Midsize Sedans 2.0

Kirstie_H · January 2011

Well, we don't seek to silence anyone as long as they adhere to our Membership Agreement. However, it isn't appropriate to hang around any of our discussions for the purpose of putting down other members' choices.

The best policy, REGARDLESS of which member it may be, is to ignore posts that you don't feel are informative or productive. This is a pretty good rule in all of life's interactions - ignore or avoid those that cause unnecessary aggravation or upset, to the best of your ability.

smarty666 · January 2011

You do realize this is the midsize sedan forum and we are suppose to be talking about the mainstream family sedans here. Those are the ones I and other choose from when recommending one to a person like the OP who asked us a few days ago b/c this is the specific thread he posted in.

There is a completely different thread about entry-level luxury sedans which are more than just utilitarian so if someone was to ask amongst them what people recommend that is where to do it in that separate thread.

With the way gas prices are heading up and people still struggling from the recession, many people are downgrading to these cars because of the higher costs premium and entry-level luxury vehicles carry so I'm not sure you should be putting everyone down who gets one. I know plenty of people who are wealthy, I have a cousin who is a millionaire and they don't put emphasis on vehicles and just get mainstream ones so I don't buy that argument completely.

jimbres · January 2011

It's that I wonder about the "wisdom" of people on this forum always recommending the most utilitarian choice when there are now literally a dozen vehicles in the same category.

You're missing the big picture, Joe. The good news - and it really is good news - is that there isn't a bad car out there. Think about it. You couldn't have made that statement in 1970 or 1980. There may be some that don't live up to your sense of style, but even the Camry that you disparage will last 10 years with routine maintenance while getting the job done.

Look at the Hyundai Sonata, which might be the new standard setter in this market segment. Even the cheapest version features variable-assist rack & pinion steering, 4-wheel disc brakes w/ABS & traction/stability control. It will outrun, out brake & out corner almost anything made in 1970. It's stylish, roomy, economical & not boring to drive.

I have a pretty good idea of what driving pleasure is all about; my weekend ride is a BMW 3-series rigged for maximum fun, with stick, sport package & high performance summer rubber. But I really wish that cars like today's Sonata, Accord & Camry were available back in the early 70s, when I was starting out.

As I said previously, these are the good old days.

lilengineerboy · January 2011

While I regret my purchase decision getting the '07 Accord, I know I could definitely do worse. Is a 4cyl/5spd and it gets stellar fuel economy. If I don't grow a pair and buy something else, I will likely upgrade the tires/wheels/shocks/springs to be more in line with what I like.
I also noted that a contemporary V6 Camry is about as fast and handles as well as a 70s Ferrari. It is just devoid of any sensory experience what-so-ever. Its also priced in the same range (until you add in maintenance costs).

But I really wish that cars like today's Sonata, Accord & Camry were available back in the early 70s, when I was starting out.

Have you noticed how many features are coming into cars now that focus on something other than driving? I think that is partially because todays cars are so much easier to drive than earlier ones, almost to a fault. While driving the 70's Nova (or even my late 80s Galant) was a more involved experience, driving the '07 Accord almost produces a sleep effect.

savetheland · January 2011

John: Dear Autoexpert (AE), me (or my wife, or my second cousin) need a new car and we cannot figure out what car to buy what is your advice?

AE: Dear John, it is simple - if you want smooth and soft ride - buy Toyota Camry. If you tolerate some noise but want better handling - buy Honda Accord. If you are poor - buy Hyundai Sonata. It is all smart choice.

John: Dear AE, We took a look at cars you suggested and recommended cars are too large. We are getting really desperate, please help us!

AE: Dear John, solution to your problem is simple. If you want smooth and soft ride- buy Toyota Corolla. If you tolerate some noise but want better handling - buy Honda Civic. If you are poor - buy Hyudai Elantra.

m6user · January 2011

me: Dear savetheland - Don't quit your day job.

jimbres · January 2011

Have you noticed how many features are coming into cars now that focus on something other than driving? I think that is partially because todays cars are so much easier to drive than earlier ones, almost to a fault.

