Midsize Sedans 2.0

Replying to: nick_22 (Sep 13, 2008 6:28 am)

I was wondering if people on these forums could help me narrow it down to the top 3 based on space, build quality, equipment, safety, value, and driving performance...
 
You didn't mention "style", which I applaud you for but let's be realistic, you're 17 so I'll bet style counts for something here, right? You also didn't say what kind of "equipment" is most important to you. If you drive in the snow a lot, for example, that might tilt AWD cars like the Legacy, Fusion, and Milan in your favor.
 
You didn't mention "fuel economy" in your list. But unless your folks are going to help you buy gas, I'd think that is important to you too.
 
But anyway.... based on your list, plus the assumption that fuel economy and style both count for something, here's my top 3:
 
* Sonata SE I4: Perhaps the best value in the segment, a fine blend of handling and ride, one of the roomiest interiors and trunks, tons of standard safety equipment, sharp interior and decent exterior, and a peppy but economical I4.
 
* Mazda6 I4: Perhaps the sharpest looks in the segment, good power with decent if not great fuel economy, good blend of ride comfort and handling, lots of standard safety equipment, one of the roomiest interiors and trunks in the class, and lots of equipment available. Also the newest design in the class, so it won't be old very soon.
 
* Accord LX-P: Roomiest interior in the class, great reputation for quality and reliability, good blend of ride and handling, great resale value, peppy engine (EX has a little more power than LX-P) with good fuel economy, BMW-esque exterior, has all the basic features you need, great standard safety features and crash protection.
 
Another interesting choice would be the Passat. You could probably find a closeout 2008 for under $25k. Doesn't have the same reputation for reliability as do cars like the Accord and Sonata, but has great power, handling, build quality, and safety, and VWs tend to hold their value.

Replying to: hp6130 (Mar 20, 2008 10:32 am)

Replies to this message:
• moparbad (Sep 14, 2008 9:25 am)

Replying to: mickeyrom (Sep 14, 2008 3:44 am)

Replying to: nick_22 (Sep 13, 2008 12:42 pm)

Replies to this message:
• aviboy97 (Sep 15, 2008 8:38 am)
  • thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:52 am)
• lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)
  • thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 9:14 am)
    • lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 9:56 am) and 4 more...
  • stephen987 (Sep 15, 2008 9:27 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:32 am)

Replies to this message:
• thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:52 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Sep 15, 2008 8:38 am)

Final mileage ratings are pending, but Toyota spokesman Bill Kwong put preliminary estimates at 20/26 mpg city/highway for a FWD four-cylinder, which is about 10% better than the FWD V-6’s already-decent 18/24 mpg rating. (Memo to Dodge: This unseats the four-cylinder Journey, which gets 19/25 mpg, as segment-best.)
 
20/26 would put it at 2 MPG shy of the RAV4 with the 2.4L. Considering the extra weight here, it doesn't sound like it is that much more thirsty. The RAV is hampered by a 4-speed automatic, but the Highlander is saddled with more weight, so who knows.
 
Question (I'm trying to get the thread stirring again ): What's the benefit of having a 2.7L engine be a 4-cylinder instead of a V6? (Chrysler has a 2.7L V6 now, and not so long ago finding a 2.5L-2.8L V6 was easy)

Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:32 am)

Replies to this message:
• thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 9:14 am)
  • lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 9:56 am)
    • thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 10:38 am) and 3 more...
• stephen987 (Sep 15, 2008 9:27 am)

Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)

Replies to this message:
• lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 9:56 am)
  • thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 10:38 am)
    • lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 10:56 am) and 2 more...

Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)