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

1315316318320321544

Comments

  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011
    At only 2 cubic ft less interior room (95. vs 96.8), the new Buick Verano is a Regal killer, IMO. Both are compact cars, believe it or not, since the *interior* space is what the government goes by. IIRC, the break-point is 110 cubic ft, and so while the Regal *looks* mid-size, it's simply not where it counts. There's tons of bloat and excess sheet metal.

    That said, if you consider the Regal to be mid-size in terms of seating and the interior, then the Verano should be a great family sedan. Simply because it's essentially the same drive-train and suspension minus 400 lbs of dead weight. Oh, and 5K in price, since the turbo isn't required to move that extra weight around. That helps, too.

    Note - the new CTS is 98 cubic ft for reference.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    FWIW, EPA actually classifies the 2011 Regal as midsize, with interior "volume" of 98 cf and cargo capacity of 13 cf (total = 111 cf > 110 = midsize).

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011
    Actually, the Regal is 96.8 + 14.2. They basically squeaked in under the wire, probably for marketing purposes.

    Concerning the Cruze
    NOTE : The EPA database is off. It says 94+16. Which is still 110 and should be mid-size. Their site says quite plainly:

    Compact 100 to 109
    Mid-Size 110 to 119

    Actual data directly from GM:
    94.6 Cubic Ft. (interior)
    15.4 Cubic Ft. (trunk)
    (link)
    http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/P- - - ages/news/us/en/2010/Jun/0603_cruzepricing

    Officially it is exactly 110.0 according to GM. This couldn't have been a mistake. They hit the mid-size category by *exactly* what they needed. My guess is that GM is trying to market it as a compact car, yet that's blatantly unfair to the competition. Of course it has a larger interior. And handles better than most actual compacts. It's a size larger.

    The EPA simply has it wrongly classified as compact. This error is going to cost a lot of paperwork to correct, I suspect, since all of the online databases, window stickers, and so on are all wrong(as is GM's marketing). So we might not see it for changed for the Cruze. But we should at least make sure the Verano is right.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    Many of the midsize sedans offer different tire sizes for different models. The ford fusion, I beleive, offers 16" in base, 17" in premium and 19" in sport model. Whether these are correct numbers or not I am asking whether different wheel or tire size will alter the accuracy of the speedometer (and odometer) readings. Is there a computer correction that occurs.
    As an example the difference between the diameter of 16" and 19" tires is 3/16=18.7%. The circumference (2.pi.d) as increased by the same percentage. Would the speedometer be off by that amount?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    No the outer tire diameter will be the same or nearly the same for all those wheel sizes. The bigger sizes mean the wheel diameter is larger, but the sidewall height of the tire is correspondingly reduced.
  • scottphillipscottphillip Member Posts: 249
    I did notice that the Regal wasn't very roomy in the back seat. I wonder when the Verano will be released.... :confuse:
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    edited January 2011
    An example of this is the Mazda6. It also offers 3 different sizes, but the aspect ratio (in other words, the tire's sidewall height) compensates for the different sizes..

    16" wheels - 205/65-16 tires
    17" wheels - 215/55-17 tires
    18" wheels - 235/45-18 tires

    It also allows an owner with 18" wheels to downsize their winter wheels/tires to 17" or 16", as long as the sidewall makes up for the lower size.

    And no, there doesn't need to be any adjustment to the speedometer, odometer, or any electronics.
  • podpod Member Posts: 176
    Good explanation. I didn't think of that and should have. It helps to have other people's insight when you make a bad assumption. Thanks.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    When it comes to the class of cars, they have it all wrong. If you truly look at some of the so called "mid-sized" cars, they are not much bigger than most compacts in interior space, but add in trunk space and voila there you have it a midsize car. I have heard complaints about the lack of trunk space in the Camry Hybrid, yet in the time I owned one, I never was at a loss for trunk space. People room, yes, but never trunk space. Make a midsize car that is wide enough for 3 adults, Like the Crown Vic, and now you have a car! Is it really too much to ask to make the car have 60" of hip room, yet not be as long as a yacht? If you were to take the fusion, or Camry, both have pretty close dimensions, and make it 7" wider, but not change its length, you would have a more stable car, and plenty of room for those of us who need room for 2 car seats and a teenager.