Interesting observation. My '78 VW Rabbit was a blast to drive - when it ran. (Didn't last long. It threw a rod at 50K miles in '81.) Even though it was the top trim line, it was astonishingly short of creature comforts by today's standards: no A/C, crank windows & a terrible AM radio that generated an irritating rattle in the dash if I turned up the volume.

No one would tolerate those shortcomings today.

benjaminh · January 2011

jimbres:

Yes, cars are so much better today that it's almost unbelievable. Did the dash on your Rabbit crack? My neighbor had one and it was cracked by its third year. Many cars of the 70s were shoddy beyond belief in design and construction.

My 08 Accord, in comparison, is much safer than a Volvo 240 from back then, has more performance than a base BMW 318, more mpg than a VW Rabbit, and yet more interior room than a Oldsmobile Cutlass.

jimbres · January 2011

Did the dash on your Rabbit crack?

No, but the metallic paint, for which I paid $125 extra, began to peel within weeks.

When I complained to the service manager, his reply (in a bored tone of voice) was, "Oh, they all do that".

I shrugged & walked away. If that happened today, I'd hire a lawyer.

lilengineerboy · January 2011

My '78 VW Rabbit was a blast to drive - when it ran. (Didn't last long. It threw a rod at 50K miles in '81.) Even though it was the top trim line, it was astonishingly short of creature comforts by today's standards: no A/C, crank windows & a terrible AM radio that generated an irritating rattle in the dash if I turned up the volume.

It seems like what you are describing is quality issues that plagued the car, not the driving dynamics, which you praised. This is my point...cars today are dull to drive, they aren uninteresting and unrewarding. They are, however, reliable (for the most part) and are built much better. People expect a higher quality level from vehicles now and also higher levels of creature comforts, but I don't know why that has to involve a numb, isolated, uninvolved driving experience.

jimbres · January 2011

cars today are dull to drive

Oh, I dunno. You might be painting with too broad of a brush. Your Accord is almost certainly more entertaining to drive than its counterpart from the mid-70s, which would have been something like an Olds Cutlass. Since your Accord is a family sedan, you have to compare it with other family sedans. Otherwise, the comparison isn't fair. And when you do that, you realize that today's family sedans have vastly better driving dynamics than the family sedans of a couple of generations ago.

You want an "uninvolved driving experience"? Try a Ford Granada from the late 70s (pretty much the standard airport rental car back then) or any other mid-sized American sedan from that era. Until you have, you don't know how lucky you are.

jeffyscott · January 2011

"People expect a higher quality level from vehicles now and also higher levels of creature comforts, but I don't know why that has to involve a numb, isolated, uninvolved driving experience."

Because that is also what the vast majority of Americans want. They want cushy ride, effortless steering and a car that does not break. The things they want and care about are cupholders, voice commands (eg. Ford's Sync), touch screens, navigation systems, bluetooth, sunroofs,...

The manufacturers build what sells and #1 is still the Toyota Camry.

aviboy97 · January 2011

I sometimes wonder what happened to the love for vehicles that the U.S. used to have in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It's now become acceptable to drive the equivalent of a laundromat washing machine

Have you driven a car from that era lately in comparison to todays mid-sizers? OMG, that are impossible to drive! They cant stop (4 wheel drum brakes), horrible handling, piss poor crash test results, tough steering...the list goes on and on and on...

Now, if you are talking about muscle cars, they still drive like crap, except in a straight line and get 10 mpg. Plus, muscle cars were not the majority of the cars on the road back then. There were many small block V8's and I-6's that had no power. Muscle cars were equal to the high-performance cars we see today that we all talk about, but none of us actually own.

Believe me, I own a Fox Body Mustang and my best friend has a '70 Chevelle SS. They are great in straight lines, but thats about it! Driving these cars are more like driving an appliance then todays cars....

backy · January 2011

VW's New Midsized Sedan (NMS) is due out soon. I read an article about it in my local paper. It was short on details except that it will be larger than the Passat, VW is keeping the actual name under wraps, it will be built in the U.S., and it will have some lower-cost parts e.g. cheaper plastic to keep its starting price around $20k. So it appears to be inline with VW's strategy with the latest Jetta: make a more "Americanized" car that is larger and more in line with competitors in terms of price. This is all part of VW's strategy to take over the #1 sales spot from Toyota and sell at least 800,000 vehicles in the U.S. by 2016.

