Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I thought we (my family) were the only one's who didn't talk on cell phones constantly.
I think the increasing number of gadgets in today's cars (i-pod connections, navigation, phone accessories, etc.) are only providing more distractions for drivers. Car shopping seems to be less about the car, and more about the toys included. All this would be fine with me, if it were not increasing the prices of the cars too. Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.
Some of us just want our car to be a car, and not a toy box.
Well stated. I am one of those people, too.
Well stated. I am one of those people, too.
I used to feel that way until we bought a Malibu with OnStar navigation and handfree telephone. These toys can be very addictive and not to mention ridiculously expensive.
Nonetheless, I still don't own a cell phone and probably won't buy one any time soon.
The '07 Accord fared better with the infant seat (Graco SnugRide) than the Legacy, which still had a usable back seat, but I think the Britax installed in the Accord would have the same outcome.
The other issue that most cars I have seen lack the lower tether (it should be on the floor in the back seat) for anchoring a rear-facing child seat, with the Accord and Legacy being no exception. Now that the Accord is losing its main advantage of having a usable back seat with the child seat installed, buyers remorse just grows. Its not that it isn't a great car, its just not the one for me.
Well stated. I am one of those people, too.
Like someone else said, I used to be like that myself. I told my wife that I didn't want a cell phone and when I'm out doing things like my favorite pastime bicycling I want to be detached from the rest of the world and not bothered.
In the car the only time I would ever listen to the radio was for weather updates related to upcoming bike rides or the news.
Last fall I bought a Sebring with a MyGIG infotainment system. Now I've turned into a gadget junkie. This thing is so cool I call it my playground on wheels. Heck, I even carry a cell phone with me on my bike now.
Mazda6 2.5L 170hp @ 6000 rpm / 167 lb-ft torque @ 4000 rpm
Accord LX 177hp @ 6500 rpm / 161 lb-ft torque @ 4300 rpm
Accord EX 190hp @ 7000 rpm / 162 lb-ft torque @ 4400 rpm
Mazda6 3.7L 272hp @ 6250 rpm / 269 lb-ft torque @ 4250 rpm
Accord 3.5L 268hp @ 6200 rpm / 248 lb-ft torque @ 5000 rpm
I would say that Mazda's 2.5L is on par with Honda's Accord LX. Obviously, the EX has more hp, but, less tq. That's i-VTEC for ya!
As for the V6's, I would guess that the Mazda will be quicker, especially with the 21 lb-ft torque advantage, however, curb weight and gearing will come into play. Honda is known for great gearing.
As for the V6's, I would guess that the Mazda will be quicker, especially with the 21 lb-ft torque advantage, however, curb weight and gearing will come into play. Honda is known for great gearing.
Interesting read, avi. One thing I noticed, that I hadn't before, is that the torque in the Honda 2.4 actually peaks at a higher RPM than my 2006 does (4,000 in my 166hp car). Wrong direction!
Also, as far as gearing goes, the V6 Accord has relatively short gearing which allows VCM to operate more often. With taller gearing, VCM wouldn't activate as much because the combination of the gearing and the VCM would mean VCM would rarely get used because it didn't provide enough power. So, you may have something there, with gearing, but I suspect Mazda's 6-speed and fatter torque curve will push it to the front if there were a race. The Accord Sedans are noted for having a weaker torque curve than the non-VCM coupes, effectively "missing" some power. There's a reason the Malibu/Aura, with less horses, is faster than the Accord.
I noticed that too.
Would you say that the VCM Accord is a bit "lost" in terms of what Honda was trying to do? The have gobs of power, but, it's not used to its potential? The Accord should be quicker then it is. I understand the fuel savings with the VCM, however, I have noticed an abundance of VCM Accord owners not getting the fuel savings they were expecting. What do you think? You know Honda better then I do.
It does seem that Honda tried to go three different directions with the V6 model(upscale, towards the Avalon; fast, towards the Camry; efficient towards its own 4-cylinder) and ended up getting nowhere but bigger and more expensive, with nothing groundbreaking besides VCM, which has turned out to only be ground-shaking for those with VCM surging and vibration issues.
I will say this (and its a shame to say it): if something happened to my 2006 Accord that caused me to have to shop for a new car, the 2008 Accord would not be on my list. The Altima 2.5 would likely be close to the top, the Nissan Versa would be there too, actually.
I only hope someone from Honda is reading that because it speaks volumes. I'm betting you are not alone either grad.
At least Honda tried to make the Accord look more sporty by tacking on some Acura-like flared exhaust tips. Personally I think they look stupid wrapped around a tiny exhaust pipe but I can see how many could be fooled by them seeing how shiny they are and all. :P
I read over on the Accord forums that these exhaust tips are being ripped off to the point that dealers are having trouble keeping them in stock....so I guess somebody likes them.
I like the numbers for the new 6 engines. More torgue at lower rpms is what I like. Gets one up and moving without having to push it hard. I too am really curious about the MPG numbers.
At least MPGs have gone up. I can't help but think if we couldn't have more efficient engines if we had a cap on horsepower, say 200. I don't think anyone would complain that the Passat is underpowered, with the 2.0t. If we could have sedans with most having 130-170hp engines making 30/40 numbers, it'd be great.
Oh wait, we have those - they're diesels!
However, that doesn't explain the 6cyl hp numbers. I totally agree that anything over 210-220 is way overkill. But when you can have a Sonata Limited with only a 1mpg hwy difference between the I4 and V6, I can see why the 6cyl is popular.
IMHO, the 09 Sonata Limited I4 is a great combo of decent power, luxury appointments, good MPG, good warranty, etc. It's on my list but I have to wait until I get more info on the new Mazda6 before I pull any triggers!
The Mazda6 definitely looks interesting. Only minus is the gas mileage doesn't look very good. 17/25 V6 with ridiculous 272 hp and 21/29 I4 with 170hp. Not much better than the V6 Sonata. I figure it'll definitely have more torque with the bigger engines than most other midsize cars.
My answer is smaller, more fuel efficient engines - with lighter cars. Today's midsizers as so heavy; we may soon have the compact class cars going to midsize.
If I had to buy today, I would look at a Civic or 3, though with the 3 you want to get the 2.3 and that hurts economy. But both would be on my shortlist.
Is the civic more spacious than the 3 (sedan) in practical terms, or are they similar?
You're comparing the manual I4 mpg to the auto 6cyl mpg. I was apples to apples with the auto comparison. Used Edmunds comparsion tool so it's their numbers. I assume they are accurate.
2.4L Manual - 21/32
3.3L Automatic - 19/29
* From www.fueleconomy.gov
There are 4 bangers and then there are 4 bangers, despite what aviboy's spec sheet analysis might tell us. It is engines like the Honda 4 (followed by those efforts by Toyota and Nissan) that easily lead the pack - refinement wise. This is the same situation that we find in the V6s as well - only in a slightly different order. Recently shopped some small S/CUVs - there is no way, for example, that even the 'blown' 240hp Mazda engine (CX7) approaches what's in a CRV/RAV/Rogue for example - 'zoom-zoom' for sure but irritating to say the least. and I would add to that 'comes up short' list those efforts by GM, Hyundai, Chrysler as well. In my shopping I was most surprised (and unimpressed) by the Hyundai version of its 'world' engine (rough in a Tucson), and the Mazda turbo 2.3 in the CX (rough, turbo lag and bad FE). Right number of cylinders but NOT the same engines, and the differences are more than simply HP/torque.....
I understand what you are saying, its logical, and I appreciate your responses.
My question lies in that, for example, if we had a 2GR scaled down to 3.0L, could we not have a 230 hp car that got better mileage than the current 2GR? Obviously the engine would still have nearly the weight of the 3.5L model to pull around, but it seems like if it operated as efficiently as the 3.5L does, it would get better mileage, especially in town. I know it can't be nearly so simple, which is why I'm asking and not doing the telling!
From a refining standpoint, Europe is a net exporter of gasoline and a net importer of diesel, since it is so popular there. The USA is exactly the opposite. Diesel prices are high because of the high demand for diesel in Europe.
While there may be some gouging going on, its primarily supply and demand...
2.4L Manual - 21/32
3.3L Automatic - 19/29
I think someone here was comparing the 2009 Mazda6 FE to the Sonata, so, here we go!
Mazda66 2.5L 170hp / 167 lb-ft torque
2.5L 5-speed automatic- 22/30
2.5L 6-speed manual- 21/29
Sonata 2.4L 175hp / 168 lb-ft torque
2.4L 5-speed automatic- 22/32
2.4L 5-speed manual- 21/32
Mazda6 3.7L V6 272hp / 269 lb-ft torque
6-speed automatic 17/25
Sonata 3.3L V6 249hp / 229 lb-ft torque
5-speed automatic 19/29
From looking at those numbers, I would say that the Sonata must have a taller 5th gear in all tranny types. That is why the highway FE is better. Around town, that is not the story. Look at the V6 city FE, almost the same and the Mazda6 has a serious power advantage. It is quite apparent that the gearing is the difference here.
The 4-cylinder looks fairly competitive, but its apparent the usual Mazda short-gearing hurts highway mileage.
That's already started to happen. For example, the Elantra, Prius, and Sentra are all compact sized outside but mid-sized inside. The Versa is a sub-compact outside, but also mid-sized inside. Toyota didn't upsize the new Corolla's interior to mid-sized class for 2009, but I would not be surprised to see Honda do that with the next-gen Civic, now that the Accord is full-sized and the Fit is growing larger later this year.
since that time honored tradition of increasing displacement to get HP has generally worked it would seem logical that the reverse should as well BUT the earlier (admittedly 'lower tech') Toyota engines, for example, came in 200+ hp versions in 3 and 3.3 liters with worse FE though.
But I think you hit a key element to this seemingly endless HP war - size and weight. These are not midsize sedans anymore. Larger engines = more torque especially valuable as these cars get bigger and heavier. It will be interesting to see who the first manufacturer is to actually downsize in this class - somebody will. Turbocharged (and diesel) engines may have their own drivability problems but also create more relative torque, would seem to be a natural solution if it's done right.
Bingo! The FE on the Mazda6 compared to the others in this class ( 4-cyl) is definitely competitive. I consider any engine with in 2-3 mpg's fairly equal.
Mazda is know for short gearing, hence why my Mazda6 2.3L does not get as good highway FE as it could (I get 30-32 depending on how I drive). Mazda would rather have the car in the middle of the power band for that extra push at higher speeds.
Yes, and no...
Petroleum is distilled somewhat like milk...There is only so much fat in a gallon.
The refiner can't decide how much diesel he wants from a barrel of oil...its already pre-determined from the quality of the crude oil. The same with gasoline and other distillates. So, if one can only get 10 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil, and they need 20 gallons of gas, they need 2 barrels. They take the other by-products at the same time, and refine them into suitable distillates...and sell them wherever the demand is greatest and the price highest.
I know that the ratio of cars using diesel in Europe is astronomical compared to the US but I just wonder if the items I cited above don't equal things out a bit.
I like Edmunds but they are not a public service....they are a for profit company. If I did my job that sloppily someone would be screamin!
Why is it a shame? The V6 08 Accord is not the car for everyone. I don't think single 20-somethings are really the target consumers for this car. The Accord is appealing to a different crowd, but it's only the wrong crowd if it doesn't sell. From what I've seen, it's doing well in sales.
For someone looking to trade in his gas guzzling SUV for something more fuel efficient, the 08 V6 Accord could be just big and powerful enough to satisfy. Someone who has large passengers riding in the back, and wants them to be as comfortable as he is, would appreciate the 08 more than the 06.
The last go-round of downsizing found benefits when all the systems were reduced - you'd have to think a car built to handle the power of these 3.5 l engines could have some weight reduction if designed to handle only a 3.0 l. Just reducing the engine size will only result in limited savings.
In 1989, I was 2. So, to be fair, I don't exactly remember its debut.
That was a GREAT engine. I drove mine in Germany on the autobahn routinely at speeds up to 135 mph got between 22-29 mpg and kept the car for 157,000 miles.
Thanks!!
It was also a pretty cool looking unit IIRC. The intake plenum looked like a bunch of aluminum snakes wrapping around the top of the engine.