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
Sedans Midsize Sedans 2.0
13222 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: plekto (Aug 11, 2008 6:05 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 11, 2008 8:05 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 12, 2008 5:15 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 12, 2008 6:35 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Aug 11, 2008 12:14 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 12, 2008 1:25 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 12, 2008 2:16 pm) 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. Weird huh? 
|
|
|
Replying to: madpistol (Aug 12, 2008 5:29 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 06, 2008 3:30 pm) That said, I definitely will pay attention to fuel consumption increases reported by the trip computer and more likely dismiss the 'calculated' method - if I'm looking to further evaluate how well my car is running at any given time. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Hyundai Sonata
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Honda Accord
2010 Nissan Altima
2010 Volkswagen Passat
2010 Mazda MAZDA6
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Saturn Aura
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
