Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
8691 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 1:39 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 11, 2008 11:19 am) Heck, I think the new A4 may have grown too much.  I heard the CX7 is based on the Mazda5, which itself is derived from the Mazda3, which shares parts with the Euro Focus. Not sure how much Ford's left in it by then.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 11, 2008 12:30 pm) I do know that it is awfully pretty... 
|
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Sep 11, 2008 12:35 pm) I guess they moved it up one size class since they now have the A3. It ain't no lightweight, though. |
|
|
If you pull up the specs here on Edmunds, there is no weight... If you pull up the specs on the Audi website, they have every single dimension, but weight... I'm betting it's a porker.. 
|
|
|
Replying to: podred (Sep 11, 2008 11:40 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Sep 11, 2008 1:43 pm) HIghlander.. 19 city, 29 Highway  72 mph Pilot............12 city, 19 Highway 72 mph The difference is largely attributed to Toyota's Variable Valve Timing System being 100% electronically controlled, as opposed to Hondas system being a combination of mechanical and electronically controlled. A much less efficient system, which is no where near as smooth, nor does it produce the linear power increase of the Toyota. |
|
|
Replying to: podred (Sep 11, 2008 2:29 pm) That sounds like some kind of malfunction to me. I mean, I've had 70's battlecruisers that get similar fuel economy, with much larger, much less fuel efficient engines. Although I wouldn't be too surprised if the Pilot doesn't actually weigh MORE than a lot of those old 70's mastodons!  Or to use a more modern example, I've been able to get 20 mpg out of my buddy's '06 Xterra! It weighs about 4200 lb. This was on a trip with three people on board and a good deal of luggage, and there were times I was doing a bit more than 72 mph! 
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 11, 2008 3:44 pm) That sounds like some kind of malfunction to me. Believe me, I was quite shocked myself, as when purchasing the Pilot the last thing I had in mind was mileage. I simply thought that perhaps since it was in the same class as each of the two new Highlanders which I had for two previous years, that the Pilot would be no different, at least of any consequence. It was not until I noticed that I was having to fill the gas tank quite frequently that I even began to calculate the mileage. What a shocker! After this experience, I began to poll my friends that also owned new Honda Cars of various models. And indeed it was an experience that they shared as well, to varying degrees. Our findings were that Honda's in general just do not return the fuel economy numbers would expect out of vehicles with such modest horsepower and torque numbers. At least as compared to their Toyota counterparts. An example is the new 2009 Camry SE V6 that I just purchased a month ago. It is rated at 19mpg city and 28 mpg hwy. I drove it from Central CA to Southern CA (600 miles round trip) this past weekend 72 mph it returned 32 mpg easily. And that is not a totally flat trip, nor did I keep it to 72, there were several times at 80+mph as that's the sweet spot. There is the grapevine to ascend at quite a grade. And yet this Camry exceeded the mpg ratings on the window sticker while developing serious power and acceleration. While driving in town I'm routinely getting 20 mpg no problems. An amazing display of engineering expertise. A surprisingly fast car.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Sep 11, 2008 5:55 am) The Flex has a 'fridg where the middle row middle seat is. There is an 8-pass Sienna but not with AWD. The AWD XLE is within 100 lbs of the Flex. The Flex is also rated to tow 4500 lbs. With respect to passengers, the payload rating of the Ody would support 2 adults/6 kids but not 8 adults. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 11, 2008 9:48 am) No, actually I didn't, I didn't even pick the EX-L or the XLE for the vans. Its just not that big a difference with the Flex. Also, the vans are 16/23 and the Flex is 16/22, again, not a real difference. It's not just the Flex, compare the Edge to its 2-row only crossover competition. I would say its not the Flex at all, its pretty competitive. I think with the Edge, you got me there, that thing is a porker. It must be "road hugging weight" they are looking for in there. That said, its still rated 16/24, which is competitive in class (gotta love a million gear transmission).
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Versa
2010 Toyota Yaris
2010 Honda Fit
2009 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
