Last post on Apr 13, 2007 at 11:55 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Subaru Legacy, Saturn Aura, Sedan
#1160 of 12297 Re: December Sales [zzzoom6]
Jan 11, 2006 (8:30 am)
Backy says, "When buyers look up the test
results, they see the Mazda6 far down the list."
Actually, you misrepresent the facts. mazda's frontal and frontal offset ratings from both the insurance institute and the nhtsa are excellent. Now, I'm not positive as to why you would say this, but it's not sticking to the facts like you suggested.
This whole issue of safety ratings is a fast-moving target, as it should be, benefitting us as consumers. The frontal offset sests of the IIHS are old news from the late 90's to 2003. The IIHS now admits that all vehicles are good picks. It's rare in todays world of lightning fast technology for one maker to be more than a year behind another. Citing frontal tests is not useful.. all newly designed vehicles are good essentially.
Even the side impact tests are old news. The IIHS had done an excellent job for us in showing the benefits of SaC/AB. The NHTSA is so far out of line in it's tests that on their site they admit that they have to change it. But again this is old news. The target has moved again.
Now former top picks like the Accord and Camry are 2nd rate and nothing has changed - except that the IIHS had added 'whiplash minimzation' into the equation. Most vehicles fail this criteria so they are relagated to 2nd class, 3rd class and Failure status.
Add 'accident avoidance' technology to the equation and most autos will fall into 'hish-risk status'.
However to be fair it doesnt mean that certain vehicles are deathtraps like the late 90's Cavaliers/Sunbeams it just means that relatively speaking some, for legitimate reasons like model changeover, are falling behind the others.
#1161 of 12297 Re: December Sales [kdhspyder]
Jan 11, 2006 (2:06 pm)
Wow, didn't your tune change, suddenly crash tests that the Mazda do below average in are "old news" according to you. Interesting watching this little debate play out from the outside looking in.
#1162 of 12297 Re: December Sales [kdhspyder]
Jan 11, 2006 (6:06 pm)
it is a tough situation. some say how come my 15 year old xyz could get xx mpg? now the same vehicle is safer, but only gets lower mileage. all that safety equipment puts on weight.
i would prefer safety in design as to opposed to a bunch of add-on's and software, which may or may not work when you need them, years down the road. jmo.
Jan 11, 2006 (6:22 pm)
Has any vehicle lost mpg without gaining significant HP?
I don't think the mpg losses are due to safety gains.
of course, the Civic of twnety years ago probably weighed 60% of today's civic. It also was smaller and less comfortable. So, yes, the Civic is safer and weightier today, but it's not really the same car. It is a bigger car. Comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Civic is about as valuable as comparing a 2005 Civic to a 1985 Corolla.
#1164 of 12297 Re: December Sales [explorerx4]
Jan 11, 2006 (7:15 pm)
Actually, the 06 (outgoing) Camry gets better fuel economy, according to the EPA by 1 MPG and 4 MPG on the highway than its 1991 counterpart, rated at 23/30. (06 is rated at 24/34). This while offering 6 airbags, and about 40 additional horsepower.
#1165 of 12297 2007 Camry specs
Jan 11, 2006 (8:52 pm)
Specs are available.
4 cylinder auto: 24/33.
So the Camry 4 cyl. 5 speed auto has the exact same mpg as the Sonata 4 cyl. 4 speed auto (which incidentally has slightly more hp and torque). So what's supposed to be the advantage of the 5 speed auto?
Kinda disappointed that the trunk room (14.5 cu./ft.) has gone down more than 2 cu./ft. from the 2006 Camry (16.7 cu./ft.).
#1166 of 12297 Re: 2007 Camry specs [jrock65]
Jan 11, 2006 (10:12 pm)
Is the Sonata's HP and torque figures SAE compliant?
#1167 of 12297 5-speed Auto Benefits vs a 4-speed Auto[jrock65]
Jan 12, 2006 (10:57 am)
The benefit of a 5-speed is readily apparent in such things as passing acceleration...
The car can put the transmission closer to the power peak with more gears to choose from. Example:
My 1996 4-speed Auto will downshift to third when floored at 75 mph (say, when needing to pass a dump truck). This puts the rpms at about 4000-4500 rpms, which is about 1000 rpm short of the horsepower peak. If it went to second, the engine would redline, therefore, third, and 4500 rpm is the best I can do.
My 2006 5-speed Auto will downshift twice to third. Since the fourth gear allows a less drastic downshift at 75 mph (to about 3500rpm), the third gear shift is able to put the car dead on the peak horsepower (about 5500 rpm), making passing much easier.
You may be surprised at the difference this makes. The 5-speed 2003 Accord is actually quicker than the 4-speed 2003 Altima, even though the Altima has a horsepower advantage. The secret weapon is the extra gear ratio, allowing the car to stay closer to its horsepower peak when under full acceleration.
Also, for those times you need some power, but flooring it isn't necessary, a 4-speed is likely to downshift to 3rd, revving the engine past what is necessary to complete the maneuver called for by the driver. A 5-speed gives the driver the option of just going down to 4th gear, keeping the engine quieter and less stressed, while delivering a more optimum level of power.
I hope this makes sense to those who asked. Have a good one!
#1168 of 12297 Re: 5-speed Auto Benefits vs a 4-speed Auto[jrock65] [thegraduate]
Jan 12, 2006 (7:25 pm)
Well, that's probably true. But in my case, it's not.
I have a '03 TL-S w/5-speed auto and '03 Maxima SE w/4-speed auto. I feel that the trani on the Maxi is a lot smoother to downshift and upshift making passing a lot less drama than the TL-S's which is jerky in comparison. The TL-S revs a lot quicker, but doesn't produce that much forward movement in return. Maybe it's due to the 3.5L engine on the Maxi and 3.2L on the TL-S. And maybe, someone can dig up the passing stats (30-60mph) on both cars and compare.
At 60mph the Maxi rev ~2200rpm and the TL-S is at ~2000rpm, but by 90mph both are ~3000rpm. The TL-S might get more miles per gallon at high speed (I haven't taken it on a long trip yet), but around town they get the same mileage.
#1169 of 12297 Re: 5-speed Auto Benefits vs a 4-speed Auto[jrock65] [thegraduate] [victord1]
Jan 12, 2006 (7:54 pm)
The difference is because the '03 TL-S and '03 Maxima have significantly different torque figures, separated, I believe, by about 40 foot pounds. However, the comparison that was made in the previous post, between the Accord and Altima, torque figures differ by about 14 foot-pounds.
Since we're talking about the Camry and Sonata, whose torque figures differ by 3 foot pounds and weight differs by less than 20 lbs, the 4sp vs. 5sp argument with respect to passing seems well constructed.