I just hope that VW can retain the good traits of the Passat in the NMS, namely good handling with a compliant ride and a high-quality interior. It appears the high-quality interior is iffy based on the comment re cheaper plastics. We really don't need another Camry, despite its sales success.

steine13 · January 2011

We really don't need another Camry, despite its sales success.

Depends on who "we" is, Kemosabe...

It appears that VW thinks they "need another Camry" very much indeed.

Cheers -Mathias

tlong · January 2011

VW is crazy with this strategy. Instead of decontenting their cars (where their main advantage had been the higher quality of their interiors and handling), they should have focused on reliability and improving the shabby dealer and service experiences. They are barking up the wrong tree. You're right, we don't need another Camry but with lousier dealers, lower reliability, and more expensive parts.

steine13 · January 2011

Yeah, that's pretty much the point.
The Germans don't "get" the American market very well... I don't think they can understand the sturdiness required to make it in the low end of the US market.

Europeans simply haven't been spoiled by virtually maintenance-free "appliance" cars. Germans think nothing of taking their cars in to the dealership once a year and dropping a thousand euro on this and that.

New head gasket? Oh well, it was about due.
So long as they can't deliver on the reliability/durability front, they won't get the repeat customers that are Toyota's bread and butter.

The nice interiors, buttoned-down fit-and-finish, and solid handling was hwat made people buy the cars despite the reliability concerns. It's been my theory that a VW is what you buy after a Buick and a Toyota made you forget how painful it is to have "get the car fixed" every other year. I'd never buy a VW traded in at a Toyota dealership; there's always a reason.

So I'm skeptical about VW's approach, too.

Cheers -Mathias

backy · January 2011

Yes, unfortunately. But if they have studied their marketing history, they know not to follow the exact same strategy as someone else, who has already mastered that strategy. Maybe the NMS will be like the Camry in some ways (reliable, more vanilla styling, lower cost, lower-cost interior bits) and like a VW in others (exceptional ride/handling balance, interesting powertrains). We'll see...

jeffyscott · January 2011

I think they have been addressing reliability, what is left to address related to that may be more perceptions than reality. The Jetta and Golf/Rabbit with the 2.5 engine have, I believe, been getting the highest or second highest reliability ratings in CR, since the 2005/2006 redesigns.

Dealer experiences vary, ours have been great and we have dealt with 3 different ones.

snowallergy · January 2011

Why am I suddenly hungry in a car forum. I just ate.

plekto · January 2011

It depends. My 1975 Volvo had 4 wheel disc drakes and ~160HP in a ~3000lb package. Safe, reliable, and handled almost as well as a BMW of the era.

There were some great cars even back then. But just like today, tons and tons of forgettable mediocrity as well. If your car back then sucked, well, it's perhaps because you chose poorly.

mz6greyghost · January 2011

Considering how the latest Jetta has been lambasted by critics because of it's lower-rent interior, as well as it's inferior driving experience (both compared to the last-gen Jetta), I have a feeling that VW has indeed created another Camry.

I'll wait to see one in person, but after seeing what they did to the Jetta, I'm not looking forward to it.

backy · January 2011

I read some positive comments on the new Jetta, e.g. good handling despite the beam rear suspension, and a solid structure. And it's roomy. So maybe if VW has created another Camry, at least it will be a good-handling Camry. The most laughable thing about the new Jetta is the 115 hp base engine. I would hope VW would be smart enough not to underpower the NMS compared to the competition. I'd expect the 5 cylinder as a base engine, to offer a low starting price, which would be competitive with most other base engines in the class. And the 2.0T and the V6 could be options. And maybe toss in a turbodiesel, which as of now would be a first in the class for the USA. That would help differentiate the NMS from others.

jimbres · January 2011

My 1975 Volvo had 4 wheel disc drakes and ~160HP in a ~3000lb package. Safe, reliable, and handled almost as well as a BMW of the era.

