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
13269 messages, Last post on Nov 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 8:32 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Sep 15, 2008 8:38 am) 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)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lucky_777 (Sep 15, 2008 8:57 am) |
|
|
|
|
Hi, folks. An interesting question has come up. Here's the background: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Sep 15, 2008 9:46 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: nick_22 (Sep 13, 2008 1:19 pm) link title link title
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Sep 15, 2008 9:51 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Sep 15, 2008 9:14 am) "our-cylinder Toyota Camry is quick relative to its competition. Our LE test car's 8.9-second 0-60-mph time is tops for this group, as is its 16.9-second quarter-mile at 82.3 mph (though the Accord, which has 19 more horsepower, nearly closed the gap)." http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124091 While Accord is fine automobile it's ride is more harsh and noisy then Camry, gives you impression of fast pick up. It is all subjective feeling. Facts prove otherwise. BTW Camry also has best brakes and turning radius in the group "Life in Camryland isn't all bad, though. It turns a tighter circle at 36.1 feet than either the Accord at 37.7 feet or Malibu at 40.4 feet, making it less stressful to maneuver in crowded areas. The Toyota also stopped the shortest from 60 mph at 122 feet."
|
|
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
