Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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 think if you look, you'll find the rated torque of the 3L Yamaha was actually 190 or 195 lbs/ft. The reason given for going to 3.2L for the ATX's was more torque, as the 3.2 was rated the same horsepower, 220hp, with 210lbs of torque.
If you look at the way the '93 ATX SHO spec'd out, it doesn't take much stretch to see it being the prototype of the modern V6 midsize sedan. A 3350lb sedan, with a 220 horsepower 24 valve engine. The main difference, in retrospect, is that the '93 was considered "high performance" back then, the V6 sedans today, mainstream.
I was a bit surprised in the fall of '05 reading a Motor Trend article on four midsize sedans, and realizing that three of the four had motors with higher horsepower ratings {Sonata 233hp, Accord 244hp, Fusion 221hp}.
The SHO is a bit dated compared to the current generation, but in good shape, still "competive" in many ways. Because of the way the transmission is programmed, in the winter it gets rated mpg, ie, 16/ 26. But in the summer, when the torque converter locks up earlier, it gets 19.5mpg city, and 32 on freeway trips between here and Portland Ore {here being Kent, WA}.
The SHO split daily driving chores for me with a '93 Sable. The Sable finally decided to massively give up the ghost, which put me in the position of either relying solely on the SHO, or replacing the Sable. Since parts availability is real difficult on the Yamaha engine, it was a no brainer to start looking for a replacement for the Sable.....
I wound up with an '08 Sonata GLS V6. In many ways it specs out similar to the Merc it replaced, but even though still breaking in, it is better on the mpg front. 20.3 city vs 17.5. 30+ on the freeway vs 29..........However, accelerating onto the freeway definitely favors the Sonata.........
The biggest differences between the Sonata and the SHO is the fun factor. The SHO is tremendously more "responsive", it feels like it wants to run. The engine rumbles authoritively, while the engine of the Sonata is refined in the Asian V6 way {sounds very similar to the V6 I had in a '92 Pathfinder}.
One interesting side note though is that "off the line", the Sonata accelerates so hard that the SHO would have to reel it in from behind should the two meet at SIR {or whatever its called today}. The SHO burns rubber at full throttle off the line, such that the only way to effectively get off the line is at part throttle for a good 20 feet or more......
Today, I kind of intend to keep both. The Sonata, daily driver, the SHO part time driver and restoration project.
Which modern midsize sedan is the best? My answer is I don't really care, for me, its what my frame of reference is about. The Sonata is a definite upgrade from the Sable, and is an interesting contrast to the SHO.........
Another side note........ the cost to insure the Sonata was a shock in a good way..... more savings because of all of the "safety" things built in, like all of the airbags......
Off Topic:
I wish that was true for the 2009 Sonata. There is no safety data yet, so it costs me more than my old Trailblazer SS ($19/yr more). The SS had 400hp and cost almost twice as much. :confuse:
Take a look at your policy and compare the cost of various coverages comparing both vehicles. I'd make a friendly bet that the physical damage on an '09 Sonata is more than on an '06 Trailblazer.
Normally safety ratings are carried over from one model year to the next unless 1) there is a re-do of the car (like the '06 and newer Sonatas compared to the '05s and prior) or 2) experience shows a change is necessary.
The transmissions on all Sonata I4 Automatics are 5-speed, right guys?
A compromise most people are willing to take.
In my opinion, the money spent on airbags, and their technology, would be better spent making stronger cars. The problem is stronger cars will only prevent injuries, if the passengers are wearing adequate restraints. Since restraints are not what they should be, and some people don't even wear them, we get balloons to bounce off of. Do race cars have airbags? No, because if you stay in your seat (in a crash), airbags are useless.
I agree. I would also say having a decent suspension and tires would help a great deal. You can have DSC/RSC/ABS/ASD/BFD and it all comes down to 4 little patches and how well they hold on to terra firma. People whine about having to pay for a performance tire replacement, but don't seem to mind when they have a successful panic stop or swerve from a near collision. The price difference from zippy the pin head retreads to state of the art performance tires is less than your insurance deductible.
I'm happy to settle for good visibility, low CG, nimble suspension and good-quality all-season tires (at least in my Seattle-area neck of the woods, where we deal with a wide variety of weather conditions).
I agree. It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement. When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem. I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.
In order for restraints to "be what they should be" and not require a supplemental restraint system i.e. airbags, to protect against injury, every passenger would need to be in a harness like NASCAR drivers wear (and don't forget the helmets), not a simple lap/shoulder belt. I don't think many drivers and passengers would sit still for that... literally.
Actually, that is only partially true. Summer tires are better performing in dry and wet. It is when you introduce colder temps like snow and ice that it becomes an issue.
It is important to me that my tires perform at their best, when the conditions are the worst. I think just about any tire will perform adequately on dry pavement.
I understand. That is merely and education issue though to understand the differences in tread compounds and frictional characteristics of different tires when optimized for a given purpose.
. When the road is slippery, the last thing I need is a tire with low wet traction, to compound the problem.
It depends why the road is slippery. A wet road offers almost as much traction as a dry road. A wet road with standing water increases the likelihood of hydroplaning, which is why a tire (like just about any "summer" tire that isn't an R-compound) is great for that, the tread is designed to pump water out from under the tire, letting the rubber do its job.
If the road is slick because of snow or ice, then if one truely cared about a tire "performing at their best, when conditions are at their worst," it would be better to switch to a dedicated snow tire. At that point, you can go for a more traditional Q-rated tire for heavy snow, or one of the more modern H+ rated tire, which is designed for comfortable and quiet highway travel.
The right tool for the right job is remarkably helpful.
I gave up a couple MPG (Michelin vs. Bridgestone) to gain wet traction, and I will do it again.
And you wound up with a compromise that excels in no area relative to having condition appropriate tires.
Almost any new car costs more to insure than an older car (unless down grading from a "luxury" vehicle) based upon the value of the vehicles.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And when they do get T-boned by another car, they have a welded steel tube system to protect them, not a stamped steel working door.
Did you know front airbags were invented precisely because people were not wearing seatbelts? That's why they had to inflate so quickly and violently - they had to inflate before the unbelted idiot hit the steering wheel or dash.
Driver and side airbags make a lot of sense, but I don't see the need for a passenger airbag given the distance from the seat to the dash. In a survivable crash I don't see a belted passenger getting anywhere near the dash.
Agree...I think the passenger side frontal air bag is about marketing, more than safety.
That's odd... The current airbags in GM trucks DON'T deploy if the driver isn't wearing his/her seatbelt. I believe this was due to lawsuits claiming the airbag was causing injuries. Seems dumb, but you know lawyers.
That is strange - I would think they'd be more open to lawsuits if they did not deploy.
Do you have a link for that?
bro-in-law completed a long trip and his Honda 4 delivered 38 mpg average for the trip. He was happy.
Several people had frontal crashes and a few complained of no airbag deployment. I know speed and several other things are taken into account, but the only ones complaining admitted to not wearing their seatbelts. A GM engineer came in and explained some of the reasoning behind it (lawsuits and such). I found this here on Edmonds that talks a little about what has changed. However, it doesn't flat out state they don't deploy if seatbelts are not worn.
Since this is the internet, you can't believe everything you read. Especially on forums from people claiming to be GM engineers.
The latest 2008 taurus is built on a volvo platform (I think) and isn't a bad car at all. The cost for a full featured taurus/sable (excepting AWD) is somewhere in the $25K range after rebates and etc.
I am wondering whether these 2008 and 2009 models (because they are doomed officially) will experience a significant price drop as the 2010 model gets more press and approaches launch. Perhaps they will discontinue production early enough to prevent a glut but perhaps not. In any case I intend to wait and see if these very serviceable cars (2008s) will become a bargain as we approach 2009. I do not believe they are selling like hotcakes at present and hope that bargains loom in the future.
New sheetmetal, new interior but same (upgraded) platform and base engines.
There is a lot of material on this - just search for Joan Claybrook, airbags, NHTSA.
I wouldn't buy an Altima if it had this period. That said, I wasn't all that impressed with the car. It had over sensitive brakes which drove me bananas.
You don't have to believe them. There are a lot of things in this world I don't believe either, doesn't mean they are not true. I guess we can go off on a tangent of: "Do I believe those numbers" :confuse
1)Aura 2)Malibu 3)Accord 4)Altima/Passat 5)Sonata/Camry 6)Mazda6 7)Fusion
1)Mazda6 (but I worry about back seat room)
2)Sonata
3)Malibu
4)Aura
5)Altima
6)Fusion
7)Accord
8)Passat
9)Camry