    The Prius made it to midsize category, yet it is barely wide enough to fit 2 car seats in. The bugger has a lot of leg room, isnt very wide, but has a lot of trunk space, so bang, midsize!
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    True about the cars betting narrower. But most of it is actually the silly severely sloped roof line. I had no issues fitting two child seats in the back of a Volvo 240 years ago. Boxy does have its advantages.

    That said, the Cruze and Verano take the other extreme. They take a nearly mid size interior and add a small trunk to it. 14-15 cubic ft is quite tiny, in fact. But they rightly figured that the number of uses for a trunk in a typical sedan is quite limited. Maybe fit a couple of suitcases in it every so often.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    14-15 cubic ft is quite tiny, in fact.

    Pretty common in this class, however. For example, the trunks of some of the best-selling mid-sized sedans such as Accord, Camry, and Malibu, and others such as the Passat and Legacy, are all in the 14-15 cubic foot range. The Altima's is just over 15 cubic feet. So 14-15 cubic feet on a compact car is pretty darn good, IMO.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Note - it's not compact. GM markets it as such, but it's only 1 cubic ft smaller than the Regal inside. The EPA says 110 - 119 is mid-size. The Cruze is 110.0 Their database has it wrongly categorized as compact and GM is all too happy to play along as it gives them an unfair advantage versus cars that are as a rule a lot smaller than it.

    Edmunds has it classified correctly, as do a couple of other automotive sites.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited January 2011
    By overall size, the Cruze is a compact vs. the much bigger cars like Accord, Camry, Sonata, Optima. Cars like that are commonly considered "mid-sized" sedans, vs. those one class down in size, like the Cruze. And Verano.

    I know we have had this discussion on "what is a mid-sized sedan" here before (maybe multiple times), and we agreed back then that "mid-sized" in this context was not interior volume but overall size of the car. Otherwise, since the EPA considers the Versa mid-sized, that would be in this discussion also, even though it's two feet shorter than the typical mid-sized car.

    Also, if we go strictly by EPA volume, we need to kick the Accord (w/o moonroof) and Sonata outta here, since they are in the EPA large-car class by interior volume. Which doesn't make much sense, does it?
  • snowallergysnowallergy Member Posts: 135
    I agree. Pontiac made pretty cars for their time. But the quality wasn't there. Kia makes REALLY nice looking cars. But when I test drive one, confidence is not what comes to mind. And I guess the current and past posts about all of the probelms with the warranty and the cars doesn't help either.

    I think we'll be seeing huge discounts on the optima in the not to distant future.
  • snowallergysnowallergy Member Posts: 135
    I wouldn't say 'H' is 'made' in the US, more like assembled. I don't think they trust american labor that much.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    :sick: Much of the assembly of cars today is done by robots. So I suppose you would say that no manufacturer "trusts" its workers to make (or assemble) a car. Or maybe you only buy the cars that are still hand-made. Aston Martin, maybe? Not one of these mid-sized family sedans, though. I would be surprised if any of them says on its window sticker, 100% of parts manufactured in the USA.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    My first car was an '89 Galant purchased in 1992. It won car of the year in '89. I bought the car with 44k for $5k, drove it 140k and sold it for $2k. It was the base base model - it had a 6 speaker am/fm cass but no A/C. Compared to the Accord I wanted, it was ALOT cheaper, had a pass side mirror, a better stereo, better seats, interval wipers, oh and fuel injection (base Accord for '89 was carbs). I loved that car. It looked a lot like the Accord that came out in '90.
    When I finished college and was looking for my next car, I went back to Mitsubishi to get the Eclipse GSX I always wanted, only to find out they dropped the AWD turbo turned it into FWD wanna-be for another segment of the population.
    I did have a glimmer of hope for them when they brought over the Lancer EVO but then they made it so hard to get a configuration I found desirable I gave up and went to Subaru. I wish them the best of luck.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited January 2011
    Also, if we go strictly by EPA volume, we need to kick the Accord (w/o moonroof) and Sonata outta here, since they are in the EPA large-car class by interior volume. Which doesn't make much sense, does it?
    ****

    Given how they have grown over the last few changes, I'd say, yes, my initial response to seeing the most recent Accord was, and I quote "Wow that's a large car." It's technically mid-sized, but just barely.

    What's really happened is that everything grew by just enough over the last decade to no shift most cars up an entire size class. There are actually very few actual compact cars left for sale in the U.S. Hence why the thread should be "small cars" instead of any EPA derived category.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I think you are getting your discussions mixed up. This is about Mid-Sized Sedans, not compacts (or "small cars"). And not about large sedans, ala 300 and Taurus.

    Today's mid-sized car is bigger than the mid-sized cars of several years ago. That's just the way things are.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I wouldn't say 'H' is 'made' in the US, more like assembled. I don't think they trust american labor that much.

    All cars are global these days. There's not even a big correlation between a US vs. foreign nameplate and the percentage of domestic content. Hyundai is doing quite well employing US citizens, as are most foreign nameplates. The US makes MORE cars now than in many of the years past -- the difference is that a much smaller proportion of those cars is one of the Big 3 nameplates.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Ah. my bad, then. It's getting confusing as the EPA, public, and manufacturers all have different criteria about size. We need a better standard. Though, 3300lbs is pretty hard to swallow as a "compact" as GM is claiming the Cruze is.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Why pick on the Cruze? For years, compacts like the Jetta were in the ~3200 pound range. Also, fyi Chevy's specs on the Cruze from the stats page on the Chevy web site have the most popular Cruze variants, 1LT and 2LT, at 3102 pounds... not 3300.

    At more than a foot shorter than mid-sized sedans like the Accord and Mazda6, IMO it's hard to consider the Cruze a mid-sized sedan even if it does weigh over 3000 pounds and even if its interior volume just barely squeaks over the EPA classification bar for mid-sized cars (with the bar wobbling).
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    To me mid-size certainly would not be a car 7 inches wider than a Fusion or Camry, nor would it have a trunk much larger than 14-16 cf. Those that want those things want a full size car not a mid-size.

    EPA goes by interior volume, IIHS goes by weight, most car sites like Edmunds go by (I believe) overall external size.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I pretty much go by what the manufacturers market the car as. They seem to have a pretty good sense of what category they are competing in. Sure they try to play the edges for an advantage sometimes but I haven't seen one manufacturer catagorize their offerings in a segment I would disagree with. I certainly wouldn't go by EPA interior volume or IIHS weight. Edmunds probably goes by the manufacturers designation from what I've seen.

    I remember a discussion some time back about the Taurus. Some people were trying to say it was a midsized car. That was ridiculous especially when Ford plainly had on their website that it was a full sized sedan. I don't think many rational people would disagree with Ford's description.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    I agree that "compact", "mid-sized", etc should be determined by a cars external size. But, the bureaucrats took over determining size years ago.

    To me, the size indicates how the car will fit in a garage, parking spaces, etc.

    Didn't the manufacturers used to talk about "mid-sized cars with the room of a full size car?" I think that would make more sense to more people.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    That's exactly the message Hyundai used when the 2006 Sonata debuted, and I think Honda also with the 2008 Accord. Likewise, you hear carmakers e.g. Hyundai and Nissan talk about their "compact cars with mid-sized room".
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    EPA has a legal definition for purposes of comparing MPG, this does not mean that anyone else is forced to use this definition. EPA itself even recognizes the limitations of it's size classes and provides alternate categories that they call "market class", stating: "The market class system groups together cars that are similar from the car buyer's perspective".

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Except when the EPA itself makes mistakes and has cars in the wrong classes. That changes the car's numbers and how it's compared. ie - of course the Cruze will do worse against a Civic (where it's usually compared in a "compact car" review/comparison. The size and weight difference is massive, and MPG is terrible as well. As a mid-size sedan, though, it comes off fairly decently. Smaller external package (the Fit and others pull this sort of trick off as well - maximizing space) and does a bit better MPG than the competition.

    If the EPA is going to enforce such rules, they need to at least do it consistently.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    your quote: "For the other 99% of drivers who drive safely I guarantee that transmission response isn't an issue. And don't say you have to drive that way because it's hogwash."

    Apparently it isn't hogwash...

    I have been reading even more cases regarding the point i was trying to make before in post 16086, 16090, 16094, 16112. Here is the link to the comments that have just been posted the last couple days. They are experiencing the exact scenario I described. As you will see, it has already happened to one person while waiting to make a left on a yellow (the very example I first posted about, btw). And is causing very real traffic safety issues. Your 99% comment is not holding water as u will see.

    viper14, "Hyundai Santa Fe Transmission Problems" #342, 22 Jan 2011 9:41 am
    see posts 342, 345, 346 There are likely some prior to that and since maybe also.

    I know there were quite a few posters here who were not able to comprehend this possibly being an issue. (you know who are) I hope they will see that it is in fact a very real issue.

    The above link is with only one model of car. There are many others to choose from if you choose to spend the time to read them.

    Not sure what any of you could possibly refute, but I have no doubt you will try. I recommend replying to this either here:
    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ef6716a/6222

    or here:
    http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2010/04/face-off-traditional-manual-transmission-v- s-manually-shiftable-automatic.html But that is a blog and i would prefer a forum.

    unless there is an even more appropriate forum. I might warn you though, the auto tranny lovers and defenders might find either of those forums, a little out of your comfort zone.

    update - I tried to create a forum called "stick vs auto" but either I am not allowed to, my browser does not support that ability on the site. I found a blog, but I think a forum format is where I would prefer to put my comments defending the manual tranny. If a host would be so kind as to create a "stick vs auto" in a forum and move the relevant posts from here to there, and post the link, it would be appreciated. To save you time, if you want all the relevant post numbers, just ask me and I'll find them for you.
  • acdiiacdii Member Posts: 753
    Even "full size" cars don't have that much room in them. I believe the only car left that has 60 hip room is the Town Car. And that is slated to cease production in 2012. To me a full size car, is a big, RWD land Yacht, and there are very few being made.

    How about this, would you rather have a car that fits 2 car seats, with room in the middle for a teenager, for the infrequent trips where everyone is along for the ride, or would you rather have a minivan/SUV as your daily driver, so you have room for the TA? Me, I would rather have to room in a car than have to have a mini BLEH van, or SuV. There really is nothing wrong with making a car a bit wider, without making it longer or larger.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Cruze and Civic ARE in the same class--compacts. It's not Honda's (or the EPA's) fault that GM didn't make the Cruze lighter than it is. Maybe using an aluminum block engine instead of an iron block would help.

    But as we have tried to say... this is a mid-sized sedan discussion. Not a discussion about porky compacts that have borderline mid-sized interior volumes.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,432
    I doubt I am the only one, but I don't pay much attention to what the EPA calls them, I decide for myself what category a car belongs in. And I think most people "know" where to rank a cruze and a malibu say.

    think of it like a rental car company. They consider a sentra to be full sized these days I think.

    The model name has more to do with categorizing models anyway. Although in my rating system, the Accord is now full size.

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

  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Still, barely squeaking in is still getting past the limit. The EPA is also wrongly calling the Civic a sub-compact, despite it being over the size limit as well (103). So blame the EPA if anything.

    Edmunds goes by EPA categories/size limits and double-check against the actual interior volume. So they correctly classify the Civic as Compact and the Cruze as mid-size. It's the tiniest mid-size car since probably a Volvo 940, but so be it. (it only got in due to its silly square shape adding JUST enough headroom)

    If you compare the car to the Regal, it's clear what happened. They shrunk the front and rear ends. The Verano will be a few inches longer (all styling), so it might look a bit more passable as mid-size. I bet it's classified as Mid-size by Buick ;)
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    If a slight hesitation is the difference between making a turn and getting hit then you're cutting it way too close to begin with. Now if the car goes dead then that's a totally different issue - however that wasn't the original assertion.

    Manuals are not perfect either - you can miss a shift, bog down the engine or lose a clutch and then you're SOL.

    A slight delay in an automatic isn't a safety issue for a safe driver who isn't taking risks. Period.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    My reply to yours can be found here:

    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.ef6716a/6223

    because the hosts do not want this chat here in Midsize sedans 2.0

    My reply there is #6224.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    If a slight hesitation is the difference between making a turn and getting hit then you're cutting it way too close to begin with.

    As a fan of manuals, my wife has always wondered why I "like to shift". I'm not sure that is really it. I don't like the rubbery feeling in the drivetrain of an automatic. I'm currently driving an automatic Acura TL and I really don't like the slight delay when I punch it. Although the car has plenty of power, there is a lag before the big acceleration begins. Now I would think that the actual times that could be the difference in an accident or not would be minuscule.

    I haven't yet driven a DSG--type transmission, but if my theory is correct, I should like that transmission a lot more. Even though the shifts are automatic, there should be no torque converter rubberyness, as the transmission is in direct contact via a dry clutch.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    I had hoped for a reply that wasn't so full of loop holes.
    In your order:
    - 2 seconds is not a slight hesitation - this has already been voted on by the majority
    - going dead may not have been discussed previously even tho it certainly could have been - it goes without saying that going dead is even worse
    - miss a shift? - this is driver error!! - this is why manuals intimidate some drivers that defend autos - give me something I can work with and I will NOT shirk my responsibility behind the wheel by blaming it on something that is out of my control
    - bog down? - again driver error - this is why manuals intimidate some drivers
    - lose a clutch? !! a clutch never just 'goes out' without a fair amount of previous warning. - if the driver ignores the warnings, that, as a general rule, present themselves gradually enough that if u keep ignoring the signs, well what can i say?Again, driver error
    - again with the 'slight' comment? - and again, someone sitting in the middle of an intersection waiting for the last oncoming cars to clear the intersection, is not taking risks!

    So no, no period, IMO.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Edmunds goes by EPA categories/size limits and double-check against the actual interior volume. So they correctly classify the Civic as Compact and the Cruze as mid-size.

    I doubt edmunds goes by EPA categories. Also edmunds has the Cruze as a compact:

    http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/cruze/2011/

    Edmunds also has the Accord and Sonata classified as midsize, not large as EPA does.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    According to edmunds the town car has 58 inches of rear hip room, not 60. For some reason the, I thought identical, Grand Marquis has 2 inches less, 56 inches of rear hip room. The Taurus has 55.8 inches, nearly the same as the Grand Marquis, the Avalon has 56.2, the Impala has 57.2 inches.

    Adding 7 inches to the width is not "making a car a bit wider" that is a huge difference in the width of a car. In terms of rear hip room, 7 inches is about the difference between a Fiesta (49.2 inches) and full size cars like those I mentioned above.

    The wide small car was tried once:

    image
    :)
  • dash5dash5 Member Posts: 421
    Affordable midsized sedans. What are your top 5 in this segment? Havent seen this one in a while so I thought I'd see what others are thinking.

    1. Kia Optima: The car has it all. Good looks, good price, great fuel economy and plenty of power all wrapped up in a solid warranty. Uncompromising value. Drawbacks here include a first year model that hasnt been tested as much as a model in it's 3rd or 4th season. Kia nameplate is a problem for some. Doesnt drive quite as sporty as it looks.

    2. Hyundai Sonata. Same as the Optima only less or more attractive sheet metal depending on your tastes. It's different enough to deserve it's own slot. Less features, more luxury oriented styling and interior.

    3. Ford Fusion. Terrific all around car. Very well reviewed, solid performer and well tested platform. Personally, I feel the styling is only "good".

    4. Honda Accord. Yeah the styling is going in the wrong direction and the car has slipped overall, but it's still a great car imo. Comfortable, very nice interior, plenty of room and extremely reliable.

    5. Suzuki Kizashi. A great car that would be even higher if it had any dealer presence in the US.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,432
    take out the Suzuki, since they only sell about 100 or so per year. It could be the best car in the world (not that it is!) and no one would know, or care!

    Instead, you could swap in the sporty Altima, or the cushy but big selling Camry, neither one of which I really care for.

    I would consider the mazda 6 too. nice car.

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

  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Translation: I love manuals therefore automatic trannys suck. Got it. Let's move on.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    I think that it is wrong in suggesting that all automatic transmissions suck. There are some very good autos out there. What I am saying and I pretty surprised that it doesn't seem to be coming across or comprehended, is that autos basically have more issues than manuals. And as they become increasingly complex in the never-ending search for more fuel economy and driver control, they seem to always have issues of some sort or another. They also generally do not enjoy as much longevity as manuals either. There are some poor manuals out there, but the ratio to poor autos is off the chart.