If your Volvo was reliable, then you were lucky - very, very lucky. (Are you sure that your Volvo wasn't a '65?) My in-laws bought a '76 Volvo - on my recommendation, I regret to say - that caused them no end of trouble & left them stranded several times. Luckily for me, they're good Christians & good sports, & they forgave me a long time ago.

Let's face facts: if you bought a Euro in the 70s or the early 80s, you were rolling the dice. My '78 VW Rabbit & '80 Audi 5000 were the stuff of really bad jokes, but my parents bought 2 Audis - a '79 5000 & an '82 5000S - & got 15+ years from each of them.

As I said in a previous post, the less said about the 70s, the better. The Japanese were building the most mechanically reliable cars, but if you lived in a snowbelt municipality where the roads were salted in the winter, you could watch your car's body melt away in a month. The Europeans were the worst; they didn't learn quality control until sometime after 1990, so buying one was like buying a lottery ticket. We Yanks were somewhere in between.

Again, the 70s marked the low point of the automotive arts, with slow, ugly (remember 5 mph bumpers?) cars of dicey durability. I don't think that anyone who was old enough to drive & buy cars then will argue that point.

steine13 · January 2011

The 5 cylinder is a gas hog. 23 mpg in a car of that size is really not acceptable. VW is in a bind here; they do make world-class, fuel-efficient engines, but they are increasingly complex. The turbocharged & supercharged direct-injection gas engines won't sell here, at least not at the premium in price over the competition.

That's a big part of the issue; VW does not have purpose-built powertrains for the NA market the way Honda and Toyota do.

I don't think 115 hp is "laughable" at all, that's OK power in a Corolla-sized car. What's laughable is that this mill has 8 valves and hasn't been updated since the first Clinton administration. It can't compete with the Japanese competition in refinement or fuel economy, which is why it's only offered in the absolute bottom-rung model.

Maybe the 2.0 turbo will work for mass-market appeal in the new larger sedan, but I've got my doubts. It's a world-class engine in its own right, but once-a-year oil changes and forgetting about the timing belt, the way people do with Toyotas, is not going to work.

Should be interesting to watch.
Cheers -Mathias

backy · January 2011

I do think 115 hp is laughable when competitors have ~150 hp with highway fuel economy of 35-40 mpg. My 1997 Sentra had 115 hp--and despite light weight and a stick, it was underpowered. That wasn't too bad for 14 years ago, but there have been a few improvements in engine technology since then.

plekto · January 2011

Yep, Volvos were great back then if you got one with the I-4 or I-6 engine that they used in their military or commercial vehicles(V6 was junk, though). And, of course, there was BMW and Mercedes, which were perfectly fine as well. They did handle and drive as well - and still do by today's standards.

U.S./Domestic cars generally did suck. Big, heavy, 1940s technology being made to work 30 years past its prime.

jeffyscott · January 2011

Gas hog? The 2.5 in the Jetta gets 27 mpg combined, this is equal to the Mazda3 with a 2.0, 2 mpg better than the Mazda3 with a 2.5 and 2 mpg less than a Civic with 1.8L.

With regard to the 2.0, while the HP is not competitive, I think the underlying problem is the ancientness of the engine. The reason the HP is low is due to the lower rpm at peak HP, torque is about the same as the competition. I assume the ancient 8 valve engine design is the reason that it is not capable of operating at the higher rpm levels. They need an update.

That said, an engine that gets 150 HP at, say, 7000 rpm is not necessarily any better in every day driving than one that gets, say, 110 HP at 5000 rpm.

Unlike my feeling when they first announced plans to build a midsize car in the US, I'm now not too hopeful that the new VW NMS is going to be something that might be of interest someday.

steine13 · January 2011

Nearly free gas and big engines got Americans used to powerful engines... which they largely don't use to more than half their potential. You could place an egg under most minivan's accelerator pedals, and there'd be few omelettes.

Take a look at:
http://www.volkswagen.de/de/models/golf/CC5.html

And then click on "Trendline" to pick a model.
That's the bottom rung, admittedly.

The next page shows you the available engines for the German market.
The lowest is a 1.4 liter with, ahem, 59 kW. That's in the 80-85 hp range. And considered quite driveable in autobahn land.

