Midsize Sedans 2.0

jd10013 · May 2007

The only Accord that may cost 32k is the hybrid V6. I think you could get any other Accord for 27-28k easy.

I checked my local dealers website, and the highest they had was 31,700. I wasn't just pulling a number out of the air. But that was fully loaded with a nav system. Yes, they had a lot of accords cheaper, but it looked to me like the poster spent about as much as you can on a fusion, so I specificly looked for the most someone could spend on an accord.

and no, it wasn't a hybrid

thegraduate · May 2007

The MSRP for the Accord EX-L V6 with Navi and Destination is $29,995, so that dealer had a bunch of added junk that doesn't really add to the value of the car. That, or the dealer is crooked.

jd10013 · May 2007

of course he is. they all are

jd10013 · May 2007

The MSRP for the Accord EX-L V6 with Navi and Destination is $29,995

but actually, its not listed as an ex-l v6. something called an accord ex-l auto ULEV with navi

dudleyr · May 2007

27k will buy the Accord V-6 6MT loaded. It quite fast (5.9 to 60) and gets pretty good gas mileage EPA 21/30.

If you need traction in the winter snow tires will do more than AWD - after all they will help you stop, and not being able to stop is more likely to get you in trouble.

urnews · May 2007

Actually, dudleyr, we didn't shop for Accords because we figured a loaded one with a V6, moonroof and leather seats would cost around $30,000. Our Fusion has all of the bells and whistles except for navigation and Sirius, which don't interest us. I wouldn't have ordered AWD either, the car just came that way on the lot.

In retrospect, we bought the Fusion too fast. But $27,000 MSRP, before the dealing, was our absolute maximum (paid cash and traded in a 2000, one-owner, Mazda Miata with 7,500 original miles on it. ($8,000 trade-in.)

Given our city driving habits, 95 percent, we should have gone with an I4. The Fusion's 14.8 mpg city is a killer.

Thanks to all who have weighed in on this topic, "How much Accord." Hindsight is always 20-20. The SEL is a nice package though. We especially like the piano black dash, no plood, and the fit and finish is perfect on our car.

benderofbows · May 2007

"...traded in a 2000, one-owner, Mazda Miata with 7,500 original miles on it. ($8,000 trade-in.)"

Seven thousand miles???

D&#\!~, I wish that I would have been standing there to buy that from you for 80 bones.

urnews · May 2007

Seven thousand miles???

D&#\!~, I wish that I would have been standing there to buy that from you for 80 bones.

True. 7,500 miles and looked like new. My mother bought the car new in 2000 when she was 81 years old. Drove it to church, the grocery store, the beauty shop. Oil changed every six months. She never had the top down. After she got side-swiped by a semi I took away her driver's license and kept the car for about six months before trading it on the Fusion. It was a sweet machine but a true sports car in every sense. Not a practical car and the smallness of it scared me. The side-swipe accident did $2,000 damage. It had been repaired when we traded it. Kelley Blue Book range on the car was $8,000 to $10,000. I thought the $8,000 was a fair price. Maybe I should have held out for more or offered it in a private sale. Hindsight is 20-20. My wife and I both like the Fusion more than the Miata convertible.

explorerx4 · May 2007

google navigation+depreciation. then see how you feel about it as a built in feature.

thegraduate · May 2007

I'm not "pro-built-in-nav," and if it seemed that way, I misspoke. I have the portable unit (for around $300) and love the fact that I can use it in unlimited different vehicles. Built-in units cost MUCH more than that, and while often coming with other neat features, the fact that it is only useful in that car limits its "help" factor.

I just wrote about the Accord with Navi because even the Navi-equipped Accord would be less than the $27k our Fusion-buying friend mentioned. Unfortunately, it appears he didn't know about the incentives, or the MPG penalty AWD would beckon. He got a nice car though.

For me, I have a hard time paying for satellite radio, leather, or built-in Navigation (hence the reason my car has none of that). I would, however, love to see the 2008 Accord offer automatic climate control on some cloth-equipped models. It's not a big deal, but an area where I'd like to see a change.

baggs32 · May 2007

Hmm. I actually HATE the current Accord sedan and coupe. I kind of like the '08s though. I'm not ready to drop everything and buy one but they are nicer.