    But i think my point that autos spending too long processing what is expected of it, at certain times in traffic, is quite a valid safety issue, and IMO, attempts should not be made to minimize it. Now maybe where some here (a minority fortunately) are concerned, it's a non-issue till it affects them personally in a real-world situation. Often that's what it takes to spark an imagination of awareness.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    I think you are correct with your thoughts on DSG type, IMO. Apparently the gear change is very quick. I don't have any experience with a DSG yet to compare to a std shift.

    But no matter where I read about dual clutch electronically controlled trans, none of them advertise the same longevity potential as a basic manual tranny. And if the electronics screw up, they do not shift like a manual does. I might guess that there is some form of limp-home feature but I'm not sure. Even if they do, it will be more complex and limiting than a basic std tranny. And expensive once out of wty.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    I haven't been able to drive the majority of your list so I can't really comment. But I feel Suzuki needs to get off their butt and do something drastic about their presence. Altho, really they should have been on top of this long ago cuz presence takes time and money. I think they should partner up to sell and service with some of the competition. Not direct competition of course, altho auto malls still do well across the board as people cross shop all in the same afternoon and area. When one sale is lost on one, it is gained by another.
    Adding a small addition and shared service bay would keep costs down. And more people could say that they added Suzuki to their shortlist cuz now there is a dealer that can actually service them not as far away as before (as several states even :()
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Of course autos are more complicated and as a result they have more problems. I'm not arguing that point. And I like manuals - my first 3 new vehicles were manuals. We'll just have to disagree on the safety aspect.

    DSGs are basically 2 separate manual transmissions with 2 computer controlled clutches that switch the input shaft from the engine back and forth. One side has gears 1-3-5 and the other has 2-4-6. When you're in 1st gear the odd side is engaged and the even side is already in gear 2 so the 1-2 shift just engages one clutch and disengages the other. Now the odd gears are moved to gear 3 in preparation for the next shift. Other than having 2 internal clutches instead of 1 there isn't any difference from a regular manual.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I'd add the Mazda 6.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    edited January 2011
    I'll count mine down:

    5. Hyundai Sonata - A huge turn-around from the previous model, and selling well to boot. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be the best seller in this class for 2011.

    4. Kia Optima - Slightly more sporty than the Sonata, slightly better-looking than the Sonata IMO, and therefore gets the higher ranking in my book.

    3. Subaru Legacy - Often overlooked by just about everyone that doesn't deal with snow/sleet/slush, and that's a shame. Built well, styling is understated, without the Sonata/Optima flash, but nicely done, and the 2.5GT is a grown-up WRX.

    2. Ford Fusion - As much as a splash the Korean twins have made, Ford has done their absolute best to offer a midsize sedan for all tastes. From the bread-and-butter family car (a nicely-equipped 4-cylinder), to an inexpensive sport sedan (the Sport), to the tree-hugger (the Hybrid), Ford's got it all. It doesn't hurt that the styling is nicely done, interiors are sharp, and the whole package is solid and affordable.

    1. Mazda 6 - Still the "BMW" of the class IMO. Razor-sharp handling, smooth ride, powerful brakes, direct and nicely-weighed steering, and the power of the V6 is simply intoxicating, and it's smooth all the way to redline, with a healthy growl to get the point across. Interior is simple, elegant, and driver-focused, with excellent materials and fit-and-finish. Still the most fun-to-drive in this class, offers a lot of passenger space, a huge trunk, and the polarizing styling is refreshing in a class full of *yawn*. It's so good, I'm on my second one! :)
  • shabadoo25shabadoo25 Member Posts: 232
    The interiors are not sharp on the Ford Fusion. They are way too cheap and tacky looking for a car that options up to $30k.

    Also, the Mazda 6 may be a blast to drive, but there is nothing going on looks-wise there at all.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    edited January 2011
    The interiors are not sharp on the Ford Fusion. They are way too cheap and tacky looking for a car that options up to $30k.

    That's your opinion. I beg to differ. The Sport interior that I almost bought was nicely laid out. The leather seating and stitching was very classy, and the dash and center console was solidly built, with switchgear that didn't feel cheap.

    Also, the Mazda 6 may be a blast to drive, but there is nothing going on looks-wise there at all.

    Hence the reason why I said "polarizing". Love it or hate it, it was a refreshing change in a class full of vanilla when introduced in '09. The same can now be said for the Sonata and Optima IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.