The next choices up have 63 and 77 kW -- not a one of them is higher than 115 hp, which is ~ 85 kW. But the gas mileage is fantastic. These are 1.2 l turbo/supercharged marvels that I'd be a little concerned to own anywhere, but certainly in North America. Between the climate and the dealerships, I'd be concerned about longevity.

So the US market gets the dregs of the parts bin.

As backy said:
"That wasn't too bad for 14 years ago, but there have been a few improvements in engine technology since then."

There have been, but you wouldn't know it from looking at the gasoline engines offered by VW. It's not clear how they're going to get out of this.

They don't have the variable valve timing, naturally aspirated, torquey 4 cyl engines that the Japanese have perfected. And until gas goes way up, people won't pay for high tech.

Cheers -Mathias

plekto · January 2011

To be honest, the engines develop nice torque figures but only if you have manual. Why? Because you have to rev them to nearly redline to get the listed numbers. The automatic just won't allow for anything over about 1/3 that unless you operate the throttle like an on/off switch. Lift for even a fraction of a second and it'll shift out from under you. VVT helps some, but it won't create decent torque at low rpms out of thin air - you need a turbo or similar to do that.

In normal operation, you're getting maybe half the listed power. I personally can't stand engines like that. My favorite cars in the past have all had small 6s. (the smallest being a 2.3(awesome engine, btw), but most have been a 3.0 I-6)

crkyolfrt · January 2011

Interesting couple posts you have done. I have a comment though about 8 valve vs 16 valve engines. Fewer valves are actually a torque booster if the engine is designed that way. Maybe i shouldn't say torque booster or someone will take my comment out of context and run with it, (being internet and all) but what I mean, is that in the real world speeds (and even on-ramps) 8 valve heads still do a respectable job at the lower rpms of real world driving. Let's face it, while engine tech has changed a fair bit in 14 years, our roads and speed limits have not. In fact, they are more congested now, and if anything, speeds are down. Torque is what moves the car. Torque is what gets you up that hill, against that head-wind, tows that trailer, carries that load full of Big Mac eaters. And granted, cars are heavier now than 14 years ago, but torque at real world rpms, is what still moves that weight. If you don't have VVT and intake track lengths, then 2 and 3 valve per cylinder heads is the cheapest way to torque. Of course that 2.0 won't have the long legs of 16 valvers, but it does have what it takes on on-ramps and real world speeds in a world were ridiculous stunt laws, pulls your licence at only 20 to 30 over.

Chat of 70's era Euro cars and VWdubs reminds me of 2 VW's i had in the 70's. I bought a brand new Dasher in 76. (Basically a Rabbit). That car was quick up to about 65 mph. It would absolutely blow away anything the domestics had in the same class. AAMOF, I fondly remember a race I had with a co-worker. We were welders at a GM van plant and our shift had gotten out. He had a 75 Trans Am, 400 4 speed std tranny, and i had the new Dasher. Well we knew we were going to drag at the lights, and i literally left him in smoke. I think he caught me around 50 mph or so.
I recall the Rabbit ads to this day. 0-50 in 10 sec. Or was it 8.5? I guess my memory is failing. But whatever it was, it was 2 to 3 seconds faster than anything else similar. Vega's and Pinto's were a laughing stock in a race.

The reason I am relating this here is because I think this 115 hp cast iron block slug that VW is using in the new Jetta, is basically that same old engine. Just bored and stroked, but not spectacularly dif I don't think. It certainly owes them nothing.

FF quite a few years, I happen to end up with a hi-miler 77 Rabbit NA diesel. It was not rich in creature comforts but it got me to my big truck day in and night out no matter the weather (I plugged it in at home and at work in the winter).
A VW tech twisted off one of the glow plugs while I was away in the truck. He never got it out, tried this and that and finally after trying to warp my head with his trusty blow torch, i said let me out of here. I ended up dealing that car on new GM S10 diesel in 85.

So my experiences differed than with some of you with VW during that time era. Although to be fair I ended up having to sell the Dasher (while still only 2 years old, i had not one spec of trouble in any way with that car. It was a highway car and just loved getting out on a lone 2 lane and stretch its legs) cuz I was forced to leave my super economical basement apt i had for many years, when the couple upstairs decided to separate and one of them was moving downstairs.

acdii · January 2011

Gas hog? The 2.5 in the Jetta gets 27 mpg combined, this is equal to the Mazda3 with a 2.0, 2 mpg better than the Mazda3 with a 2.5 and 2 mpg less than a Civic with 1.8L.

Is that all? I get near that, 26 MPG, in a 268 HP V6 in daily driving in a Fusion. I get 32 MPG highway in it. My Flex gets 25 MPG highway, 21 MPG daily, and its an Ecoboost 350 HP V6. Seems the 4 banger should be getting better than that.

jeffyscott · January 2011

You are comparing apples (EPA ratings) to oranges (your personal actual mpg).

The apple figure for a FWD V6 fusion is 21 mpg (EPA combined rating), for FWD Flex it is 19 mpg.

jeffyscott · January 2011

It depends on how the automatic trans is programmed. In the case of my Mazda6, I have been very happy with the choices the transmission has made over the last nearly 4 years and I had mostly driven manuals for ~30 years before getting it.

crkyolfrt · January 2011

Is it a 4 5 or 6 spd?

How does it do when your situation in traffic makes like you are trying to fool the tranny? i.e. go to accelerate a bit aggressively, change your mind, hit brakes, then,,ya...decide that you do want to do that aggressive move? Many/most new autos in that situation have to sit there and process just what the driver was really expecting of it. Often for anywhere from .5 to almost 2 whole seconds. That can seem like an eternity when sitting in middle of a busy aggressive intersection while you waited for that last car to clear who blew the red light it had when you are trying to make your left.

backy · January 2011

If you can change gears on a stick shift in a half second, (including reaching for the shifter), you are an exceptional driver!

steine13 · January 2011

I don't think that's a problem at all. There's a lot of time in a second; we don't normally think about it much. The "yellow" on a traffic light typically lasts about two seconds... that can be a pretty long time while you're waiting for the other guy to decide whether to stop or go... you could shift a few times in that.

Plus, with a manual, you know what's going to happen when and can plan accordingly.

A befuddled electronically controlled auto transmission is a very unpleasant situation.

Cheers -Mathias

m6user · January 2011

I would guess that the "two seconds" the auto was trying to figure out what the driver wanted to do was probably not that long. As you say, two seconds can be a long time. I think most yellows are more like three to four seconds...they just seem shorter when you're trying to make them.

I've driven a lot of sticks(probably owned about 10 of them) and have made mistakes like dropping in the wrong gear(fourth instead of second for example) that made things a little scary a few times. I realize that was operator error but still made possible because I had to shift. Probably about the same amount of time that an automatic might take to adjust.

crkyolfrt · January 2011

You are comparing once in a blue moon tho, to every single time you fool an auto.

As has been said (read my example of sitting in the middle of an intersection...you can't envision that very scenario EXACTLY as i described it? It only happens umpteen times a day in busy city traffic)
And in that case an auto could be confused from .5 to 2 seconds. A manual owner will be sitting there IN GEAR, clutch in, just waiting for his chance for the ignorant red light runner to clear the fr of his car so he can get his butt right outtta there. With a manual he can be be CLEAR of the intersection in about 1.5 seconds. The guy with the confused auto at that point might STILL be .5 seconds away from deciding that ya...get me to blazes out of this intersection 'you not so smart tranny'..

If only we could set it up, I could prove this over an over right before your eyes.

Admittedly, the vast majority of the population won't/don't/lack the ability to realize how long .5 sec is when you are waiting for it....let alone 1.5 seconds or more. If you were on a racetrack, or followed a form of racing motorsports as a hobby, that would give u a head start to realizing just how long .5 sec is.

But to put it in another way, a way in which the masses can get their head around, there are numerous You Tubes that show a train slicing vehicles in half. Well .5 seconds is plenty enough to make that difference of a hit vs no hit at all.

akirby · January 2011

Most people don't put themselves in that situation to begin with.

jeffyscott · January 2011

I guess I must not be tricky enough :confuse: , I don't really recall ever befuddling my transmission to the point where it was inoperative while it was thinking what to do for 0.5 to 2 seconds.

crkyolfrt · January 2011

Oh come on...don't give me that...

