- #10768 of 13256
-
Re: tough decision/dilema [mickeyrom]
by moparbad
-
Sep 14, 2008 (9:25 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: mickeyrom (Sep 14, 2008 3:44 am)
Sonata reminds me of a Buick with it's soft suspension, uninspiring handling and soft seats. Sonata is even more Buick-like than Camry.
|
- #10769 of 13256
-
Re: help me choose a sedan [nick_22]
by oldcem
-
Sep 14, 2008 (6:56 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: nick_22 (Sep 13, 2008 12:42 pm)
I went through this same exercise last March. At it's pricepoint I couldn't find anything that could match Saturn Aura. There's now a black Aura XE3.5 in my driveway. I've put 13K miles on it so far (business travel) and have been very satisfied with the car. It's quiet, roomy, and delivers excellent fuel economy on my long business trips. The performanceof mine (219hp) is about the same as the Ford Fusion 3.0. However, The Aura offers a higher hp V6 (3.6) in the XR Model that's significantly quicker than mine, and, class competitive. Suggest you give it a test drive.
Regards:
Oldengineer
|
- #10770 of 13256
-
Toyota Camry 2.7L?
by thegraduate
-
Sep 15, 2008 (8:32 am)
-
|
|
Will the Camry be getting the 2.7L from the Highlander in the 2010 refresh? It'd make sense to me. The current 2.4L is a little lacking based on personal experience with a 2.4L Camry LE. It had to downshift on very modest grades at 60 MPH with three average-weight people aboard.
|
- #10771 of 13256
-
Re: Toyota Camry 2.7L? [thegraduate]
by aviboy97
-
Sep 15, 2008 (8:38 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:32 am)
That's a pretty big 4 cyl motor. With 187hp and 186ft-lbs tq, that's pretty powerful. However, one thing that remains to be seen in FE. With that displacement, I'm a little skeptical.
|
- #10772 of 13256
-
Re: Toyota Camry 2.7L? [aviboy97]
by 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)
|
- #10773 of 13256
-
Re: Toyota Camry 2.7L? [thegraduate]
by lucky_777
-
Sep 15, 2008 (8:57 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:32 am)
I'd stay away from new Toyota engine and wouldn't want to be an early adopter. Current 2.4L while not a speed demon, proved itself in terms of durability and FE. It is more then capable for current size Camry. If you need bigger engine in Camry then go for V6, they sell at good discount.
|
- #10774 of 13256
-
Re: Toyota Camry 2.7L? [lucky_777]
by thegraduate
-
Sep 15, 2008 (9:14 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)
There's not a Camry that fits what I need/want. Compared to my 2.4L Accord, the Camry just feels too darn sleepy; making the Honda feel more like an eager puppy. Aggressive throttle response, tight responses to steering input, a firm and responsive brake pedal, and a quick thinking transmission goes a LONG way in making the Accord feel MUCH happier when you need to hustle. A more happily motivated engine would help the Camry, if not alter its attitude (obviously not everyone wants a sporty car).
|
- #10775 of 13256
-
Re: Toyota Camry 2.7L? [lucky_777]
by stephen987
-
Sep 15, 2008 (9:27 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)
But hasn't the 2.7L I-4 been in the Tacoma for a couple of years already?
|
- #10776 of 13256
-
upper-level compact, or basic midsize?
by stephen987
-
Sep 15, 2008 (9:46 am)
-
|
Hi, folks. An interesting question has come up. Here's the background:
Our current vehicles are an '02 Accord V6 with 76k and a '99 Civic EX 5-speed with 138k
My wife and I are reasonably pleased with both cars, but both prefer to drive the Civic when we have a choice, because of its nimble, fun nature compared to the "maturity" of the driving experience in the Accord
Gas is selling for $4.50 per gallon here in Jawjah
With these factors in mind, we are beginning to think about the possibility of replacing one or both of our current cars. (The Dodge truck will continue to sit underneath the oak tree in the back yard).
The riddle is this: with aging relatives and a fair amount of medium-length (3-4 hour) trips on the agenda, we might still need a midsize sedan for comfort, but not necessarily for space, as we do not have children--just three cats. But our budget would probably dictate a four-cylinder model this time, with less equipment than our '02. For the same money as a basic midsize, we could probably get a really nice compact. Among the possibilities:
Accord LX-P vs. Civic EX
Mazda 6i SV or Sport vs. Mazda 3s Touring
Sonata GLS vs. Elantra SE
So I'm wondering what the group thinks on this subject. There's also the "wildcard"--a local dealer is advertising an '08 Fusion S, five speed manual, for $14,599.
|
- #10777 of 13256
-
Re: upper-level compact, or basic midsize? [stephen987]
by aviboy97
-
Sep 15, 2008 (9:51 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Sep 15, 2008 9:46 am)
I would not put the Mazda6 SV on your list. They are a special order car only. I have yet to be able to order one for our inventory. Basically, you won't be able to get one.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
