Last post on May 23, 2013 at 3:51 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
#13076 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [backy]
Oct 18, 2009 (10:19 am)
Just to add a little about the "porky" Sonata it was a 2006 model and a rental car
according to article on MSN news. Have 2009 SE V6 since July 2009 now have 10,000k+ miles (travel a lot) 2000k mile trip ave over 31MPG did see 36.1 on trip
computer, under controlled driving 47MPH 1300RPM f/ 30+ miles. I also have
a Mazda 2.5Lv6-166HP no trip com. best ever calculated about 28MPG O.K. but
not good enough f/ HP to MPG ratio, compared to 3.3Lv6-249HP. This some of my
research done before purchasing Sonata. For general info purposes. All these were
listed in midsize sedan comparison rated by EPA standards, compiled from sites
like Edmunds, car&driver, Motor trend, kbb, jd power etc. Check it out interesting!
All also 2009 new V6 w/ Auto trans.
Acura TL 3.5-280HP 0-60 6.7 17-25 EPA mpg total interior volume 111.3 wt 3708
Aura 3.6-252 0-60 7.3 17-26EPA mpg interior volume 113cuft wt 3613
Cadillac CTS 3.6-263 0-60 6.4 17-26EPa mpg interior volume 112 3874
Altima 3.5-270 0-60 6.0 19-26Epa mpg interior volume 116 wt 3355
Malibu 3.6-252 0-60 6.6 17-26EPA mpg interior volume 112.8 wt 3436
Accord 3.5-271 0-60 5.9 19-29EPA mpg interior volume 115 wt 3600
Mazda6 3.7-272 0-60 6.4 17-25EPA mpg interior volume 118.9 wt 3547
Camrey 3.5-268 0-60 6.2 19-28EPA mpg interior volume 116.4 wt 3483
Fushion 3.0-221 0-60 8.5 18-25EPA mpg interior volume 116.2 wt 3325
Sonata 3.3-249 0-60 6.7 19-29EPA mpg interior volume 121.8 wt 3549
Interior volume is calculated total passenger & cargo. The new road test was done
on the Sonata SE V6 mainly because the prior 0-60 was done before the midseason upgrade on 2009 edition, done by independand test group f/ Car&drivers
request. I did not try mine 0-60 nor did I try to go 147 miles per hour I will take their
word for it. We did not by this thing to race or thinking in any kind of way it is some
kind of sports car never saw Hyundai addvertise it as such, they modified the SE to
have little sportier look and feel and in my opinion thats what I got, just that! I have had sport type cars before in my younger days, way to expensive to buy and use,
gas guzzlers. Thanks for your valuable time and happy driving or car hunting which
ever comes first. OH by the way my wife and I luv everything about this car, this is
my 22nd car purchase since early sixties and so for is the best. What a warranty.
Old days you got 12 month 12K miles, at least Hyundai believes it,s the best.
#13077 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [acdii]
Oct 18, 2009 (10:30 am)
I don't know how many family midsize sedan buyers are measuring their own 0-60 times. I enjoy some power but it's been many, many years since I timed my cars 0-60 or whatever. I rely on the professional reviewers to give those stats and then I compare them relatively.
I was talking about the EPA hwy mpg ratings. Not what one person can get. I think most people can get 2-4 better mpg than the EPA ratings on a pure hwy trip. I believe the Fusion Sport is rated 27 mpg hwy by the EPA. Like I said, a V6 with reasonable hp that is EPA rated at 30-32 would be very nice IMO.
#13078 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [8babies1dog]
Oct 18, 2009 (11:32 am)
"porky" Sonata? What the hell does that mean.I leased a 2006 Sonata and thought it was a very nice car.
As far as MPG goes...my 2006.5 Optima has averaged over 30MPG for 34,000 miles.Sometimes more and sometimes less,but overall OVER 30.AC on included.I do drive at posted limits.
#13079 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [acdii]
Oct 18, 2009 (12:01 pm)
I wonder why you have a problem hooking up with the goodyears? My 07 Aura XR with LS2's has provided me several runs 0-60 in 6 .0 and 6.1 sec. I turn off the T/C, do a burn out to warm the tires and turn T/C back on. Without it I can't get the tires to stop spinning for the first 60 feet or so.
Not sure what the Fusion weighs but is can't be much more than the Aura.Try my method and see if you can't get your times down to the 6's at least.
#13080 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [mickeyrom]
Oct 18, 2009 (12:17 pm)
Don't get excited. The reference was to Backy's comment about heavy midsize cars a couple of posts back. Also, I know the post was hard to read because of syntax/grammar but he was actually complementing the 2009 Sonata V6 SE which he owns. He also stated that he got better hwy mpg than you do with your Optima!
#13081 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [elroy5]
Oct 18, 2009 (2:14 pm)
1992 is long ago, as far as midsize sedans go. The 92 Accord didn't even offer a V6 engine, but it was much smaller and lighter than the Accord of today. Some people want every safety item they can possibly get, and some want all the power they can get. My 03 Accord has 100 more horse power than my 92 did, but imo it needs that power to move the extra size and weight. The 03, even with the V6 engine, gets the same mileage as the 92 around town, and better mileage on the highway. I call that progress.
It will never end. I would not buy a certain car, just because it has 10 more hp than another, but I will take what ever I can get, in the car I want. There are 4 cylinder versions and hybrids, for those of you who don't want the extra power. I'll take 300hp or even 400hp, if I can get it for my price range.
You may not see the sense in a high-HP V6 for a midsize sedan. But for those that do, they'll take more power in a package that suits them. In the end, that's all that matters.
I stand by my comment about the HP for the GM V6. If (and that's a big IF) Suzuki gives a slight bump to the HP (say 260-265), maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer. I'll still take one out for a test-drive or two, but I've witnessed the V6 firsthand on both the Aura and Malibu, and IMO it doesn't help to make a sale compared to the Honda, Mazda, or Ford V6.
#13082 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [mz6greyghost]
Oct 18, 2009 (2:41 pm)
I stand by my comment about the HP for the GM V6. If (and that's a big IF) Suzuki gives a slight bump to the HP (say 260-265)
Not trying to light a fire under you or anything (I promise! ), but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not? My dad owned a 2005 Accord 2.4L while I owned a 2006 Accord 2.4L, in which they increased the horsepower by ten. I couldn't tell a difference. Both were EX, non-leather models (the same exact trim level) with automatics. I've run them both around town, and on long highway trips; both had powerbands that I couldn't tell apart.
That said, the 3.6L engine in the Malaurabu has tested faster than the 271 horsepower Accord (I'm sure an extra tranny gear helps that).
I understand your comments about a refined engine sound; my 2.4L Accord sounds smoother than several V6 engines.
#13083 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [8babies1dog]
Oct 18, 2009 (3:15 pm)
Interesting stat compilation, from various sources.
Back in early 2007, when I was shopping for a new sedan, I read all of the Road Tests.
I have it someplace, but as memory serves, the Aura XR factory rating was 0-60 in 6.6. Edmunds had it at 6.4 and Road and Track go it down to 5.9 on a cool L.A. morning. They also recorded a 0-100 in 15.3 and a 1/4 mile in 14.5 97.7 MPH
This was better than any Nissan, Toyota, or Honda V6 at the time.
My personal tests are very close to the R&T results. I ahve looked at every test I can find on the Saturn Aura XR V6 and I have never seen one that posted a 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
This test must have been done by a group of 5 adults, that all went along for the ride, because the only way an Aura XR V6 was that slow was if it was loaded to the max and the test was run in Devner in July.
Now I won't tell anyone I average over 30 MPG but I have had a few tank fulls that were over 30. I ma very happy with the 26.6 I have averaged over the past 30,000 miles (and on 87 octane, not the 93+ that several of the cars in your list are required to run)
Last point, when compiling an averages list like the one above, try to get averages from many road test, and throw out anything the EPA says because they are far from reality in all of their statistics.
#13084 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [thegraduate]
Oct 18, 2009 (4:15 pm)
Not trying to light a fire under you or anything (I promise!)
No worries! This is a automotive forum, after all. A place to have discussions and share opinions.
...but 8 horsepower would make a difference in a car being on your list or not?
Ahh, but you omitted the rest of my sentence, which I stated:
...maintains the smaller proportions, AND keeps the weight down, they might have another new owner come next summer.
To me, it's not just the HP, you also have to include the weight, size (both the actual measured proportions, and how big it "feels" behind the wheel), and gearing (as you pointed out with the Honda vs. Saturn numbers). It's all of them together that makes the difference...
#13085 of 18218 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [8babies1dog]
Oct 18, 2009 (5:53 pm)
Cadillac CTS 3.6-263 0-60 6.4 17-26EPa mpg interior volume 112 3874
2005 Park Avenue Ultra 3.8-240 0-60 7.6 18-27 EPA mpg interior volume 112.1 wt 3860 (note - if you manually shift the automatic(hold it in 2nd) it will get 6.5 seconds, which is nearly the same as the CTS - it's *not* a slow car despite its huge size)
So many years and nothing really has changed. And I can guarantee that the rear seat actually fits three people in the Park Ave versus the CTS, which feels a LOT smaller and can't actually fit 6 people.
I'm going to miss the big GM behemoths...
And, yes, new cars are smaller and weigh more for their size... Kind of a shame...