There is a big difference between the law of staying at the line until the intersection is clear, vs the real world in which creeping out with 2 or 3 cars all managing to finally clear. If everyone did as you are alluding to, you would even have cops in a hurry stuck behind your butt laying on the horn for you to grab indecisiveness another day in another county.

If you quite literally don't know what I am talking about, then you have evidently never actually driven in a small town with lights, let alone a big city.

crkyolfrt · January 2011

Read more and you will discover this actually is quite common out there.

I can save you some time tho to start, just start at the beginning of the thread "Problems with 2010 Equinox". Or take your pic anywhere they are talking about auto trannys. You will also find informative excerpts in "Unintended Acceleration" "Toyota on the Mend in 2010?" and many others.

I've had it happen to me a few times in the last few years just in rentals, as I don't own an auto.

Nothing (certainly no auto on earth) knows what I want to do with my car, and when I want to do it, better than the clutch under my foot and the shifter in my rt hand whose entire mission in life is to sit there waiting for me to instruct which gear it is to engage.

crkyolfrt · January 2011

Is it a 4 5 or 6 spd?

akirby · January 2011

I drive in Atlanta so don't tell me I don't know about traffic. I also drove manuals for over 15 years so I know the difference. And yes, I pull out into the intersection to turn left all the time but I've never encountered the situation you described where the transmission was "befuddled" to the point it was dangerous. You either experienced a bad transmission or you were driving like a maniac. Or you're just exaggerating to make your point that you don't like manuals.

Manuals are fun if you're into that kind of thing but that's about the only advantage they have over modern automatics.

plekto · January 2011

The real issue, isn't any of that, though. It's that the automatic starts out too low and shifts too early to just get good (advertised) MPG ratings. You get a predictable bog bog go go behavior on every shift unless you flog it. With a manual, I can leave it in 2nd and let it rev up and down. There's 0 seconds lag because I never have to shift between 10mph and 40mph.

But the real problem is that an advertised torque figure of 200-250lb-ft or so at 5000+rpm is race track speeds if you calculate the gearing ratios and the throttle required to reach that. ie - the cars are so fast that if you actually hold the thing in gear to reach that rpm, you'll be in the car in front of you's trunk two seconds before you get to that point.

You have to mash it but you can't safely. So the only option is to give up and let it do that it wants. That's why real-world tests often put automatics in modern cars a good 20-30% slower than advertised speeds in real world driving. They just react and rev too slowly compared to a proper manual with much shorter gearing. You can test this easily by just driving a manual Accord in traffic versus the automatic. It's a shocking difference how one merely goes along and the other drives and moves in and out of gaps quickly.

Of course, manuals aren't idiot-proof. They do require some skill. But few things in life worth doing are easy at first.

igozoomzoom · January 2011

They don't call it the 2-point-SLOW for nothing! Did you see the recent review of a 2011 Jetta S 5MT in either Car and Driver or Motor Trend? 0-60mph in 11.0 seconds...and I'd hate to see how long with the optional automatic.

I was shocked when I realized that they had brought back the old dinosaur....there are other things they could have done to reduce the cost without hobbling the car with an engine that cant' keep up with Chevy Aveo! I wonder what a 16v head would do that lump under the hood?

acdii · January 2011

You are comparing apples (EPA ratings) to oranges (your personal actual mpg).

The apple figure for a FWD V6 fusion is 21 mpg (EPA combined rating), for FWD Flex it is 19 mpg.

You kinda missed the point, for a little 4 banger, those numbers are nothing to brag about. The 2.5 4 in the Fusion gets 27 MPG combined. EPA 23/34/27. I checked out the VW's last year, nothing to write home about. They have to do some pretty amazing things to get close to the current competition. Having an average 4 cyl engine isn't going to cut it.

jeffyscott · January 2011

It is a 5 speed.

akirby · January 2011

It's a shocking difference how one merely goes along and the other drives and moves in and out of gaps quickly

I've never had a problem moving "in and out of gaps quickly" in traffic with an automatic.

I like manuals. They're fun and they do give you faster throttle response and more control. But to imply that automatics are unsafe is hogwash.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles