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
13339 messages, Last post on Dec 06, 2009 at 9:28 AM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Oct 17, 2009 9:59 pm) +1 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. +2 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Oct 18, 2009 1:14 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 8babies1dog (Oct 18, 2009 9:19 am) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Oct 18, 2009 1:41 pm) 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... |
|
|
Replying to: 8babies1dog (Oct 18, 2009 9:19 am) **** 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...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Oct 18, 2009 4:53 pm) Having said that, I agree that the big FWD GM sedans of a few years ago were underrated and surprisingly efficient. My MIL has a 2000 LeSabre with the normally aspirated 3800 and it's a decent road trip car with fuel economy comparable to my less spacious 2002 Accord V6.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: phaetondriver (Oct 18, 2009 2:15 pm) in your reply so it seems we both use the same information basically. One major difference is I looked up 2009 reviews and specs not 2007, I wasn't interested in a 2007 Aura. But just to educate myself since your reply I did look into it and what I can see is the 2007 has better numbers on 0-60 than the 2009, actually it is not to easy to find the 2009 figures. I have nothing against any of the listed vehicles they were what I compared to make the purchase. In your reply you listed 3 different 0-60 numbers from different ratings, but you did not average it either, I didn't want to modify numbers, not my test. EPA is MPG average individual drivers may vary. Good we are happy w/ our MPG we are stuck w/ it. Thanks for the reply. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Oct 18, 2009 6:41 pm) Those 3800s were something else. Despite their "outdated" pushrod design, performance was very good compared to the SOHC/DOHC designs of the day, fuel economy was comparable, and reliability was excellent. There are still tons of 3800s on the road today.
|
|
|
Replying to: phaetondriver (Oct 18, 2009 11:01 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: acdii (Oct 19, 2009 4:50 am) Not strange at all - my 2000 Lincoln LS did the same thing. It held the gear you selected no matter what until you came to a stop in a higher gear - then it would downshift automatically. It's a design choice that allows the driver to choose when to upshift - similar to what would happen in a manual. You're asking for manual gear control by using the selectshift - why would you want it to automagically shift when it doesn't need to? Some mfrs upshift at redline which is fine 99% of the time. I just prefer that manual mode really means manual mode and not manual most of the time except when the computer thinks you should upshift. |
|
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
