Last post on Dec 08, 2013 at 5:23 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#10474 of 20222 Re: Altima MPG [thegraduate]
Aug 11, 2008 (6:05 pm)
A base Altima 6MT weighs 3,112 according to Nissan's own website.
60lbs in one year...
But at 3055Lbs for a 2007 - less if you swap in some alloy wheels... It's awfully close to 3000 lbs. (I get ~3020 with alloys - about 10lbs per tire saved)
2009 Buick LaCrosse - 3495Lbs
2008 IS250 - 3455Lbs
2008 CTS - 3861 Lbs(where my 800lbs figure came from). Sure, it as a V6 instead of a 4 cylinder car, but it's about the same size.
2001 Buick Park Avenue - 3778
Yes, that's no typo - the CTS is 75lbsheavier, and almost 150lbs with the automatic! And my dad's Park Ave is a behemoth rolling down the road.
Something is badly wrong with the way they make cars lately. Way way way too much bloat and power. I'd gladly have them de-tune the 250+HP in most cars to a more reasonable 160 or so, drop 500lbs or more in weight, and give us back 10mpg.
2008 Civic DX - 2586 Lbs. This is why it gets 40mpg highway.
#10475 of 20222 Re: Altima MPG [plekto]
Aug 11, 2008 (8:05 pm)
Considering the car in your personal comparison was a mainstream midsizer, and your actual comparison car was a base Altima, I don't think using a Cadillac Sports Sedan available with only a 3.6L V6 and an Automatic is anywhere close to an actual comparison. You should use cars of similar equipment, especially when trying to make a statement about how much better the Altima is than its competition.
Also, saying car A only weighs X when you use aftermarket equipment isn't a fair comparison either, when you don't let the other vehicles in your comparison have the same advantage. Picking and choosing model years doesn't fly for a fair comparison either.
All that being said, I do get your point; cars today weigh a LOT compared to those of 10 or so years ago. My '96 Accord has a 2.2L engine with 130 hp, and weighs approximately 2,855 lbs. BUT, it shares the about the same interior space as a new Civic (which is similar in weight).
If you care to look at it differently, my 2006 Accord in comparison with my 1996 Accord has several inches more usable interior space, 5-star safety with ABS, 6 Airbags, EBD, is 2 seconds quicker to 60 miles per hour, is much more insulated from noise, and gets noticeably BETTER fuel mileage. To top it off, it doesn't cost any more than the old 1996 model.
It's not that the cars are getting too heavy for their size; their size is simply growing.
The 2008 Accord crossed the line into "too-big" for me.
#10476 of 20222 Re: Altima MPG [thegraduate]
Aug 12, 2008 (5:15 am)
It seems people have not wanted to buy cars that are the size of the 1996 Accord, though. The 2008 and earlier Mazda6 would appear to be similar in size to a '96 Accord and they have made it bigger in an attempt to increase sales.
#10477 of 20222 Re: Altima MPG [jeffyscott]
Aug 12, 2008 (6:35 am)
Cars get bigger with each generation, as a general rule. As the Accords have gotten bigger, the hole it created has been filled by the Civic. The hole it created, filled by a new subcompact entry, the Fit. It's a trend that seems to be continuous.
By the way, I didn't intend to point out that the '96 Accord was a "good size" or not (personally it lacks legroom to me yet I've been driving it since 2002 ). I was just showing how far we've come since the '96, and how much quicker, roomier, and more fuel efficient the newer vehicles are than the compact '96 Accord. In a way, we're having our cake and eating it too thanks to new and continuously improving technology.
#10478 of 20222 Re: Altima MPG [thegraduate]
Aug 12, 2008 (6:51 am)
Seems like a lot of people complain about cars getting bigger as if it is simply fat Americans driving this trend but average heights and weights the world over have grown a lot over the last 30-40 years. I look at the size of my old high schools current basketball and football teams and it absolutely amazes me. These kids are huge compared to "back when" and they are not fat! The safety advances we demand also add weight and some size to new vehilces.
I'm not saying we risk adverse and heavier(US citizens) shouldn't shoulder some weight(pun intended) but the average car buyer has grown and wants more safety and the manufacturers are simply responding.
#10479 of 20222 Re: for those looking [mz6greyghost]
Aug 12, 2008 (1:20 pm)
Wow, My sonata gets around 2150rpm at 70mph. I love the tall gearing because I think it's a nice factor in the good mpg on her.
Aug 12, 2008 (1:25 pm)
I checked today to get the correct figure, I was right on 2250 60 mph, so at the 70 mph that was being compared before, it would be 2625 rpm. This is for a 2007 Mazda6i with the 5 speed automatic.
#10481 of 20222 Re: Mazda6 revs [jeffyscott]
Aug 12, 2008 (2:16 pm)
Thanks... that's about identical to the 1998-2002 Accord 4-cyl with the 4-speed auto.
#10482 of 20222 Re: Mazda6 revs [thegraduate]
Aug 12, 2008 (5:29 pm)
I also did some checks on the Altima's 2.5L RPM's (2008 model w/ CVT). It's as follows:
60mph ~ 2000 RPM
65mph = 2050 RPM
70mph = 2200 RPM
75mph = 2350 RPM
80mph = 2500 RPM
The funny thing about those results is that until you get to around 65mph, the revs don't rise in a normal fashion. In fact, they're modulated based on speed; at around 25-30mph, the revs range from around 1000-1200 RPM, but around 60mph, the engine revs to almost exactly 2000 RPM. It would make sense on a normal automatic, but since the CVT modulates power differently, it's not exactly 28-29 mph per 1000 RPM.
#10483 of 20222 Re: Mazda6 revs [madpistol]
Aug 13, 2008 (4:14 am)
No more weird than flooring it and watch the tach stay at 4000 RPM while your speed increases. At least that's how Ford's CVT operated - not sure about Nissan's.