Last post on Jun 17, 2013 at 6:28 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
#13081 of 18428 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 18428 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 18428 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 18428 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 18428 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...
#13086 of 18428 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [plekto]
Oct 18, 2009 (7:41 pm)
On paper not much has changed, but on the road there's a world of difference. The CTS handles vastly better and is finished to a level not available from GM in '05.
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.
#13087 of 18428 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [phaetondriver]
Oct 18, 2009 (10:09 pm)
I agree interesting stats, right from different sources. Those sources also show up
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.
#13088 of 18428 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [stephen987]
Oct 19, 2009 (4:48 am)
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.
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.
#13089 of 18428 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [phaetondriver]
Oct 19, 2009 (5:50 am)
The Goodyears are crap tires, even the reviews on them are poor. I tried turning off the TC, but the tires lost traction so fast that the engine hit the rev limiter almost instantly, and the Ford does a strange thing, it doesn't upshift if you hit the limiter. I guess it does that to protect the transmission from damage. The GVWR on the car is 4650 pounds. At well over $200 a tire to replace them, I am not going to do any burnouts if I can avoid them for now. When it comes time to replace them though, I shall smoke'm good.
#13090 of 18428 Re: Suzuki Kizashi [acdii]
Oct 19, 2009 (6:13 am)
the engine hit the rev limiter almost instantly, and the Ford does a strange thing, it doesn't upshift if you hit the limiter. I guess it does that to protect the transmission from damage.
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.