Two things I notices right off the bat. The head and tail lights seem to jut out from the body, on the side, which is one thing I don't really like. Looks sloppy to me and the last gen Camry head lights were like that too.

The other thing is the grille. It appears to be covered in black tape on the mule. I'm guessing the production version will show that there's a three-bar chrome grille under that black tape. At least on the EX anyway. Wonder where that idea came from. :P

One more thing. The profile kind of looks like a BMW 3-series in a way. Low hood, high greenhouse, slightly lower trunk, but without the goofy "Bangle butt".

rhduke00 · May 2007

Interesting article comparing 25 midsize and large sedans costing less than $21,000.

imidazol97 · May 2007

Thanks for the link. Their reviews are much better written than another purported consumer oriented magazine. They seem to real world.

They match exactly what I saw in a neighbor's visiting brother's Camry.

They also have large sedan reviews. Azera tops the list.

rhduke00 · May 2007

Thought you ought to know that IFCAR is a car research institute consisting of one auto junkie. Nevertheless, I like his evaluation tables.

urnews · May 2007

Very interesting reviews, rhduke00. Thanks for the link. I learned something. It was interesting that the 4-cylinder Fusion finished 4th while the V6 Fusion finished 14th.

As the owner of a 2007 V6 SEL AWD Fusion, I would have to agree with that assessment. We should have ordered an I4 SEL rather than taking what was on the lot. We get horrific in-city gas mileage, 14.8 mpg, and don't need the power of a V6 because 95 percent of our driving is in-city. Hindsight is always 20-20. We bought power we don't need. The same is true for the All-Wheel-Drive. Both are expensive options. Our SEL had a MSRP of $27,105. An I4 SEL would have been a much better deal.

Again, thanks for the link, even though it reinforces our buyer's remorse.

urnews · May 2007

I just wrote about the Accord with Navi because even the Navi-equipped Accord would be less than the $27k our Fusion-buying friend mentioned. Unfortunately, it appears he didn't know about the incentives, or the MPG penalty AWD would beckon. He got a nice car though.
Graduate,
Actually I did know about the AWD penalty. The original EPA in-city estimate on the window sticker was 19 mpg, which I could live with. Believing that was my first mistake.

Since then, the EPA has revised its estimate for this power train downward to 17 mpg city. I could live with that, too. It's the 14.8 mpg that we are getting in city driving that is killing me.

Bottom line: We should have ordered an SEL with an I4, either manual or automatic, instead of buying what was on the lot. I didn't think the I4 would be powerful enough but, according to numerous posts on various forums, it would have been just fine for our purpose.

backy · May 2007

Interesting that of the top 8 cars, there's two Kia Optimas, two Hyundai Sonatas, two Fords (Fusion and Five Hundred), the Aura, and the Accord. I think it reinforces how competitive this class is and that if people bother to look beyond the "automatic" choices of Accord and Camry (and maybe Altima), there's several very good cars and good values in this class.

urnews · May 2007

That's a very good point, Backy. I also found it interesting that the Fusion placed fourth (the I4) and fourteenth (the V6). The reviewer obviously places more value on the four cylinder models. Indeed, we now wish we had ordered an I4 SEL Fusion rather than buying a V6 off the lot.

Your point about the diversity in this mid-size sedan class is well-taken. I really wish we had been able to read this information before we decided. We would have saved several thousand dollars and been better satisfied to boot.

elroy5 · May 2007

Accord still #1.

scape2 · May 2007

Thank-you!! I have been saying this all along and now another person comes along and shows folks, Accords are thousands more than like optioned Fusions/Milans/Sonata's.. This is common knowledge.. :surprise:

scape2 · May 2007

No you didn't buy the Fusion too fast. Don't let the Honda crowd get to you. You have a very well built vehicle at a good price. The Fusion fit/finish is every bit as good as an Accord or Camry. When I shopped last year the Ford salesperson was so confident he took the Fusion to both a Honda lot and a Camry lot to show me first hand face to face, side by side comparison. I had 4 - 5 sales people walking, poking, opening/shutting doors ect around these cars looking at every detail. I am totally confident the Fusion will easily hold up over 100,000 miles. In fact.
I just got back from a trip to Idaho in my Fusion. I wanted to post this so badly!! I traveled with my whole family. 2 Adults, 2 children, soccer gear/luggage. I averaged 75MPH and got 32.6 MPG!! This is 3MPG better than Ford advertises. I as extremely happy. The car handled like it was on rails through the mountains, and drove with confidence. You made a great choice in buying a Fusion. :shades:

scape2 · May 2007

Thank-you for posting this!! so much! Yet another reason why the Fusion is a great value and a great vehicle. It finishes within points behind the Accord. Some here make it seem as if the Fusion is miles behind the Accord when look yet again! Its not. Take a look at the pricing difference. http://ifcar.net/reviews.comparisons.inexpensivefamilysedans.htm

joe97 · May 2007

Good read!

I was certainly surprised to see the Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima tying for first place, and well deserved too.

EDIT: Just noticed the Hyundai Azera took the first place as well in the large sedan category. Kudos!!

scape2 · May 2007

"Accord still #1. "

Did you read the article? Nope the Accord is #3.. :confuse:

thegraduate · May 2007

You made a great choice in buying a Fusion.

Nobody seems to be saying otherwise. Instead, that they bought the wrong Fusion for his/her needs. 14 MPG when they don't need V6 power or AWD is pretty sad, when the 2.3L Fusion would've sufficed. Out of curiousity, do you realize that it IS ok for people to disagree with you and it not be personal? There always seems to be a chip on your shoulder. Sure, the Fusion will hold up 100,000 miles, as should any car on the market today. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to push your buttons.

I'm glad you got above EPA numbers on your trip. I just got back in my Accord and did similarly to you! 36 MPG, 75 MPH (through the Ozark Mountains), 100% A/C use. 2 MPG better than EPA with 700 lbs of load in the car. Just proves that with the right driving style, the EPA numbers aren't as bad as people say they are. With better conditions (for both of us) the numbers will only climb (I've seen 40 MPG twice in my 4-cyl, I'll bet you might see 35 if you drove closer to 65 MPH).

Hey, urnews (I hope you read this so I'm making your name big

), you mention your Fusion's sticker, but you never mention what you actually paid for it. Since Accords are going consistently $1,000 and more under invoice, I'd guess your Fusion did too, making your deal better than the $27k you are telling us about. Fill us in!

There's not a bad car in this bunch! Some are just better for some people than others, and it is usually subjective (style, interior finishings, engine sounds, ride/handling compromise).

altest · May 2007

You got a nicely equipped car. I drive a 4-cyl Accord and I regret not buying V6. Grass is greener on the other side.

thegraduate · May 2007

With my average mileage being close to 30 MPG, the grass is only greener looking for me because my engine pollutes less!

J/K

I really have more power than I need in a 4-cylinder. It's all relative. Embrace what you've got.

elroy5 · May 2007

Are my eyes deceiving me? I see first place. Like I've said before, it's the best you can get for $25,000.

http://www.ifcar.net/reviews.comparisons.premiumfamilysedans.1stplace.htm

tallman1 · May 2007

Are my eyes deceiving me? I see first place.

Your link is different than the original link posted above. His referred to cars under 21k and the I4 Accord SE took third, behind an Optima and Sonata.

elroy5 · May 2007

We all have different price ranges, this is true. $25,000 was my personal price limit.

jd10013 · May 2007

Are my eyes deceiving me? I see first place. Like I've said before, it's the best you can get for $25,000.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to rankings. I'm willing to bet you can find a fist place review for most midsize cars. They're good for learning about a cars features, handling ect, but as far as ranking, it's too subjective.

I realy don't think you can go wrong with most of the midsize sedans out there. the compettion has become so intense that the quality in all of them has gone up pretty significantly.

pat · May 2007

Well said.

zzzoom6 · May 2007

I wouldn't pay too much attention to rankings. I'm willing to bet you can find a fist place review for most midsize cars. They're good for learning about a cars features, handling ect, but as far as ranking, it's too subjective.

I realy don't think you can go wrong with most of the midsize sedans out there. the compettion has become so intense that the quality in all of them has gone up pretty significantly.

Agreed!

backy · May 2007

With the possible exception of the Verona. Don't see much discussion about THAT car here.

urnews · May 2007

Hey, urnews (I hope you read this so I'm making your name big ), you mention your Fusion's sticker, but you never mention what you actually paid for it. Since Accords are going consistently $1,000 and more under invoice, I'd guess your Fusion did too, making your deal better than the $27k you are telling us about. Fill us in!
Grad
We didn't get the best deal possible. They marked the $27,105 MSRP down to $24,180 and gave us $8,000 for a 2000 Mazda Miata convertible with 7,500 miles on it. (Not a misprint). We bought the car Dec. 4, 2006. All toll, we paid $16,180 for the $27,105 car.

Had we been smart, we would have ordered an SEL 14, 5-speed manual and waited a few months until convertible season (higher trade-in) arrived.

I would be much happier if the car just delivered average miles per gallon, EPA-estimated 17 for in-city driving, which is 95 percent of our travel. I don't believe that is every going to happen. We made some bad choices and are just stuck with the result. It was a cash deal. I figure the dealer made out like a bandit.

We also should have considered the Accord more closely. We just automatically figured it would have cost more when equipped like the Fusion. The AWD was a big mistake. Our climate is moderate, with very little snow each year.

The best way to describe our situation is "buyer's remorse." The next time, if there is one, I will do more homework and probably buy an Accord, an I4 at that.

akirby · May 2007

Come on Boz - how can you expect average mpg when you only drive short stop-n-go trips with an average mph of 20?

urnews · May 2007

Come on Boz - how can you expect average mpg when you only drive short stop-n-go trips with an average mph of 20?
You've got a good memory Allen.

On the current tank we are only averaging 16 mph, even slower. But this is the year 2007. Shouldn't a 160-cubic-inch V6 engine coupled to a six-speed automatic in a 3,200-pound car at least deliver 17 mpg in almost any city-driving conditions? It makes no sense to me that we can only manage 14.8 mpg when we are both gentle drivers. I just can't fathom it. Something has to be wrong with this car.

tenpin288 · May 2007

Given that your avg. mph is only 16 on this tank, that implies that you either you drive in a lot of stop and go traffic with a goodly number of signals or stop signs, or you sit in traffic and your vehicle idles a great deal. Either way, it would seem that your driving is definitely not conducive to good mileage, even with a gentle foot on the gas pedal. What I would suggest you try, if possible, is to try and replicate the EPA test cycle and see what happens. Here is a link to the test variables:

EPA Test cycles

When you get there, click on the tab "Detailed Comparison". The table listed will show you the the major test variables the EPA uses to determine mileage. If you can find a way to replicate the environment and test and then your vehicle still falls far short of the city mileage, then maybe there is a problem. Chances are though if you can replicate the test you will find that your car can meet the test results. Either way, maybe it will help reduce your "buyer's remorse".

akirby · May 2007

Shouldn't a 160-cubic-inch V6 engine coupled to a six-speed automatic in a 3,200-pound car at least deliver 17 mpg in almost any city-driving conditions?

Nope. Consider that for every minute you're stopped in traffic or moving very slowly you'd have to spend an equal time at highway speed getting 34 mpg to average 17.

You need a smaller engine that consumes less fuel when idling or better yet a hybrid that shuts off when stopped.

Or get a longer, faster commute.

bhmr59 · May 2007

From the type of driving you face, it isn't likely that you are getting into 6th gear (maybe not even 5th gear)on your typical commutes.

captain2 · May 2007

have a 213 CI, 268 hp engine in a 3600 lb. car that consistently gets me 27 mpg overall on EPA ratings of 22/31. Could I fathom a set of conditions where I might only average let's say, 12 mpg - sure. It's called stop and go traffic and gridlock. Take your AWD Fusion DT V6 out on the highway and drive away a tank at 65mph, if it doesn't do closer to 30 mpg I would be surprised, and there may be something wrong with it. It is a relatively economical engine, although you have certainly penalized it with the AWD. EPA ratings really mean little except in relative terms, the fact that they are not realistic measures for many drivers and/or driving conditions is something that's been going on for 30 years or so, I find it difficult to believe that you wouldn't know this.
That little 4 banger you yearn for probably won't crack 18 under those same conditions your V6 is getting less than 15. Given that you apparently drive very few miles, suggest that the V6 is not really costing you much at the pumps - put a pencil to it - it may help with your 'remorse' - but don't think that the 2.3 4 cyl is going to come close to its city ratings either - at least for you.

urnews · May 2007

Captain2,

We have taken one 360-mile road trip with the 2007 SEL AWD when the car had 1,200 miles on it. It yielded 26 mpg going and 24 mpg returning. Average speed for the entire trip was 60 mph or so.

Dealer road tested the car with an on-board computer hooked up at 1,500 miles and got 24 mpg at 50, 60 and 70 mph during a 12-mile run. Shop foreman pronounced it to be AOK, according to specs. He provided computer printouts of the testing. At the time, the car was only getting 13 mpg. Now, with 3,200 miles, it is getting 14.8 mpg.

The original EPA estimate for this power train was 19 mpg city, 26 highway. That has since been revised to 17 mpg city and 24 highway. AWD is the culprit.

I have no doubts that the car will deliver the EPA estimate for highway travel and am equally sure that it is never going to yield 17 mpg in our city driving. I might as well shut up about the situation and live with the fact that we bought a gas guzzler, by today's standards.

Our 2000 2.0-liter I4 Ford Focus station wagon only delivers 22 mpg in city driving over the same route pattern and our 1997 3.8-liter V6 Thunderbird averages 13 mpg over the same course.

This being a 2007 model, I just naturally figured the Fusion would at least meet the EPA estimate. Obviously, that was flawed thinking on my part.

Worse, these averages have been achieved without the AC on. I imagine there will be a 2 or 3 mpg penalty for that as summer arrives. An all-black interior won't help any even though the car is white.

I still like the styling of the Fusion better than any of the other mid-size sedans but am convinced we should have gone with the I4 and that AWD was a very bad mistake.

What's the expression, live and learn? Well, I have learned a lot since Dec. 4, 2006. If we ever do buy another vehicle it will probably be an Accord. Might as well go with the flow. All those millions of other buyers simply can't be wrong.

dudleyr · May 2007

The mpg should not be the same at 50, 60 and 70 mph. 24 mpg at 50 mph is especially low - something is wrong. My Accord 4-cyl stick shift is close to 50 mpg at a steady 50 mph. When using a Scangauge in average mode over several miles on level ground with no wind.

You should be able to do much better than EPA highway at 50 mph.

captain2 · May 2007

most folks can match or better EPA highway at 60 mph, which is effectively what you did do on that trip you were talking about. 24 or 25 mpg highway is a long way from a 'guzzler' IMO, although I think there are some larger sedans with V8s in them that may do what your Fusion does. I don't believe that Ford or any other mfgr. has any ability to 'cheat' the EPA tests any better or worse than they all already are. While it may be true that a Honda 6 (or 4 FTM) are more efficient engines, I can't imagine the Accord doing much better (FE wise) in your particular case. The DT 3.0, while I certainly don't like the engine much, is known for its reliability and relative FE - you may just be paying a big price for that 'gimmicky' AWD.

zzzoom6 · May 2007

I had a similar type drive to work...rarely did I drive more than 20 seconds without having to stop at a traffic light and my mph never went over 35. It took me 15 minutes to get to work and there were a few hills that I had to negotiate. My car at the time also had AWD and was a 2.5 liter Subaru, and I was usually around the 15 mpg mark when I was using the car to only go back and forth from work. I was driving my mazda 6 with a similar engine that you have along that route for a while and actually got better mileage (about 16 mpg), although my 6 is a manual transmission. I now take a different route to work that has less stops (although a little longer in distance, it takes less time if I hit the traffic lights right). Since there is a bit less stop and go, my mpg is up to 18. On longer drives with mostly highway, I get 27+ usually. Even when I took it to some really curvy roads with lots of hills and was almost always above 4k rpms in second or third gear, I got better than 20 mpg. So the distance and type of driving is killing your average... as others on this board have pointed out, there are not many cars you could get epa #'s with given your short distance with lots of stop and go.

urnews · May 2007

While I don't know that "gimmicky" is the right word for the AWD option I do believe that the mpg culprit. The car was equipped that way on the lot, it's not something we consciously ordered. It snows very little, if ever, in Salisbury, Md. But I suppose all-wheel drive may be a factor any time the front wheels lose traction, such as wet or sandy conditions.

The people who have the 3.0-liter V6 without AWD on the several forum where I participate generally seem to get good mileage. I seem to be the only exception, although a few owners with AWD have likewise reported poor mileage.

I will say that the car handles exceedingly well but we did not test drive any other Fusion. That was a mistake. The dealer only had eight Fusions on the lot. This was the one we liked best. We should have ordered one rather than buying what was in stock.

Several people have suggested the power train will not be broken in until the car gets to about 5,000 miles or so. We are at 3,200 now. I am pessimistic about that.

neteng101 · May 2007

I could have told you about No. 24-21 on their list. The Avenger/Sebring isn't even discussed about here it seems. I spent about 2.5 weeks in a rental Dodge Avenger SXT with the 2.7L V6... it wasn't a total stripper either, had alloys, Sirius sat radio and so on.

Worse seat I've tried yet - I couldn't ever get comfortable in it. Way too much lumbar support built into the shape of the seat for my liking. Then you get all the chrome shiny bits that glare in your eyes when the sun's up. Not to mention the corporate bluish greenish gauge lighting that's just horrible looking IMO. Plenty of cheap plastics to go round.

How it drives wasn't much better either - basically transportation. Lumpy V6, not a lot of smoothness and honestly I prefered the Vulcan V6 in my old Taurus compared to this 2.7L V6. And then you have this look of the driver's seat where you're sunken in tons of sheetmetal... there isn't a lot of greenhouse to work with.

And yeah, Daimler just paid someone to buy Chrysler today. No wonder! :sick:

neteng101 · May 2007

While I don't know that "gimmicky" is the right word for the AWD option I do believe that the mpg culprit.

I'd call it gimmicky cause it isn't a true AWD system like in Subaru/Audi. Basically you have a FWD that can transfer some power to rear wheels when wheel slip is detected.

Let us know if you ever get fed-up of your Fusion, what you get for it in a trade-in. A lot of people here can't seem to agree if the Fusion will be worth anything in a trade-in or not. Some think so, others think not.

urnews · May 2007

Neteng101,
According to one Yahoo cars Web site the one-year depreciation on a similar Fusion was about $4,600, if I remember correctly, but only about 1,200 for the second year.

One of two things is going to happen: I'm either going to trade it for a 2009 "something" or drive it for as long as it will run. I don't except to posting on here at the time. But who knows? Everyone is so friendly.

I just like reading about cars and daydreaming about them. The J.D. Powers' "Most Appealing Mid-Size Sedan" award for the Fusion was a big factor in our buying decision, reinforced by its Consumer Reports marks.

Even the "experts" and "pros" are wrong some of the time. I didn't do enough homework and got burned for it. According to my math it's "only" going to cost me an EXTRA $524 a year in gasoline costs for the crummy 14.8 mpg. I guess having a 2007 SEL AWD might be worth an extra $10 a week.

How about Chrysler being sold? That's the big automotive news of the day. I wonder how that will pan out. :confuse:

joe97 · May 2007

If you look at the top picks summary page, you would see Hyundai Sonata / Kia Optima seat as best-in-class family sedans overall.

http://www.ifcar.net/toppicks.htm

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles