Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Have you recently leased or purchased a Lexus sedan or SUV? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 19 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
Have you recently purchased (not leased) a subcompact sedan (such as a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Chevy Sonic or Ford Fiesta)? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by Wednesday, December 26 and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

Midsize Sedans 2.0



  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,924
    Image the 88 accord with 98hp and 4) 200 lb people in it

    You are missing the point. What was the 0-60 time of that 1988 Accord, even with the LX-i's fuel injected engine? Nowhere close to 5.6 secs, no matter how light it was. Yet people loved that car, and managed just fine.

    My wife's 2007 Sonata had "only" 162 hp and a 4-speed slushbox. Yet it was more than quick enough to move out when needed. Her new 2013 has 198 hp, but the car is about the same weight as the 2007. And of course the Sonata can be had with over 270 horses.

    Do people buy these mid-sized sedans to take them drag racing on weekends, or schlep from home to work to the mall? I think mostly the latter. Not sure how all that power helps there.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 399
    I agree it would be a hassle, it was more a tounge in cheek comment. I really don't know why they would offer it here and not there, my guess would be the dealers say nobody buys them, so they aren't offered ( proving their point as they are not available, like wagons etc. )
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Ford's Hermosillo plant leads the company in manufacturing quality. High USA wages don't guarantee anything.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 4,008
    edited February 2013
    That might well be true. But some people, like me, would somewhat prefer if more of the money they spent on a car stayed in the US working here. But for many that's not a consideration. Everyone gets to make their own choice....+++ And the Fusion is a great looking car with a lot of plusses, including the best braking time that I've seen.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • I just recently read in a Motor Trend article that Mazda is going to be offering the Touring trim level with the manual as well, so I hope there's some validity to that. Unfortunately, it includes a bunch of equipment I could probably live with if I absolutely had to (vinyl seats, 19 inch wheels, "Commander Switch", etc.), but still doesn't give me entry to the sunroof (presently available only on the Grand Touring). I wish Mazda would just go the track Ford/GM/Chrysler have in the past and offer a sun/sound package on the base model. Problem solved.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    edited February 2013
    I've never really understood the whole automated manual concept myself. I remember driving a new Dodge Stratus w/Chrysler's "Autostick" back in the late '90s and thinking afterward, "Why would anyone want one of these?" Thought the same thing when I test drove a VW with "Tiptronic" a few years later. And then again with an A3 dual clutch paddle shift a couple years after that. Since then, I think I've driven 20 or so different models - domestic and foreign - with some form of automated manual in them. And what's to say? They're still automatics (and I dislike them for all the same reasons).

    I kind of wonder why manufacturers even bother with them. The percentage of automatic drivers who actively use them has to be smaller than the number of folks driving regular manuals. My parents, for instance, weren't even aware their new Volvo XC70 had a "Geartronic" shiftable auto until I pointed it out to them - 9 months after they brought the car home. They still don't use it (and I suspect they're probably glad they don't have to).

    If I was forced to drive a slushbox, I wouldn't be in hunting in this segment anyway. There's a Chrysler dealer a block from my house and I'm forced to drive past a row of shiny new Chargers every day I leave home. To each his own, but that's the most attractive vehicle on the road today IMHO (even beats the new 6). And with Chrysler's never-ending rebateathon, a brand new HEMI model (with my requisite sunroof) can often be had for under $27K.

    Like overweight ladies, I really wish I loved automatic transmissions. Life would be so much easier - there's certainly no shortage of them.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,550
    I think the issue here could be geography. There is no way I am going to pump a clutch in DC traffic. It's hard on me and hard on the car. However, on the rare occasion that the beltway/395/95 highway is clear, I enjoy a spirited cruise. I don't own the turbo, but I do like to decelerate with my "slushbox" in manual, keep the rev's up, and shoot through a corner on full boil in 3rd then back to auto.
    The Optima Turbo does not have a real dual-clutch automated manual either. It is the exact same 6 speed auto that is in the EX 2.4, with flappy paddles added on.

    You use the term "slushbox" a lot, and it reminds me of the days of the "turbo-hydromatic" 3-60E GM 3 speed automatic. Today's 6-speed auto units are far more advanced, and extremely durable.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,550

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • 2012 Toyota Camry SE Special Edition (2012 only) - basically an SE V6 package with the 4 cylinder engine. They only made them for 4 or 5 months last year. They are loaded with sunroof, nav, entune but not leather and no rear camera (dammit). Several available if you shop around.
    MSRP 27k (or so); sell price 23.5k (clearance)
    residual 15077 (for 12000 miles per year)
    money factor 0.00001 (yes, that is very low)
    Dealer offer: 35 payments of $262 (includes 6.5% sales tax) with absolutely zero o-t-d
    This weekend (additional $500 from TFS): payment reduced to 249
    Rationale for why i passed:
    1. after driving a few cars with the rear camera, i am hooked
    2. fear of having to replace the 18 inch tires before/at the end of the lease
    Back to the Accord forum...
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,924
    You forgot the #1 reason re "why not this deal?"...

    IT'S A CAMRY!!! :P

    Although it's a good lease price compared to something like a 2013 Accord LX (which is going for $289/mo with 0 out of pocket in my town), there's comparable lease deals on better, newer cars e.g. Passat SE, Sonata GLS w/PEP, and Optima LX. Add an aftermarket nav system for $100 and drive happy w/o the pitfalls of the 18" wheels. No moonroof, but payment will be less than $249 also. You might find a Sonata Limited or Optima EX for around $250/mo--I haven't shopped those trim levels.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Well that's a totally different issue.
  • I currently drive a 2011 Sonata GLS and the lease is up in 2 months. I drove the Accord and this particular Camry (back to back) and was surprised that the Camry SE with the 18 inch wheels and lower profile tires did not have a harsh ride. The deal is sweet but the downsides were enough to keep me shopping.
    BTW, the lease deals on the Accord are 255 LX, 284 EX with first and fees down here in OH. Still no cash incentives from honda and the Sport model of the Accord is the prime seller. Time is still on my side for a little while...
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    I got the point :)

    I loved the 88 accord too.

    My point was it was 800 lbs lighter (2500 lbs). So in the 'olden' days 98hp adequate.

    You 'need' more now with heavier vehicles; more hp, more gears etc. 98hp in the current Accord would be like adding 800lbs in the 88 Accord...a show stopper.

    "Need" is very subjective when automobiles are involved; I too have been guilty of "need"...But recently I explicitly looked for a 4cyl in my current vehicle...bypassing the V6. After many years stuck in traffic in 300+hp cars I figured what's the point :)
  • Geography can be an issue. But Minneapolis has its fair share of traffic too - especially when you work downtown and live in the 'burbs. My current commute after a recent move is a cinch - about 10 minutes. But my old commute across the metro was 45 minutes to 2+ hours, depending on traffic and weather. And I had a stick (and still didn't want an automatic). Yes, having to operate a clutch can be constant in heavy traffic, but I never really thought of it as a form of torture.

    Automatics, on the other hand, are a form of torture (in my opinion - we can agree to disagree). And the more speeds they have, the worse the torture (I actually prefer CVTs to traditional planetary gearset transmissions when it comes to modern automatics). It seems like whenever I'm in a rental, the thing's never in the right gear in traffic. Modern automatics upshift way too early (indeed I understand it saves fuel) and when you turn a corner and hit the gas, there's always that moment of pause (during which I admittedly have a tendency to punch the accelerator ) before it kicks down a couple of gears and rockets forward. Annoying.

    I've had salespeople tell me that transmission electronics can predict my behavior. I kindly disagree. And then invariably they tell me their transmission can predict my behavior. Whatever.

    I just like manuals and the days of manuals are going away. I've got plenty of years ahead of me to drive automatics. Eventually, we'll all be forced to. I just want to enjoy that extra control behind the wheel while I still can.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    edited February 2013
    No, I think you're still missing his point. IMO his point is that back in the day we thought 9-11secs or more to 60mph in a economy car was just fine. Now we complain if it's over 7 secs. Everyone knows cars have gotten heavier due to general size, crash safety standards and add equipment. But the HP has way more than kept pace with weight gains. Don't get me wrong, I like the pep just fine. But the point was our expectations of how fast a car is has changed. We would not be satisfied with todays cars with just enough hp to go 0-60 in 9-11secs.

    Heck, a 1982 Accord LX took almost 13 secs 0-60mph. Don't think that would go over too well today.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,924
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 4,008
    edited February 2013
    My first car was a 1969 VW Bus. 0-60 in c. 22 seconds. I'm not kidding.

    Today my 2008 Honda Accord 4 cylinder 5 MT is considered somewhat slow, but it gets to 60 in somewhere around 8.5 seconds.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,924
    edited February 2013
    And here I thought the VW Bus was... a bus! Come to find out it's a mid-sized sedan! ;)

    Who is it who considers your 2008 Accord "somewhat slow"? You? Or the guys at C/D who drag race their V6 Accords, using launching techniques that are clearly "do not attempt this at home"?
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I own a 2001 Odyssey and have had to replace the transmission 3 times already

    When I was getting my transmission rebuilt (actual rebuilder since it was a special model GM car), it turns out that this guy also was the best rebuilder in the country for Hondas and where all of the dealerships in Southern California were sending their work to.

    Long story short. In Japan, the Odyssey is sold with a 4 cylinder engine only. When they brought it to the U.S., they put a V6 in it, but they didn't re-design the transmission since it was within spec.

    But add fat Americans (relative to Japanese people), heavy loads, quick starts and MUCH faster driving than in Japan and the clutch packs simply burn themselves out due to not being able to handle the extra torque and weight. Evidently according to him, this affects almost all 6 cylinder cars from Honda as it's a major cost to design a brand new transmission for a V6 which only gets sold in the U.S. The Odyssey is a definite "don't even consider buying it" according to him. As in sell it before it fails again.

    The CVT, he's not a fan of.(well, he makes good money off of them... just saying...) Shocker. New untested technology. Who would have guessed?

    The skinny on Honda? Manual or 4 cylinder only.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    I see your point :)

    I remember borrowing an 89 Civic Si from a relative to drive some friends...everyone was amazed at how fast it was; 0-60 in mid 8's

    btw...very fun to drive
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,550
    I had a 94 Integra, and 142 HP was awesome at the time for that size engine.

    It handled like it was on rails. My 6'2" frame fit great in the Integra, but not in my brother-in-laws 94 Civic EX. Funny, since the the 94 Integra IS a Civic.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,437
    You are absolutely right. Most people incorrectly adjst their side mirrors so that they can see the side of their car in the mirror. They should be adjusted so that as soon as the car in back begins to disappear from the rear view mirror it immediately appears in the side mirror. Also, a quick glance over your shoulder for good measure does not hurt.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    What about Acura with all the V6s they use? Haven't heard about a lot of transmission problems there. Do they use an entirely different tranny than Honda uses in the Accord/Odyssey/Pilot? Why don't they just use the Acura tranny if that can handle the 300+ HP of the TL SHAWD and the MDX?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    Yes, all these people that complain about blind spots and ghost cars make me laugh. How do they think all the cargo van and truck drivers avoid accidents? They can't see a lick out the back on either side. They use their mirrors correctly. The only time they can't see a car behind is if it's right on their bumper. That's why they have a little sigh on the back that says something like "if you can't see my mirrors I can't see you". Reversely, if you can see their mirror they CAN see you. Why? Because they have the damn things adjusted correctly. If you do there are no blind spots.

    I have a friend who didn't have their mirrors adjusted correctly but they were so stubborn they just wouldn't believe they "weren't doing it right". I stood outside their car about where a car on the left would be passing and stood where the drivers side bumper would be approximately just as it would disappear from the rear view mirror. I told them to look in their side mirror and they couldn't see a thing but the side of their car. Had him adjust the mirror out, and out, and out some more until they could see me standing there. I told him that is where your mirror should be adjusted. His response, "well I can't see the side of my car now". I said why the hell do you want to see the side of YOUR car, do you have some sort of fetish or something? You want to see lane next to you. Same goes for the other side of the car. He is finally a convert.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,550
    edited February 2013
    This is what I paid on 12/28/11 for my car.

    2012 Optima EX MSRP: 24,260.

    Negotiated $21,860, plus $1000 to extend basic powertrain 100k warranty to 100k bumper to bumper.

    SO $22,860 with leather, zebrano wood, and all the goodies except heated seats, power pass seat, and Navi. Added $100 Garmin from Best Buy.

    -Dealer included all weather floor mats on top of the carpeted ones already included
    -Rubber/plastic trunk tray
    Bumper "applique"

    Added Lojack $500.

    Dealer paperwork/ doc-prep $250.

    $ 23,710

    zero down or trade (sold my Jeep outright)

    60 mos X 4.5% financing and 4.5% tax = $2110 + 23710 = $25,820 Total of Payments

    monthly payment = $432 mo.

    The VA tax was $1055. My rate of 4.5% and the tax rate of also 4.5% was a coincidence.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    As I mentioned, the 4 cylinder transmission design can handle normal driving with a V6. It's when you add in 6+ people and/or cargo that things go bad. Since almost all Acuras only have 3 or 4 people in them at most and aren't carrying cargo, Honda manages to get away with it without a redesign.

    Also, most of the minivans and SUVs are 500-1000lbs heavier than a typical sedan. The fact remains that Honda transmissions fail a lot more than their competition if you have a vehicle with a V6 in it.

    IME, though, Honda manuals are almost video game easy to drive and the performance of an Accord or similar with a manual and a 4 cylinder engine is the same as with a V6 and automatic in actual driving around town. Loads less to break and less money spent.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,181
    In case you didn't know it the MDX is a SUV and has over 300hp and can seat 7 people and I'm sure they are loaded to gills at times. Since they have the SHAWD I'm sure they are also driven hard by many owners. The transmission should at least be built to withstand the rigors of the weight capacity of the vehicle. I haven't heard of any major problems with the MDX which probably weighs close to the Odyssey as well.

    I realize that Honda and Acura if I recall had some problems with transmissions in the early 2000s from like 2011-2003 but haven't had any major issue since then so this may be an old problem that you are "warning" people about.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,550
    edited February 2013
    Hey guys. Have you all seen the new Lincoln MKZ? I know this is mid-size sedans, but we all know that it's a Fusion underneath. The last MKZ was almost stupidly half-a**, but this one is something else. It deserves the Lincoln name, and I hope Ford can pull off it's new "Lincoln Motor Company" strategy. -

    Here is a link to C/D first drive. I love it. Make mine black and it looks like a modern bat-mobile.

    Also, read the full review of the 2014 Mazda6. I like it. It looks great in red and the instrument cluster is very BMW looking. Also, the side view reminds me of the Monte-Carlo's of '75-' a good way.

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Since the Accord's CVT is a new design for Honda, I would wait a few years to see if Honda has worked out any potential "bugs" in it

    Car testers of various publications do not like CVT transmissions.

    I own a 2001 Odyssey and have had to replace the transmission 3 times already.

    Have a 2000 Ody with 87K miles. Transmission has been perfect, no problems. Never drive abusively, though I have helped some folks do moving, loading up the Ody with furniture, cabinets, dressers, etc. Never have towed anything with it.

    In my and wife sample of 6 V6 equipped Hondas and Acuras, still have 3 (Acuras, Ody), the auto transmissions have been perfect. In over half million miles of driving.

    An 86 Accord (4 cyl of course) we had, the auto transmission did fail at 217K miles and needed a rebuilt replacement from Honda. I think 217K failure was acceptable back in the 1990's.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 4,008
    Some Odyssey transmissions 10+ years ago were bad. No doubt about it. And it took them a while to get the design down. But for the last few years Honda autos have been more rugged and longer lasting.

    I think the new CVT will be long lasting too, but it's true that it's a new design and so it's something of an unknown. I read somewhere that Honda put huge R & D into the composite material belt of their new CVT to make it last longer. In other words, it's designed to take it and last.

    Honda manuals are the best in the biz. Better than BMW many say....
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2018 Honda CR-V EX AWD (wife's)
Sign In or Register to comment.