compact exteriors but mid-sized interiors. Those might be a little handier when wrestling with car seats in the back. Cars in this class include the Elantra (can probably get a good deal on one now because the next-gen model is coming soon), Sentra, and Versa. The Versa in particular has a really roomy back seat for two, especially considering its size which is actually sub-compact in length.

Other small cars that are pretty roomy inside if not officially "mid-sized" include the new Cruze and the Forte.

Any of these have considerably more back seat room than the Focus or, particularly, the Mazda3. The Mazda5 is a good choice if you don't mind more of a mini-van style, lower fuel economy than a small sedan, and can live with the very cramped back seat (albeit very roomy accommodations for 4). If you prefer more a wagon style, the Elantra comes in a very roomy wagon called the Elantra Touring--huge amount of back seat room and lots of cargo room. The Versa has a hatchback style available too, and the Forte offers a hatchback for the 2011 MY.

stephen987 · November 2010

I really like the suggestion of the Elantra--it's a very nice car and a tremendous value, plus CR says it's pretty much tops in the class in reliability. As for the Versa, the one thing that would stop me is the poor braking performance, especially on the versions without ABS.

If a true midsize is on the agenda, go looking for a Ford Fusion.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles