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

1120121123125126544

Comments

  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    I am in agreement with you. I merely posted the fact both the Sonata are Accord are classified as full-size. It should be noted, however, both still compete with others in the midsize family sedan category.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    who cares what EPA "size class" is. It is a silly way to classify cars.

    I agree. EPA's standard depends on standards used by automakers. And while cabin volume is measured based on legroom, headroom and shoulder room (the three are multipled, front and back, with inch converted to ft), trunk volume is something that doesn't seem to follow a standard. Some use SAE method, others use VDA, and this little known fact creates discrepancies. Trunks perceived to be large may not really be larger. It would depend on the standard used by automakers.

    PS.
    SAE method uses fine grain substance/sand/water to fill up the space. The volume used is the specified volume. So this includes every nook and cranny (not necessarily usable space).

    VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie) method uses standard size wooden block and depending on how many make it, their volume determines the volume of the space. This results in a lower number but is more indicative of "useful space".

    Edmunds has tried quoting both but they seem to have gotten the numbers mixed up. For example, they quoted 2008 Mercedes C350 as having 16.8 cu ft trunk under VDA (should be SAE) and 12.5 cu ft trunk under SAE (should be VDA). MB uses VDA method, as does Honda. Many European automakers will quote both. Others, one or the other.

    In this case (C350), VDA to SAE discrepancy is a whopping 34% (4.3 cu ft).
  • baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    I merely posted the fact both the Sonata are Accord are classified as full-size. It should be noted, however, both still compete with others in the midsize family sedan category.

    All good to know. Well, at least for the crazies like us that post on these forums. ;)

    That last sentence is why I said I'd consider the Accord last if I were shopping for a full-sizer. Even though the Taurus and Avalon are priced a bit higher they offer a lot more space which is why you would want a full-sizer in the first place most likely.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    You're in the car business so I'm sure you know more about how accurate KBB is... I'm sure KBB is just a guide, kind of like the weatherman. Thing is, even though the weatherman is often wrong, I still listen cuz it's better info than what I could usually come up with on my own.

    I don't fault anyone for listining to KBB, how can I? Even before I was in the biz, I thought they were accutate too! What is hard is convincing potential customers that KBB is inacurate, and they can only be used a slim guide line.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    I merely posted the fact both the Sonata are Accord are classified as full-size.

    Accord is classified as midsize with sunroof and as full size without sunroof.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Accord is classified as midsize with sunroof and as full size without sunroof.

    and, don't forget, it is classified by EPA as a compact in the coupe. Which I only point out to illustrate the silliness of relying on EPA to decide what class a car is in.

    Here's more: Midsize per EPA includes Nissan Versa and Sentra...with the Altima that makes three.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The EPA classes can be of help in identifying cars to consider. For example, if someone is looking for the most room for their bucks, they could look at "mid-sizers" like the Versa, Sentra, and Elantra and "full-sizers" like the Accord LX and Sonata. But don't forget those that are on the periphery. For example, the Optima is 1 whopping cubic foot less in volume than the full-sized Accord LX. The Camry is real close to the magic 120 cubic foot mark also. So the Optima and Camry are mid-sized per the EPA while the Accord LX is full-sized. But in terms of usable space, there's not much difference.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    When I was looking, I of course wanted adequate space to be comfortable in the front. Back seat comfort needed to only be basic... enough for leg room and elbow room for two 6 footers. More important to me was how the interior space could be configured for hauling things. Previously, I had a wagon and fell in love with it's versatility. I wasn't crazy about the looks of a wagon though (got sick of being called a soccer-dad), so when I found a Mazda6 hatchback, I was instantly intrigued.

    It looked as good as the sedan, in fact in some ways, I like it better. The hatch opening was huge which would allow putting in very large cargo very easy. The seats folded down extremely easily...from the rear bumper, there are two switches that when pulled, the spring loaded seats fall forward; from the rear doors, there are buttons by the headrest that also make the back seats fall forward. With the rear seats folded down, the floor was flat which was great for pushing boxes back without getting hung up when loading through the hatch.

    Mazda did a great job making space comfortable when transporting multiple people and also making the space cavernous and easily useable when needed to haul things around. And even better, they did all this while maintaining the Mazda6's great looking exterior. They even put several tie down points which kept my lawnmower from rolling around when I took it into the shop... very smart. All this talk about EPA rated sizes was of little importance to me because it does not take into account of how space can be used The Mazda6 hatchback is a great example of how different ways of looking at how space can be better utilized can result in a much more handy product.
    image
    image
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I agree, the Mazda6 hatch is a great package. I almost bought one back in 2004, but back then the discounts on the then-new hatch were almost nil, so even the 6i hatch cost a LOT more than the car I chose, an Elantra hatch (which isn't a lot smaller in usable space). I hope Mazda offers the 2009 Mazda6 as a hatch in the U.S.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Well said. EPA does use a different classification for wagons (and yet another for light trucks) but then I don’t know if a hatchback is classified under cars or wagons because it is an in-between thing.

    As far as EPA’s definition is concerned, I’m not sure of the real purpose. But if they must use a standard for whatever purpose, I think it should be based on a standard (as opposed to letting automakers use their own around cargo volume, payload, towing etc).
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Actually, the thought of government agencies making random judgment calls that are seemingly based on nothing doesn't bother me as much as the fact that all the ratings on passenger car tires are "self evaluated" by tire manufacturers and then used for marketing. Of course those ratings are based on more random government standards, but oh well.
  • pinehurst2pinehurst2 Member Posts: 13
    Yea - OK - but you have no trunk. I'd rather isolate my stuff in a trunk than give it up for the one time in a hundred a hatch would be more convenient.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Items in Mazda6 Hatch are isolated. They are secure.

    You can not get into the hatch/trunk are without going thru the parcel shelf.
    Hatch has to be open in order to move the parcel shelf.
    Latches to move rear seatsbacks up is in hatch area and not in the passenger cabin.

    100 times out of 100 I have the option of greater utility than the sedan with "trunk".
  • pinehurst2pinehurst2 Member Posts: 13
    Items in Mazda6 Hatch are isolated. They are secure.

    Yeah, OK. And there's this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in....

    Hatchbacks are dead in America. Wonder why?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Hatchbacks are dead in America. Wonder why?

    "SUVs"... the new "station wagon".
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Hatchbacks are dead in America. Wonder why?

    Ignorance!

    You should share your knowledge of hatchbacks being dead with-

    Toyota

    Nissan

    Honda

    Scion

    Saab

    Volvo

    MINI

    Dodge

    Mazda

    Pontiac

    Hyundai

    Mitsubishi

    Audi

    Saturn

    Volkswagen

    Smart

    &
    Suzuki

    They did not get the memo.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Hatchbacks are dead in America. Wonder why?

    Because they're not. Here's a partial listing of hatchbacks available now or that will be introduced soon. Automakers wouldn't make all these hatchback models if there were no demand for them:

    Honda Fit
    * Nissan Versa
    Mazda3
    * Mazda6
    Toyota Yaris
    Toyota Matrix
    * Toyota Prius
    * Scion xB
    Scion xD
    * Hyundai Elantra Touring
    * Kia Spectra5
    Kia Rio5
    Suzuki Reno
    Suzuki SX4
    Audi A3
    MINI Cooper
    Chevy Cobalt
    Dodge Caliber
    Pontiac Vibe
    Saturn Astra
    Smart cars
    Subaru Impreza
    Volkswagen Rabbit
    Volvo C30

    (The ones with * are mid-sized per EPA stats.)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    If I really needed a lot of interior storage space, I would have bought a CRV. I would not want something dirty, or smelly (lawn mower for instance) in the interior with me though. For things like this, and for larger objects (washer, dryer, fridge) that will not fit in a hatchback or SUV, I have a truck. No need for a hatchback, in my case.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    True, a SUV or crossover would give me superior cargo carrying capacity. But an important characteristic that I was wanting besides a large cargo area was a car with good handling. With a higher center of gravity (which is why SUV's are much more likely to get into a dangerous rollover than a car) handling is compromised too much to the point where I think I would be sacrificing both fun and safety. The unique appeal of the Mazda6 hatchback is that I can have great handling and lots of cargo space while still having a very nice looking exterior.

    To the people who have said that they don't want to put dirty things in the hatch for fear of getting things dirty or making the inside smelly, I haven't had that problem. Nor have most of my friends and family who have SUV's to haul things around. It's not that hard to wipe off a plastic, waterproof cargo mat. And as long as I'm not hauling manure around, it's not going to smell that bad for long. Besides, I've discovered the wonderful Febreeze does wonders at freshening the inside of the car.

    Some may say, "Well just buy another vehicle..." Thing is, I spent the 4 thousand bucks I saved on my Mazda6 vs a comparibly equipped Accord or Legacy on a plasma HDTV, a DSLR camera, a high backed queen bed frame, a coffee table, car mounted gps, a portable DVD player, a queen mattress, and a years worth of car insurance (all of which fit in my hatchback btw :shades: except the queen mattress which came w/ free delivery anyway). Plus I don't have a good place to park a truck, and I hate having trucks stacked outside my house (I think it looks not too good). And really, I've yet to need to borrow anyone's truck for my needs since I've had my Mazda6 hatchback since everything I've wanted has fit in it which would suggest that I don't need a truck...
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    So I was discussing my disappointment with some aspects of the Accord with one of my friends and he suggested the Acura TSX A-spec suspension components. He also mentioned the Acura crowd seems to go to a larger rear sway bar as well.
    I also found a Mugen short throw shifter, but I think its 6speed only. Is there a forum that discusses this type of thing?
    I think that would allow the car to remain mostly OEM but a lot more fun to drive.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Never-mind I found it and reposted
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    re 6296
    They are only "dead" to those who have never used them. Anyone who has owned a hatchback will almost always want to keep one. It is a shame that so many manufacturers would rather try to force their "brilliant" ideas on the customers, rather than listen to what they (customers) really want.
    :)
    van
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I'd rather isolate my stuff in a trunk

    I always wonder what this sort of statement is about. The other one that I hear (and don't really get) is that a trunk is "more secure".

    I have a sedan now as does my wife. But we have had a hatchback, a wagon, and a couple minivans in the past. I never recall wishing for a trunk, when we did not have one.

    I bought the maxda6 sedan over the hatch, because the price was $1000 lower, there was more headroom in the back seat, it came without a wing, and we expect our old minivan to be around for quite a while.

    What is it that you carry around that needs "isolating"? Honestly, I am curious about this because it seems to be a pretty common preference.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I totally understand what is meant. I had a hatchback and could hold a lot of stuff relative to the size of the car. But it had some downsides as well. I wouldn't get another hatchback.
  • goodegggoodegg Member Posts: 905
    I totally understand what is meant. I had a hatchback and could hold a lot of stuff relative to the size of the car. But it had some downsides as well. I wouldn't get another hatchback.

    Again I agree with KD. I wouldn't want a hatchback on a midsize sedan. Maybe on something smaller like a Fit.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Thankfully, most manufactures thought of you (except for Toyota) by allowing you to get a hatchback, sedan, and occasionally a wagon in a midsize package.
    I think its kind of silly to say "they shouldn't make hatchbacks because I don't want one." One buys a car based on their perceived needs and the perceived value of the vehicle. Sometimes its a matter of utility, sometimes its a matter of practicality, some times its image...it doesn't matter.
    People don't think midsized cars should be manuals, and thankfully for them, there are a plethora of lifeless slushboxes for them to choose from. For those that don't like hatches, there are a number of other body styles.
    Until a few years from now when Toyota takes over the world and starts telling us what we want, there are enough options out there to keep most people relatively happy.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Does a CRV Zoom Zoom?
    Mazda6 handles better than any CRV or other SUV that I've driven. Why buy a SUV when a midsize car handles better, obtains better mpg, and costs less.
    I did not buy a midsize hatchback so I could haul lawn mowers or washers. It sure is nice when I was traveling and my wife wanted to buy a cedar chest. No problem hauling it in the 6 with the hatch closed. It would not have fit in a 6 with a trunk.
    Why buy a sedan Mazda6 over a hatchback Mazda6?
    I see no reason.
    Too bad there is not an Accord and Altima 5 door.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Does a CRV Zoom Zoom?

    The Mazda6 is a FWD midsize sedan, in case you've forgotten. It doesn't handle like a true sports car will. A hatchback does not have the cargo capacity of an SUV/Crossover either. A pretender on both counts. So you really can't have it all. I prefer to use a car for hauling people, and a truck for hauling large things. Hatchback? No thanks.
  • pinehurst2pinehurst2 Member Posts: 13
    Why buy a sedan Mazda6 over a hatchback Mazda6?

    Because a hatchback doesn't isolate nasty or smelly etc. cargo from the cabin like a trunk does. Dust from bags of concrete comes to mind. Or carry-out/doggy bags left in the car for a while. Or a gas can for the lawnmower. Or anything stinky or dusty or in disarray.

    Or anything __________________ (fill in the blank).
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    I prefer to use a car for hauling people, and a truck for hauling large things. Hatchback? No thanks.

    Is your dislike for hatchback subjective or objective?

    Using the example of Mazda6, Is there ANYTHING that sedan does better than hatch?

    Sedan does not secure or isolate cargo any better than hatch.
    Sedan does not handle better than hatch.
    Sedan is not quieter than hatch.
    Sedan does not get better mileage than hatch.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Actually, trunk and hatch isolates in the same way, with the seatbacks and with barrier between top of seatbacks and rear window. There is cover over the top of trunk contents, there is a cover over top of hatch contents.

    Do a smell test, or dust test, or anything _______________ (fill in the blank) and you will find out your bag of dogs smells the same in trunk or in hatch.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    It's not that I have a problem with a hatchback. It's just that I don't need one. I would not buy a particular car, because it has a hatchback version. That would limit your choices in this segment. If I could only have one vehicle, it would have to be a truck. If I buy a fridge or sofa, I want to haul it myself. A hatchback just can't do that.
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Member Posts: 214
    I've owned a couple hatchbacks and was always amazed by how much stuff one would haul. If we were all rich, we could just drive sports cars and hire someone with a truck to haul goods or a limousine to haul passengers for us. Many SUVs are just used as glorified station wagons. Hatchbacks are very common and much more popular in Europe (having lived there 5 years) than here because cost/size/efficiency is more critical there. The drawbacks I have noted in a hatchback include slightly more noise/rattle prone and slightly less rigid frame. Neither is a big deal. The Mazda6 hatch is a particularly nice-looking hatchback in my opinion. A hatch may not fit everyones' desires but it definitely has its advantages.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If I buy a fridge or sofa, I want to haul it myself. A hatchback just can't do that.

    No, it can't. But I can rent a truck for those rare times when I need one. The other 363-4 days a year, I prefer the handling and fuel economy of a sedan or hatchback--like the mid-sized sedans we are discussing here.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    The pix posted earlier of the Mazda 6 Hatchback looked really good. I've also seen the previous gen. Elantra hatchback and it looks really good. These are not the hatchbacks of the early 80's GM cars.

    They offer a nice choice in a mid size car. (My Sonata is, of course, a sedan.)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Do I sense a little hostility?

    Can I not mention why I personally don't need a hatchback? Or why it just will not suffice, in my case? Most Americans do own trucks, and don't need to haul things in their cars. Can I fit a sheet of plywood in it? Nope.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    The Mazda6 is a FWD midsize sedan, in case you've forgotten. It doesn't handle like a true sports car will. A hatchback does not have the cargo capacity of an SUV/Crossover either. A pretender on both counts. So you really can't have it all.

    Yes it is a midsize sedan that is targeted at families who want comfort and practicality, so no it was never meant to be a true sports car. But as a midsize sedan, it handles better than the other cars in this class. As automobile.com writes, "Grip is very, very good, tenacious you might say, right up to the point where the front end pushes, telling you to lighten up. And this doesn't occur until you've reached competition-level speeds. Other mid-size sedans lose grip far sooner than the Mazda6." Even though I've owned this car close to a couple years now, I am still amazed at how well this car handles considering at how comfortable it is to ride in. I just took my grandmother to do some shopping today and never felt the ride would leave her feeling uncomfortable. In fact she commented that she found the seats very supportive and comfortable to ride in...

    Having a midsize car to me is about the mix of practicality, value, and still having a vehicle that can be fun to drive. That's why I was not interested in buying a truck; it is neither practical (higher fuel costs, less comfort, harder to get around on congested roadways) nor fun to drive. If having a car that is fun to drive isn't an issue, SUV's, crossovers or even minivans really make more sense for people movers. But when it comes to midsize sedans, hatchbacks add an extra dose of practicality that your average family or individual can take advantage of which only adds to the value of a Mazda6 hatchback.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If you sensed hostility, it was just you... none was intended. There was in my post though a little reminder that this discussion is acout mid-sized cars, not trucks. Many of us need to occasionally haul big stuff like sofas or plywood. My choice was to go with a mid-sized car (hatch) and rent or borrow a truck when I need one--which is once or twice a year. You made a different choice. That's all there is to it... no reason for hostility.
  • bruuklinbruuklin Member Posts: 29
    I need to buy a new car. Right now we have a 2006 Accord (4cyl) and an old, dying 1997 Nissan Sentra. The Sentra must go.

    More than anything, as boring as it may sound, we need reliability and longevity in whatever we buy (which is why we replaced our old, dying 1996 Mazda Protege with the Accord). I have been very pleased with the Accord so far, and I am now very enamored with the new Accord. I'm not that impressed with the Camry. Not sure why, I just don't like the looks that much.

    Here's my quandary: I don't have enough auto perspective to know what we're missing if we get another Accord. My wife doesn't want a new Accord--she wants a Volvo. She doesn't know much about cars, and doesn't know much about Volvo, but she loves the idea of us having one. Trouble is, I don't know why you buy a Volvo over an Accord. Why do you buy an S40 or C30 over an Accord? What does a Volvo give you?

    What about an Altima, or a Mazda6? Or hell, what about a Subaru? I just don't know what the trade-offs are.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Read a lot of professional reviews and comparison tests first. This will give you a good idea which cars fit your wants and needs. They will usually point out the strong and weak points of each. Then use this information on test drives, to help you evaluate during what will probably only be a short drive around the block. It's hard to get a lot from a test drive, if you have little to no information going in. You could rent the perspective cars for a few days, to get a better feel for them, but that would cost you. Good luck in your quest for the perfect car. :D
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I agree with the above remarks. As you know Volvos have a much higher price range than these mid-size and more luxury and power, in the top end than these cars. However, in the price range of these vehicles $16K to $30K there is a lot of variation. You would have to drive the S40 to see how it stacks up with the Accord.

    So the best advice is to test drive and see what you like and don't like. You can't really go wrong with any car in this class, it's all about what you like most and dislike least.
  • ctalkctalk Member Posts: 646
    Why do you buy an S40 or C30 over an Accord? What does a Volvo give you?

    Buying a Volvo simply because it is a Volvo is a bad reason for purchase.

    I think you should first find out what particular type of car you want. Do you want a mid-size family sedan? Do you want a compact? Do you want something that impractical but fun? How much do you want to spend?

    The Volvo C30 is designed for people who want performance with some practicality. It has a great drive, but it's not spectacular. It's an overall great car. I loved its unique looks the minute I saw it. But I'd honestly rather have a Volkswagen GTI over it. It's just as practical but it's more fun to drive. (This is all my personal opinion of course).

    I think before you jump to other automakers. Find the type of car you want. Don't badge shop.

    But a good suggestion before you make the big purchase is test drive all its competitors. If you're looking for an Accord-sized car. Test drive the Sonata, Mazda6, Aura, Camry, Altima etc.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Beyond what other people have written (and I think ctalk nailed it best...) you have to know what characteristics your wife wants in a car before you can start to narrow down your choices. Volvo has a reputation for safety as well as being a brand that that sits solidly in the near luxury segment. Since she's not too enamored with the Accord or Altima, I'd geuss she is somewhat conservative (likes to make safe choices), but likes nice things without being pompous or elitist like maybe a BMW or Mercedes could be interpreted. You haven't mentioned if she is interested in a wagon or sedan, but if you have a need/want for extra cargo area, a Volvo may be a good choice.

    Although the Accord has become a bit more Camry like in it's ride, it is a very nice car. I'm always a little wary of buying a brand new model though since all the wrinkles may not have been ironed out yet so if you can wait at least a few months, that would be best (you'll also be able to get a much better deal on an Accord as I've heard the dealers aren't willing to negotiate too much on them right now). If you can get over the kind of strange looking exterior, the Accord would make a great choice if you're looking for something that is less fun but refined and don't mind how common they are.

    One thing's for sure though, if you try to impose your choice on her and something goes wrong... you'll never hear the end of it. So try to make this a learning experience for both of you and let knowledge guide your decisions.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Since she's not too enamored with the Accord or Altima"

    That's not what the post read. The sentence was: "My wife doesn't want an Accord, she wants a Volvo". The clearly doesn't suggest she's not enamored with an Accord but more enamored with the Volvo.

    "One thing's for sure though, if you try to impose your choice on her and something goes wrong... you'll never hear the end of it."

    What is even worse is to let a decision be made without thorough follow up. If the wife makes the decision and it turns out to be wrong, it's a costly mistake. IMO, the best way to do it, is to make a joint decision, which probably what it will turn out to be anyway.

    Although, the flip side is, there probably is no wrong decision, Accord, Altima, Volvo...etc. They all have their strenghts as well as their weaknesses.

    A Volvo is not a bad car, heck they sell enough of them. I wouldn't get one...it's not quite my style, but there are a lot of them on the road and they have reputation the Duracell bunny would envy in terms of longevity.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    One thing you didn't tell us is, who will be the primary driver of your new car? If it's your wife, then she should have the main input into the decision. But encourage her to take a look at other options than just the Volvo. It's a big decision and one you will both need to live with for several years. The S40 and C30 are relatively small cars, compacts vs. the mid-sized or even full-sized (in interior room) cars we're discussing here. The mid-sized Volvo is the S60, which is pretty expensive compared to cars like the Accord, Mazda6, and Altima.

    Has your wife seen and driven the new Accord, to know why she doesn't like it? If not, encourage her to do so, with an open mind. It's an excellent car and probably just as safe as a Volvo--if that is why she likes Volvos. And it's likely to be more reliable. It also has more of a European look to it than the 2007 Accord--if that is what she is basing her opinion on.

    If she is not familiar with the other cars you mentioned, e.g. Altima, Mazda6, and Subaru (Legacy?), maybe you could ask her to take a Saturday with you and drive some cars. It's fun, and will open her eyes to other alternatives. The Mazda6 for example could be considered a big cousin of the S40, since the S40 is based on the Mazda3 platform. The Mazda6 is available in a sleek hatch, if she likes hatches ala C30. She might really like the new Altima coupe--very sporty looking, yet economical with the I4. The Accord coupe is pretty sporty looking, also. And if she's into safety, she might like the Subaru with its AWD.

    There's several other good choices in this class. You might sound her out as to how she would feel being seen driving a Korean car. If she is against that idea, don't waste your time looking at the Optima and Sonata, but if she's open to it take those for a drive; they represent excellent value in this class. Some people really like the styling of the Fusion; it's based on the Mazda6 platform. If she's open to driving a domestic car like the Fusion, you could check out its twin the Milan and also the Aura, which is getting many positive reviews. The Passat is also well-regarded, if pricey, but will probably not be as reliable as others in the class such as the Accord. But it too offers excellent safety, ala Volvo.

    In the end, get something your wife really wants to drive. I made the mistake once of getting a car that was a very practical and logical decision, but after a couple of years it was clear my wife really missed having a minivan. So now she has one, albeit a smaller one than she had before, and she loves it.
  • bruuklinbruuklin Member Posts: 29
    Thanks all for the feedback. Very helpful, and there's no doubt we need to go drive some cars. To answer a few questions and clarify some things that have been asked:

    - We haven't actually decided who would drive this car. She's had the Accord now while I've driven the little Sentra (I have the shorter and easier commute), so I sort of want the new car, but we'll see. It will ultimately be a joint decision.
    - She doesn't dislike the new Accord, it's just that it's an Accord and she wants something "different". I've told her how different the new one is, but it still says "Accord" so she still feels the same.
    - She's not set on Volvos, she just really wants a "luxury nameplate. Given our other financial obligations right now, and the very high quality of non-luxury cars like Hondas and Toyotas, I don't see the point.
    - Actually, that distinction was part of what was driving my original question--what does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car? Why buy a low-end Acura TSX when they could get a somewhat loaded Accord for the same money? I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know what it is.
    -We already test drove the Camry and the Sonata. We liked the Accord much more than either. I'm not a big fan of domestics so don't see us going toward an Aura or a Fusion. My wife doesn't like coupes or hatchbacks. It's strictly a sedan for her, unless we do a crossover.
    -The crossover is definitely an idea and a possibility, I just wrestle with the extra cost. We don't have kids yet, and all we really need is a car. But we might consider one of the less expensive crossovers.

    Anyway, thanks again for the input. We've just got some research and test driving to do. I think it will be fun.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Member Posts: 1,601
    While you've driven the Sonata, you might try the Azera. It's not much bigger on the outside than the Sonata but a totally different car for well under $30,000.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Sounds like your wife is looking for something semi-unique but also something that will pamper her. Since you haven't mentioned wanting a car that is fun to drive, I'd guess that is why the Mazda or Altima would not fit in the mix for you guys. Not considering domestics narrows it down a lot too, but keep in mind some cars like the aura and fusion are based on other cars whose parent company are from other countries. It also sounds like keeping this purchase below 30k is where you'd like to be. Really, sounds like the Azera would be the perfect fit as long as your view of Hyundai isn't too negative, or if you can wait for the new Mazda6 when it comes out first quarter of 2008 to see if that has the image and ride quality that you may be looking for. Good luck in your search...there's no shortage of good cars to choose from!

    Aaargh bhmr59 beat me to the Azera recommendation lol
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If a luxury nameplate is important, why not get a "previously owned" Volvo, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, or BMW with an extended warranty? Lots of folks do that.
  • ctalkctalk Member Posts: 646
    Actually, that distinction was part of what was driving my original question--what does a low-end luxury car give you that wouldn't be trumped by a loaded high-end non-luxury car?

    Well it really depends on what you want. If you're looking at a BMW 3 series for an example, it offers a segment leading driving experience. It's an blast to drive!

    However, if you prefer to be more pampered there's Lexus and even Audi.

    You really have to experience these cars in order to see the difference. Sometimes the difference is little, sometimes it's big. Like Backy stated, there are certified pre-owned alternatives you can consider. However do consider that a lot of these luxury cars hold their value well.

    A Hyundai Azera is a great car. It's very luxurious, and feels almost Lexus-like. But if its a luxury nameplate you want I'm not sure it fits into your criteria. But I strongly suggest Hyundai. I bought the 07 Santa Fe not long ago (it's going to replace my Accord eventually as the family car). It has been flawless so far.

    I think we're getting a little off topic here. I haven't been on this forum in forever. I remember the mods don't like us getting too off topic :P
Sign In or Register to comment.